the present Act.

Are the errors of Act II the results of those of Act I? The errors of
Act I affect but a very few characters, but in Act II how many? A new
source of complication is brought forward in this Act, also. Show what
it is, and how it both adds to the interest of the Play as a story and
to the confusion begun by the mistaken identity and the witchcraft
elements of the Plot.

The fooling dialogue of Scene ii gives the action pause. Is it
therefore useless, or a dramatic mistake? The ease with which the
right master and man fall into this talk after the earlier
cross-purposes with the wrong man, seems to betray the fact that they
do belong together. They are so readily familiar that the
cross-purposes making up the plot seem to be no longer troublesome
either to themselves or the audience. The interval of reassurance
makes the return of strangeness more unaccountable. Antipholus is also
now reassured about his gold, and the earlier cross-purpose seems only
a jest.

Why does the mention of Dromio's name (II, ii, 156) cause both master
and man to exclaim? Why should it not have led them to guess the
truth?

Would this scene with Adriana and Luciana have been equally mystifying
and skilful if the right master and man had not been together?

QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION

In the debate between the sisters upon patience in marriage is Adriana
or Luciana the more justifiable? Has their argument anything to do
with the plot? Is character interest or plot interest of the first
importance, and how are they apportioned in this play?

Is Adriana's argument that she is bound to share morally herself in
the infidelity of her husband sophistical? Or has it a core of sound
ethical value?

ACT III

ANTIPHOLUS THE NATIVE INVITES FRIENDS TO DINE WITH HIM

How far are the errors of Act III new? From which element of the plot,
mistaken identity, or the domestic difficulties of the native-born
Antipholus do they arise?

What effects are gained by bringing together in this Act the right
pairs of master and man?

The closed door between the two groups, one within the house, the
other without, is the only barrier to such an exhibition of the double
resemblances as would clear up all difficulties immediately. Is the
humor of the situation the better for this slightness of the barrier,
or is it rendered altogether too unlikely by it? Notice also the
narrow escapes from meeting and being seen together which masters and
men