v^" 
 
 74-7 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 U 
 
XTbe 'dniversiti? of GbicaQO 
 
 I'OUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKF.rEI.LEK 
 
 THE SO-CALLED RULE OE THREE 
 
 ACTORS IN THE CLASSICAL 
 
 GREEK DRAMA 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (department of greek) 
 
 BY 
 
 KELLEY REES 
 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 
 1908 
 
Ubc "Clniversit^ of Cbicago 
 
 KOUNDKU BY JOHN D. KOCKEl- ELLEK 
 
 THE SO-CALLED RULE OF THREE 
 
 ACTORS IN THE CLASSICAL 
 
 GREEK DRAMA 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
 
 AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
 
 OK DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 
 
 (department of greek) 
 
 BY 
 
 KELLEY REES 
 
 Or THE 
 
 uUNIVERSlTY^^ 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 
 1908 
 

 ('OPYRIGHT 1907 By 
 The University of Chicago 
 
 Published February 1908 
 
 Vy 
 
 Composed and Printed By 
 
 The University of Chicago Press 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 I take this occasion to acknowledge my debt to Professor Edward Capps, 
 late of the University of Chicago, now of Princeton University, for invalu- 
 able assistance in the composition of this treatise. It was at his suggestion 
 that I undertook the investigation, and he has been my constant advisor 
 and critic throughout. It also gives me much pleasure in this connection 
 to express my gratitude to other former instructors, Professors Shorey, Hale, 
 and Hendrickson of the University of Chicago, Professor Walter Miller of 
 Tulane University, and especially Professors Murray and Fairclough of 
 Stanford University, who encouraged me to pursue further classical studies. 
 In Germany it was my privilege to study under Professors Blass, Ditten- 
 berger, Wissowa, and Robert. Professor Robert especially, with whom 
 was the greater part of my work, I have to thank not only for his stimu- 
 lating lectures, but for the personal interest he manifested in my welfare 
 as well. 
 
 K. R. 
 
 Adelphi College, 
 Brooklyn, N. Y. 
 
 l?*^ 
 
 n -fl '- 
 
PATRI CARISSIMO 
 JOHN H. REES 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Introduction g 
 
 The Meaning of the "Three-Actor Law," as Formulated by Modern 
 
 Scholars g 
 
 History of Its Growth and Development up to the Present Time . . 1 1 
 
 The Same Evidence for Comedy as for Tragedy 16 
 
 The Possibility of a Misunderstanding as to the Real Significance 
 
 of the "Law" 17 
 
 II. The Evidence for the So-Called Law of Three Actors . . 18 
 
 1. Ne/xijo-eis viroKpirQv ........... 18 
 
 2. Aristotle and Horace the Basis for the Aesthetic Law . . . 21 
 
 3. Would the "Law" Have Been a Natural Outgrowth of the 
 Economic Conditions under Which the Drama Developed ? . . 26 
 
 4. Evidence Based on the Terms Protagonist, Deuteragonist, and 
 Tritagonist 31 
 
 III. A Distinction between the Aesthetic Canon of Aristotle 
 AND Economic Conditions Which Determine the Number of 
 Persons Employed as Actors in a Play 40 
 
 IV. Objections to the Law as Usually Applied ..... 42 
 
 A. Sometimes More Than Three Actors Are Required ... 42 
 
 B. Four Actors Are Necessary; Otherwise Split Roles ... 45 
 
 C. Parts Are Overloaded 48 
 
 D. Awkward Situations Caused by a "Lightning" Change of 
 Dress 50 
 
 E. Bad Assignment of Roles 53 
 
 1. Important Male and Female Roles Must Be Doubled . . 55 
 
 2. Parts of Messengers, Guards, and Servants Are Combined 
 with Those of Princesses and Other Female Roles of Delicate 
 
 and Refined Type 57 
 
 3. Youth and Old Age Are Disregarded in the Assignment of 
 Parts. The Roles Are Also Very Often of a Different Sex, 
 Which Renders Such Combinations Even More Inappropriate . 57 
 
 4. Other Unsuitable and Miscellaneous Roles Must Be Doubled . 58 
 
 F. It Assumes That the State Set a Limit to Its Own Expenditures 
 
 or to the Demands Which Could Be Made upon the Choregus . 60 
 
 7 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 V. The Existence of a Practical Three-Actor Rule in the 
 
