The Madness of Syracusan Antipholus
O’Brien, Robert Viking
Early Modern Literary Studies 2.1 (April 1996)
Abstract
In The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare uses the possibility that Syracusan Antipholus is genuinely threatened by madness, and therefore death, to manipulate the audience’s anxieties. The character’s status as a wanderer newly disembarked from a ship draws on strong cultural associations between water, wandering, and insanity. Syracusan Antipholus himself makes these associations in several speeches. Unlike the parallel character in Plautus’s Menaechmi, Syracusan Antipholus fears that he is wandering mentally as well as physically. The character’s supernatural and natural explanations for his disturbed mental state draw on contemporary psychological ideas. One of these ideas lies behind the question he asks after a confusing encounter with Adriana: “What error drives our eyes and ears amiss?” On one level, the question suggests a possibility not thought of by other characters in the play: mistaken identity is responsible for their confusion. On another level, Syracusan Antipholus’s question suggests an actual disordering of the senses. Shakespeare here plays on “error” as “fury” or “extravagance of passion.” In Elizabethan physical psychology, extreme passion–an upsurge from the lower regions of the psyche–destroys the higher faculties, producing “horrible and fearful apparitions.” If not corrected, this upsurge leads to madness and death. The Comedy of Errors thus touches on a genuine anxiety for the Elizabethan audience. This anxiety darkens the play’s entertaining confusions much as Egeon’s possible execution provides a dark frame for this generally light-hearted comedy.
Click here to read/download this article (HTML file)
Related posts:
- The Return of Elizabeth: William Poel’s Hamlet and the Dream of Empire
- King Lear in Its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes
- What Do You Do With a Woman Warrior?: A Response to “‘Effeminate Dayes’”
- “The Lure of Intercultural Shakespeare”
- Merchants and Kings, Cities and States, Wives and Whores: A Response to “Civic Institutions and Precarious Masculinity”