The mistaken identities of the twins Antipholus of Ephesus and Antipholus of Syracuse, and their slaves Dromio of Ephesus and Dromio of Syracuse, facilitate comedy on which Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors revolves around. A common feature of Shakespeare's later plays is a comic subplot following characters of lesser origins; the action in this often reflects or refracts the action in the main plot. However, since The Comedy of Errors follows Aristotle's classical unities, (of time, action and space) the inferior Dromios and the noble Antipholus brothers coexist in the same plot, sharing the same predicament of being separated from their respective brothers. . As pointed out by Foakes in his introduction to The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare's main source for the play was Plautus' Menaechmi, however he "multiplied the twins" in his own work, as the Menaechmi featured only one set. By choosing to include two pairs of twins who together seek the exact same end, Shakespeare makes ambiguous the social position of the Dromios, who are referred to interchangeably as "attendants," "slaves," and "servants." The Dromios are separated from the Antipholus brothers simply by their commodity status, and similarly, Shakespeare does not include the Dromios in particular as characters in their own right, because it would only needlessly duplicate the experience of the Antipholus brothers. . Rather, the Dromios exist functionally as comic relief; any frustration or potential tragic element in the play is deflected onto them, usually by beatings. The relationships between the humble Dromios and the noble Antipholus therefore intentionally subvert social boundaries and challenge the convention of the slave master's submission both for the comic effect itself, but also so that they can be reprimanded, thus alleviating tensions in the play. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe first "mistake" resulting from mistaken identity occurs in act 1, scene 2, where Antipholus of Sycaruses sends Dromios of Sycaruses away to bring some money to the centaur, and it is Dromios of Ephesus who returns, clearly without have no advance knowledge of money. Before this scene, Shakespeare characterizes the slave/master relationship as affectionate: “a trusty villain […] He lightens my humor with his merry jests,” creating an interesting dynamic when Antipholus believes he is lying and hiding money. For example, as Scene 2 progresses, the audience sees Antipholus's patience rapidly fading, as he regresses from addressing Dromio as "master", to "master footman", then "slave", the latter just before beating him . Considering the importance placed on titles in Shakespeare's era, this reveals an unstable dynamic between the two men, where for the most part Antipholus is happy to "joke" with Dromios and call him "sir", but when it is in his best interest she is able to assert her social superiority over him and simply degrade him to a "slave". Furthermore, for an early modern audience that existed within a rigid social hierarchy, Dromio's linguistic demotion to "slave" just prior to his beating enables the comedy contained therein, as the audience is prevented from seeing him as too human, but rather, a humble slave. Dromio's beating is also, so to speak, 'justified' by his crossing of the social boundary in this same scene. When Antipholus asks him for the "thousand marks", Dromio plays on the word "marks" in reference to the scars and wounds caused by his beatings, stating "I have some of your marks on my head", then threatening "Ifshould you pay for your adoration" even those, perhaps you will not bear them patiently.' This last threat is particularly subversive as it jokingly threatens to "pay" Antipholus for a beating, a clear transgression of the slave/master boundary, and similar "brazenness" on the part of Dromios around the world. The play against Antipholus attempts once again to present the beatings as worthy, as well as comical. Furthermore, Dromio's light-hearted puns in allusion to his beatings take away from any sincerity to the act and present it as a cliché. The audience's attention is therefore attracted by the comedy of the mistaken identity present in the scene; the beating of Dromio becomes a sort of comic inevitability of the frustrations in the scene 'Act 3 explores another interesting dynamic between the high-born Antipholus and the low-born Dromio, where Dromio of Syracuse denies access to Antipholus of Ephesus, being under the command control of Hadrian to 'not let anyone in', even though Antipholus of Ephesus was the legitimate tenant of the house. The comedy of the scene rests on the staging, where both Antipholus of Epesus and Dromio of Syracuse are visible to the audience, but neither of them is visible to the other, allowing the irony of the scene to shine through and making the subversion of the social position visible. . Antipholus asserts his social superiority on the line: "What art thou that keeps me from the home I owe?" and Dromio replies "the doorman for this time, sir". Particularly revealing here is Antipholus's use of "what" rather than who, and the way Dromio addresses "lord." These terms of address indicate that the men remain aware of their social position, so it is not necessarily Dromio's language that is subversive, but the visual act of not letting in Antipholus, who the audience knows is the rightful owner of the house. Unlike the previous scenes, Dromios of Syracuse cannot pay for this particular mistake, due to the door that stands between him and Antipholus, although Antipholus threatens: "You will weep for this, servant, if I break down the door." This violence is deflected by Balthazar, who although as a goldsmith does not share as noble a status as Antipholus, can exercise more command over him than Dromio of Ephesus could, as he insists "to be governed by me, depart with patience." In this case, unlike scene 2 of Act 1, since there is a mediator character, the tension between the noble and humble characters is relived. One of the elements of the Comedy of Errors that has the greatest potential to be tragic is the marriage between Adriana and Antipholus, which already proves to be quite unstable and, due to mistaken identities, almost breaks down over the course of the play. It is the Dromios and their relationships with Adriana who provide the comic relief to deflect the situation. For example, in Act 2, scene 1, Adriana laments that her husband has not yet returned, lamenting "why [men's] freedom should be greater than ours." Upon Dromio's return, she orders him to bring back her husband, threatening violence when he challenges her: "Back, slave, or I will break your head." Once again, the title "slave" degrades Dromio to subhuman status and makes the beating, within the social hierarchy, appear more justified. In response, Dromio replies, "You reject me here, and he will despise me here." If I resist in this service, you will have to cover me with leather." The image here of Dromio yo-yoing between the couple with 'you repel me from here, and he will despise me here' highlights its functionality; the couple can avoid directly confronting each other by taking out their frustrations on him. Once again, it is his joke about being "leather-clad" that alleviates the severity of this feature and the..