 Period of the Guilds 64 
 
 The Economic Conditions at Athens Contrasted with the Conditions 
 under Which the TraveHng Companies Produced Plays ... 64 
 The Effect of Economic Conditions upon Dramatic Production . . 66 
 The Evidence for the Practice of Using Three Actors in the Post- 
 Classical Period 69 
 
 An Illustration Drawn from Dramatic Performances in the Eliza- 
 bethan Period 71 
 
 VI. A Redistribution of the Roles in Selected Plays . . 75 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 One of the most striking peculiarities commonly attributed to the 
 Greek drama in the matter of presentation is the alleged employment of 
 only three speaking actors. The custom began, we are told, with the intro- 
 duction of a third actor by Sophocles. Before that event tragic poets were 
 limited to an even smaller number. Aeschylus was allowed two performers 
 for the Suppliants, Persians, and Septem, while Thespis, the traditional 
 inventor of tragedy, never employed more than one. The same limitation 
 applied to comedy also, but through a different process of development: 
 whereas in tragedy there was a gradual increase from one actor to three, 
 in comedy there was apparently a reduction from a larger number to three. ^ 
 This innovation of Cratinus happened not long after the introduction of 
 
 I Tzetzes De com. (Kaibel, pp. 1 7 ff.), whose statement seems to imply that Crati- 
 nus restricted the number of actors in comedy to three ; before his time aral^la. Aris- 
 totle acknowledges his inability to trace certain stages in the early development of 
 comedy, yet his words, Poetics 1449 b 5, imply, according to most interpreters, that 
 the philosopher conceived of comedy as having passed through the same process as 
 tragedy, with one, then two and three actors; see Susemihl Rev. de phil. XIX (1895), 
 pp. 199 ff.; Kaibel Hermes XXIV (1889), p. 64; Poppelreuter De com. Att. primordiis, 
 p. 28 (Berlin, 1893); Beer Zahl d. Schauspieler, pp. 17 ff. These scholars, however, 
 have found difi&culty with the statement of Tzetzes about Cratinus: Kar^ffTrjae /xiv 
 trpSiTov TO. iv TTi K(i}fjL(p8iq. irpdcrwira /J.^XP'- Tp<-i^v, ffTiJcras ara^iav, kt\. Beer (p. 17) 
 thought that the number of regular actors was never reduced, but that Cratinus did 
 away with "parachoregemata," leaving only three actors. The fact that Aristophanes 
 later frequently employed four or five actors is against this. Susemihl (p. 202) regards 
 the theory about Cratinus as a mere mistake, due to this process of reasoning: The 
 oldest comedy that survived was the work of Cratinus; it used three actors, as do 
 most of his other plays. Hence Cratinus was the author of the innovation. Cf. also 
 Poppelreuter, pp. 28 ff. But the essential difference in the structure of comedy and 
 tragedy is evidence for a different process of development for each. See Zielinski 
 Gliederung d. altatt. Kom. (Leipzig, 1885). The passage in Tzetzes is also against 
 the theory of a like process for both, and can best be explained on the assumption 
 that the number of performers underwent a gradual decrease from a larger to a smaller 
 number. Under no other supposition can its development from the kuims be under- 
 stood in the opinion of Capps Introd. of Com. into City Dion., p. 11, n. 36. After the 
 state's recognition of comedy, 487/6 B. c, there was a constant effort on the part of 
 comic poets to make comedy conform to the artistic norms of tragedy. Cratinus took 
 one decided step in this direction by reducing the number of performers that could 
 he on the scene at the same time. 
 
lO RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 the third actor by Sophocles. From this time on throughout the entire 
 classical period three actors remained the regular number assigned by the 
 state for the presentation of all plays, both tragic and comic. These three 
 actors, protagonist, deuteragonist, and tritagonist, were able by the doubling 
 of parts to impersonate all the characters of the play. 
 
 Such is the three-actor law as it is commonly understood at the present 
 time. No one, so far as I know, has questioned its validity, though the 
 difficulties encountered in its application to single plays are not lacking, as 
 the conflicting views on matters of detailed interpretation will show. 
 
