Who Am I

In this paper I will try to explain my hypothesis on the problem of ‘identity’ represented by Antipholus of Syracuse – one of Shakespeare’s main characters in The Comedy of Errors -, on who he really was, in all the possible levels, and the psychological effects which it entails.

First of all, as a general introduction to the paper, I will approach the play with a general overview, looking at the time it was written and the social issues that determined Shakespeare’s writing.

According to Stanley Wells, The Comedy of Errors “may have been written for the occasion[1], or at least have been new in 1594” (285). The main plot of the comedy “was taken from the play The Menaechmi[2], written by the ancient Roman dramatist, Plautus” (Shakespeare Online).

The main stream of the play is the problem of identity. In Elizabethan time, “The educated Englishman was no longer a cleric but a J.P. or M.P. (justice of the peace or member of Parliament), a merchant or a landed gentleman who for the first time was able to express his economic, political, and religious dreams and grievances in terms of abstract principles that were capable of galvanizing people into religious and political parties” (Encyclopaedia Britannica). So the man had a definite role in society, knew more about the world and about himself.

Now we get to the point of ‘the character in the play’. Who is Antipholus of Syracuse?

The first time we see him on stage we still don’t know his name. He also tells us in his first soliloquy “I to the world am like a drop of water” (1.2. 35), meaning he is no one or nothing. Thus here Shakespeare shows us how this man, from a psychological point of view is. He can be a respected, well known man in society and everyone can know about him in Syracuse but now that he is in Ephesus, now that he is in a foreign land, with foreign people, he shows up to be just an ordinary man, trying to ‘know’ and ‘find’ himself by finding “a mother and a brother” (1.2. 39).

We can say that Antipholus of Syracuse is presented as a weak-minded man who seems to carry a great sorrow inside him because “in quest of them, unhappy, lose myself” (40); a man who some critics have interpreted as a ‘mad man’.

Robert Viking O’Brien states that there is ‘the possibility that Syracusan Antipholus is losing his mind.’ which could be reinforced by the words Antipholus of Syracuse says at the end of 1.2. (97-102): “They say this town is full of cozenage, / As nimble jugglers that deceive the eye, / Dark-working sorcerers that change the mind, / Soul-killing witches that deform the body, / Disguisèd cheaters, prating mountebanks, / And many suchlike libertines of sin”. But then, in the very next line, he is the first to say “If it prove so, I will be gone the sooner” (103), and as time passes by, he only tries to get out of Ephesus, and commands his servant, Dromio, to find a ship to leave the land as soon as possible.

In my opinion, Antipholus might be a little crazy and he might be aware of that and decides to leave that place in order to stop going even madder.

This brief description of his mental state may not seem meaningful for the discovering of his identity but in fact it is. It is important since it shows Antipholus’ nature and the fact that he will not finally undertake his venture – at least not by his own acts.

It is not until 2.2. 113 when Adriana – Antipholus of Ephesus’ wife – enters on stage with her sister Luciana and says “Ay, ay, Antipholus, look strange and frown” that we the audience know his name, Antipholus. Adriana and Luciana seem to know who he is – and also who Dromio is – but neither any of the men know who these ladies are. Both Antipholus and Dromio don’t understand what is happening to them and believe they are in a sort of dream or suffering from witchcraft. However, Antipholus and Dromio accept to go with the sisters to The Phoenix – Antipholus of Ephesus’ house – and have dinner with them. We could deduce from Antipholus attitude in this scene that he might think this ladies could help him find his mother and brother or, as it highly appears to be, he will just “say as they say, and preserve so, / and in this mist at all adventures go”, and will behave as an impulsive man rather than a coherent, committed one with his cause.

Now I would like to pay attention to the relationship established between these three characters: Adriana, Antipholus of Syracuse and Luciana. There is a kind of ‘triangle love story’ which, through the play helps Antipholus discover who he is. In 3.2. 61 he says of Luciana that “It is thyself, mine own self’s better part” declaring his love to her and denying Adriana is his wife, thus assuring himself who he likes and wants and then starting to set things straight.

The other very important relationship is that between Antipholus of Syracuse and the two ‘Dromios’. When Antipholus talks with either one of them he is always sure that it is Dromio of Syracuse – as he is not aware of the twin – and gets annoyed when he does not understand what is happening when talking with the wrong Dromio. But, why does not Antipholus stop hitting Dromio and asks him clearly what is happening? Because, otherwise, there would be no comedy. The non-sense answers one gives to each other and the quick dialogue they have are the clue of the comedy and show the supposed intimacy they share.

This is the only identity Antipholus of Syracuse knows for the very best: that he is the master of Dromio of Syracuse – and the son of Egeon of Syracuse. And nothing else.

The relationship between the two Antipholus twins is a perfect unconscious one, since none of them knows about the existence of the other. And this is the most important thread of the play - together, obviously, with the story of the Dromio twins-, because it makes the link possible between Adriana and Luciana and the Syracusian men and, of course, makes all the misunderstandings possible that take place and compound the whole comedy.

We still expect the character to start his search, but he does not, as said before.

This Antipholus’ lack of concern for his venture of searching for his family is what really builds up the comedy as such. If Antipholus – better said William Shakespeare, as the writer – had decided not to go with the sisters to have dinner, or had he denied the chain from Angelo, in 3.2. 172-175, and better have preferred to keep on his undertaking, the comedy would not have resulted in such an entertaining play but would have probably become a tragedy, such as Hamlet or Othello.

So, answering to Who Am I? as the question Antipholus of Syracuse would ask himself, there could be a double answer: you are who you think you are or you are who you end up to be.

For the first, Antipholus is who he thinks he is for the whole of the play: Antipholus, either from Syracuse or Ephesus. Just Antipholus, living in a dream when talking to Luciana or having a nightmare when confronting the wrong Dromio.

For the second, and the one I most defend, Antipholus is who he ends up to be: the son of a merchant and an abbess and the twin brother of a master. But I use the verb ‘end up to be’ and not ‘become’ because all this happens without him making any efforts.

As I said lines before, what happens is a big misunderstanding in which Antipholus of Syracuse is ‘involved’, meaning that he does not personally create it with a concrete purpose. He is just thrown into it. As Gibbons states, it is ‘man's subjection to the power of Fortune’. It is just the Fate – in this case, William Shakespeare’s will – what leads him to finally meet his brother and his mother. The same ocean currents that mix this drop of water with the other drops, stir his life putting him in the place he wanted most.

Wells, Stanley and Taylor, Gary eds. et al. Introduction to “The Comedy of Errors.” The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. 2^nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press 2005.

“Writings and Career of Plautus”. The Drama: Its History, Literature and Influence on Civilization, vol. 2. ed. Alfred Bates. London: Historical Publishing Company, 1906. pp. 159-165. (25 / Mar. / 2007) http://www.theatrehistory.com/ancient/plautus001.html

O'Brien, Robert Viking. "The Madness of Syracusan Antipholus." Early Modern Literary Studies 2.1 (1996): 3.1-26 (25 / Mar. / 2007) <http://purl.oclc.org/emls/02-1/obrishak.html>.

Gibbons, Brian. “Doubles and Likenesses-with-difference: The Comedy of Errors and The Winter's Tale” © Connotations 6.1 (1996-97): 19-40 (25 / Mar. / 2007) editors@connotations.de.

[1] “On the night of 28 December 1594, the Christmas revels at Gray’s Inn – one of London’s law schools” (285).

[2] “Titus Maccius Plautus was esteemed by the Romans as their greatest dramatist” (TheatreHistory.com)