Meaning of “enigmatic” lines in The Comedy of Errors

In Act III Scene 1 of The Comedy of Errors, we find the Ephesian Antipholus locked out of his own house, while his wife mistakenly dines the Syracusian Antipholus who is not her husband. The Ephesian Antipholus and Dromio also discover that it is the Syracusian Dromio who is behind the locked door, keeping the Ephesians out.

Eph. Antipholus:

What art thou that keep’st me out from the house I owe?

Syr. Dromio: [within]

The porter for this time, sir, and my name is Dromio.

Eph. Dromio:

O villain, thou hast stol’n both mine office and my name;

The one ne’er got me credit, the other mickle blame;

If thou hadst been Dromio today in my place,

Thou wouldst have changed thy face for a name, or thy name for an ass.

This last line, by the Ephesian Dromio, has puzzled critics for years, and has prompted many differing alterations in attempts to make sense out of it. This even included changing the word “face” for “office” and changing “a name” for “an aim,” so that the line then reads “Thou wouldst have changed thy office for an aim, or thy name for an ass.”

Yet, in line with the central theme of the play, the statement by Dromio in its original unaltered form actually makes good sense. It is part of Shakespeare’s thematic resonance that maintains the central theme of the play.

Note that Shakespeare frames the entire play within two scenes quite foreign to the genre. These scenes grimly focus on a man being condemned to die for merely being a “Syracusian.” The real “error” highlighted in The Comedy of Errors is thus not that of mistaken identity. It is something deeper.

The real error—that the play focuses on—is our distorted perception of reality because we mistake the artificial labels—that we bestow upon ourselves—as being inherently real. In the play, the labels “Syracusian” and “Ephesian” are considered, by this deluded perception, to be so real that one’s life can be forfeit for merely possessing the wrong label!

With this theme in mind, we can now understand why the line by the Ephesian Dromio, in its unaltered form, makes good sense. It is actually part of Shakespeare’s thematic resonance on the play’s central message.

In its unaltered form, the Ephesian Dromio is saying that his supposed usurper is a fool to take his place because he had, only on that day, been beaten like an ass—hence his statement that his usurper has changed “thy name for an ass.” Changing our “face for a name” is another way of saying that we have changed our reality for a mere “label.” The statement thus points out that this act is as stupid as changing “thy name for an ass” and, in fact, reflects the central theme of the play. We distort our perception of the truth when we replace reality with labels, and then consider our labels as the reality.

This parallels the explanation for the other apparently “enigmatic” line in The Comedy of Errors, found in Adriana’s words in Act II Scene 1.

Adriana:

I see the jewel best enamelled

Will lose his beauty; yet the gold bides still

That others touch, and often touching will,

Where gold, and no man that hath a name

By falsehood and corruption doth it shame.

This passage with the phrase “no man that hath a name” has also caused much confusion. Again, the words reflect the central message behind the whole play and require no alteration.

The passage states that the inner beauty and underlying reality is marred by falsehood and corruption. “Where gold, and no man that hath a name” refers to the underlying transcendent reality, where man is free of an attached label (i.e., name). This underlying reality is, however, brought to shame by the labelling and false artificialities we impose upon them. The phrase “often touching” symbolises our propensity to spoil the underlying purity in this way.

This passage is thus also part of Shakespeare’s thematic resonance. While Adriana may be depicting how her outer features are being marred while her inner being remains unchanged, the passage also reiterates the main theme of the play—which is that man, in his pure state, do not have those characteristics artificially imposed on him by labels. The labels do not define him or his identity. Thus, the pure state where “no man that hath a name” is brought to shame by the “falsehood and corruption” of labelling and then mistaking these labels as inherently real entities.

We need to take heed of the cohesive unity in Shakespeare’s plays in order to understand the meaning behind some of the words in his script, and also to fully realise the dazzling brilliance in the artistic structure of Shakespeare’s plays, meticulously designed to deliver his intended messages to humanity.