 The law as described above is stated by Miiller Biihnenalt. (1886), 
 p. 173; Haigh Attic Theatre (1898), pp. 252, 253. The latter says: 
 "This number [3] was never exceeded, either in comedy or tragedy. All 
 extant Greek plays could be performed by three actors." Navarre Diony- 
 sos, pp. 216 ff., says that, with the exception of the four earliest plays of 
 Aeschylus, "toutes les tragedies subsistantes reclament trois acteurs. 
 Jamais ce nombre ne fut depasse." That the same law applied to comedy 
 after it became a state institution is the accepted opinion — Bergk Gesch. d. 
 griech. Litt. Ill (1884), p. 83: "Mit dieser geringen Zahl [3] der Schau- 
 spieler hat sich im Allgemeinen das griechische Drama begniigt;" p. 84: 
 "Fur die Komodien gelten die gleichen Ordnungen;" Croiset Hist, de 
 la litt. gr. III^ (1899), p. 83: "Ce nombre de trois acteurs est reste le 
 normal pour toute la periode classique, a partir des debuts de Sophocle en 
 468," adding (p. 492) that comedy became subject to the same limitation; 
 K. O. Miiller Gesch. griech. Litt. I^ (1882), p. 510: "Sophokles und Euri- 
 pides haben sich immer mit diesen drei Schauspielern begniigt," excepting 
 however, Oedipus Coloneus, for which he holds a fourth actor necessary. 
 In comedy he finds (11^, p. 13) that the rule of three was not strictly observed. 
 The editors adhere to the interpretation of the law as above formulated. 
 Jebb never admits a fourth actor. Wecklein divides the parts in the 
 Prometheus between two actors (Einl., p. 55), but after Sophocles a third 
 performer was allowed (Medea, Einl., p. 31). Hayley (Alcestis, p. 50) 
 calls attention to the impropriety of the same actor playing parts so widely 
 different as Heracles and Alcestis, but does not question the rule ; Teuffel- 
 Kahler (Clouds, p. 51) divide the roles of this play among three actors. 
 Blaydes accepts the rule for Aristophanes; but for the Wasps he says 
 (p. 7): "In hac fabula quattuor interdum personae simul inducuntur." 
 Van Leeuwen has made a division of the parts in the plays of Aristophanes, 
 using three actors as far as possible, but admitting a fourth when occasion 
 demands: in the Clouds a fourth actor must play either the Just or the 
 Unjust Orator; with three actors this play could not have been performed. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA II 
 
 However, he does not attack the rule in its application to comedy in general.' 
 Wilamowitz Heracles I', pp. 380 ff., distributes the parts in the Oresteia 
 to illustrate how the poet strove to equahze the burden upon the actors. 
 He acknowledges, however, that this principle is seldom, if ever, observed.^ 
 
 It is unnecessary to add more names to this list. Scholars of the 
 present time are agreed that the Athenian state during the classical period 
 allowed to poets for the presentation of plays only three actors, among 
 whom all the parts of the plays were distributed. This peculiar feature of 
 the Greek stage was recognized, apparently, as far back as the records of 
 modern scholarship extend. Tyrwhitt on Aristotle's Poetics, sec. x, p. 118 
 (1794), called attention to the "rule," and was the first scholar, to my 
 knowledge, to bring together the material. He made no attempt to apply 
 the law to the extant plays. Starting with statements of late Greek writers, 
 such as Pollux, Lucian, and the scholiasts (infra, p. 70), which I hope to 
 show had reference to the economic conditions of the post-classical period, 
 he uses them to illustrate Aristotle's summary of the early history of Attic 
 tragedy, in which the philosopher certainly had in mind, not the practical 
 conditions which the stage-manager had to meet, but merely the aesthetic 
 conditions of tragedy as an art-form — Attic tragedy as viewed by the spec- 
 tator, not by one who stood behind the scenes. Tyrwhitt simply followed 
 the practice of all scholars of his time in the matter of antiquities, using as 
 evidence for the classical period any statement, that was found in a writer 
 of Greek, even if seven or ten centuries later. It was not until the nine- 
 teenth century that the more discriminating historical method of using 
 evidence was consistently applied to Greek antiquities, and the task of 
 freeing ourselves from the shackles of a tradition based on such uncritical 
 methods has even now not been fully completed. 
 
 But let us proceed to trace the rule of three actors from Tyrwhitt to 
 the present time. Bottiger De actoribus prim. sec. et tert. partium in jab. 
 Graec. (Weimar, 1797) discusses the titles of the three actors and the sig- 
 nificance of the same with reference to the parts played by each. The 
 leading actor, protagonist, played "partes primas," and the second actor 
 or deuteragonist, next to the protagonist in importance, played "partes 
 
 » Van Leeuwen's note Nub. Praef., p. 2, n. i, reads almost like a protest against 
 the law. 
 
