Maintaining a general parity of plot, the play and opera versions of the Barber of Seville greatly differ in terms of character detail, whether dispositional, behavioral or occupational. Said details are heightened or expounded on by Figaro, who often characterizes others (as well as himself).

In the opera, Figaro introduces Don Basilo as “A famous, intriguing matchmaker, a hypocrite, a good-for-nothing, with never a penny in his pocket” (48). This description proves infinitely more thorough than that of the literary complement, where Figaro describes Don Basile (not Basilo) as a “scoundrel,” “an even bigger fool” (63).  This insubstantial representation leaves Rosine with a general distaste for Basile, yet lacks evidence of Basile’s rogue demeanor.  In the play, Figaro’s contempt for Basilo bears some warrant, as Figaro exposes Basilo’s destitution; in order to provide for himself and essentially survive, Basilo has little choice but to deceive and manipulate those more fortunate.

Further disputes exist between Figaro’s duties in the two mediums. In the play, Figaro declares that he plays “barber to anyone who needed me” (44). While the work hints at minor medicinal responsibilities, Figaro concerns himself with Bartholo’s grooming and similar practices. In the opera, Figaro asserts that, “In this house I am barber, surgeon, botanist, apothecary, veterinary” (44); he boldly affirms that “I run the house” (44). Here Figaro appears not only hubristic, but also invaluable to the completion of the quotidian functions of Bartholo’s estate. He aggrandizes his self-worth to a point of incredulity, casting doubt on his otherwise veracious nature.

At their epicenters, both works relate the same tale, the same struggle for love, and the same outcome. Minor distinctions affect audience perception, yet both maintain a similar sense of excitement and humor.