The first complication in scene ii arises from mistaking Dromio of Ephesus for Dromio of Syracuse; but notice that this error is accounted for by the second source of the errors of the play--belief in witchcraft. QUERIES FOR DISCUSSION Is the audience as much in the dark over the first mystification as Antipholus is? Should it be? Is the play the better or worse for not being clear? If both Dromios are made to look exactly alike how can the audience know? ACT II ANTIPHOLUS THE STRANGER DINES AT HOME Notice how the last scene of the preceding Act is cleared up by the first scene of 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?