 2 In Hermes XXXII (1897), P- 3^^, note, he sets up the theory that specially 
 qualified singers, who were not actors, were employed for certain song-parts (e. g., the 
 two sisters in the Septem, the children in the Alcestis, Andromache, and Suppliants 
 [Eur.], and the Phrygian in the Orestes). In this way he relieves certain parts that are 
 unequally and incongruously combined in the ordinary distribution. — There is much 
 force in his arguments, but they run counter to the three-actor " law." 
 
12 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 secundas," while the poorest actor of the three, the tritagonist, played 
 "partes tertias." The distinction between the class of the actors and the 
 roles they played was rigorously observed. The protagonist was never 
 allowed to play "partes tertias," nor the tritagonist "partes primas." 
 Bottiger does not distribute the parts in any of the plays. His use of the 
 terms "primae, secundae, et tertiae partes" as applied to Greek plays 
 adds an element of confusion. Properly speaking there is but one first, 
 second, or third part in a play. We cannot find in the plays a group of 
 fv /i riki»^"v characters which might be called first, second, and third respectively, apart 
 from the actors that must play them as the arrangement of the play 
 demands. When two characters have an equal influence upon the leading 
 persons, or play equally important parts in the drama, these characters 
 rarely fall to the same actor (infra, p. 36). But the "rule of three actors" 
 was well established by the beginning of the nineteenth century, as Bot- 
 tiger's article shows. It was a dogma built, as it was believed, upon 
 Aristotle and supported apparently by late writers without reference to the 
 plays themselves or the conditions under which plays were produced in 
 [ the fifth century. Confirmation was found in the non-existence of a special 
 [ name for the "actor of fourth parts." Scholars next turned to the plays. 
 They began to detect the influence of this restriction upon the inner economy 
 of the drama. Characters come and go, not because the poet chooses to 
 have them do so, but because the limitation in the number of available 
 actors requires it. The motive for the exit of a person is that the actor is 
 needed for another person who is soon to appear. Ehnsley finds the real 
 reason for the departure of Aethra in Eur. Heracleid. 539 to be that the 
 actor who had hitherto played the part of Aethra is now wanted for the part 
 of the Herald. In the earliest plays of Euripides^ Elmsley discovers that 
 the contrivances which are "adopted in other plays to render a fourth 
 actor unnecessary are appHed to the exclusion of a third. At the end of 
 the Alcestis, Alcestis observes a strange and obstinate silence. The poet 
 attempts to assign a reason for her silence (11 47), but the true reason was 
 "that the actor who wore the robe and mask of Alcestis at the beginning of 
 the play is now present in the character of Heracles." 
 
 How is the rule to be applied ? How are the parts in the extant plays 
 to be distributed among three actors, and what parts in the single plays 
 
 ' Alcestis and Medea, though the "third actor" had been introduced ca. 30 years 
 before. The introduction of a child in these two plays is thought by Elmsley to have 
 excluded the employment of a third actor for adult characters. However, in the 
 Andromache children did not seem to come within the rigor of the law. Here Molossus 
 is upon the scene with three other persons; see Class. Jour. VIII (1813), pp. 435 ff. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 1 3 
 
 did the protagonist, deuteragonist, and tritagonist take ? These are ques- 
 tions that have eHcited much discussion. Scholars have attempted to find 
 the answer by different methods. The first one to undertake this task in 
 a comprehensive way, distributing the roles in all the tragedies, was Lach- 
 mann De mensura tragoediarum (Berlin, 1822). His method was unique. 
 The division of single parts by the number seven is the deciding element 
 for the grouping of single parts for particular actors — all dialogue parts 
 when added together make a number of pT/crets that is divisible by seven. 
 In the three-actor period that part (or those parts) which make up the 
 "numerus Justus" shows us the protagonist. The parts of the deuter- 
 agonist and tritagonist taken together contain a number of verses or p>?o-£ts 
 divisible by seven; but there is no sure method of determining which parts 
 are second and which are third. Lachmann's book, with its artificial and 
 unreasonable mechanical method, did not evoke favorable criticism.^ He 
 was forced to assume corruption of texts, which he freely emended, to 
 make absurd distributions of the roles, and often to resort to the employ- 
 ment of an additional performer.^ 
 
 The epoch-making work3 on the distribution of parts is C. F. Hermann's 
 De distr. pers. in trag. Graec. (Marburg, 1840). Hermann's results are 
 generally accepted in modern handbooks and editions. Accepting as an 
 established fact that the state provided only three actors, which accordingly 
 limited to three the number of speaking characters in any scene, Hermann 
 looked thus at the practical problem which confronted the poet in composing 
 his drama: If he employ a large number of characters, he must see to 
 it that not more than three shall appear at the same time, and must pro- 
 vide a plausible pretext for the departure of a character from the scene 
 when the actor who carries this role is required to impersonate another 
 character in the following scene. Hermann has endeavored to show by an 
 examination of the plays that the poets solved this problem in a most 
 clever and artistic manner. The motive for the departure of a character 
 is worked in with such a degree of naturalness and plausibihty "ut re ipsa 
 potius quam externa necessitate omnia moveri videantur," but in reality 
 the character leaves the scene at a particular time that the actor may come 
 
 ' Cf. the theory recently propounded by Oeri Die grosse Responsion in d. spat. 
 Soph. Trag. im Kykl. u. in d. Herakleiden (Berlin, 1880), whose arguments have been 
 thoroughly refuted by Zielinski Gliederung, p. 387. 
 
 2 E. g., in all the plays of Euripides except Alcestis, Heracleidae, Ion, and Heracles. 
 
 3 The law is also stated by Schneider ^4//. Theaterwesen, pp. 13 ff., 131 ff. (Weimar, 
 1835), who divides the roles in a few plays of Aeschylus, and collects in his "Quellen" 
 the notices which prove the "law." O. Miiller Eumenides, p. no, divided the roles 
 in the Oresteia in the usual way. 
 
14 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 on in the next scene as another person. This restriction in the number of 
 actors did not render the presentation of a drama less effective. The 
 emotions of the spectator would be deeply aroused by the very fact that 
 the same actor who had before worn the mask of Antigone was now present 
 as Teiresias, "qui quum Creonti poenam pro illius supplicio patiendam 
 vaticinetur et ipse tanquam ultor atque alastor ejus prodire videtur." 
 The effect would be heightened still more when the spectator saw the 
 same actor, who earlier in the play had been led forth to the tomb in the 
 character of Antigone, return in the character of a Messenger to relate her 
 death. Though the mask and dress were changed, the same voice and 
 stature were perceptible in both, so that the spectator would feel that the 
 ghost of Antigone was speaking through the mask of the Messenger. In 
 view of the dramatic effect thus attained, Hermann consistently has the 
 same actor play the part of Messenger that had before played the part of 
 the person whose death he announces. 
 
 Few would now concede that the Greeks employed such a principle for 
 dramatic effect — the production of tragic irony by a means which would 
 destroy the dramatic illusion. If the economy of the play in the conven- 
 tional distribution of the roles forced the same actor to impersonate Anti- 
 gone, Teiresias, and Messenger, the actor certainly strove to adapt his 
 voice and manner to the person whose mask he was, for the time being, 
 wearing. Any other assumption is as much as to say that the Greek play- 
 wright did not seek to create a perfect illusion, but rather to impress upon 
 the spectator the clumsiness of the histrionic art by which two incongruous 
 roles were carried by the same actor. In the distribution of the roles 
 Hermann assigns to the protagonist the most difficult part, to the deuter- 
 agonist and tritagonist parts of less importance. Female roles in his 
 scheme usually fall to the deuteragonist ; the tritagonist plays roles of a 
 miscellaneous nature, including kings and tyrants. In the grouping of 
 several roles for the same actor Hermann thus formulates the principles 
 which the ancient poet, in his opinion, observed: (i) The actor should be 
 adapted to the part or parts to which he is assigned; (2) parts should be 
 combined on the basis of age, i. e., characters of like age should fall to the 
 same actor; (3) female roles should be grouped. The application of these 
 principles would be desirable, but the economy of the play, concludes 
 Hermann, usually determines which roles are to be doubled and thus only 
 in rare instances may any choice be exercised and the suitability of the 
 actor to the part receive due consideration. Throughout Hermann's dis- 
 cussion there seems to run an element of inconsistency. For example, he 
 finds no objection, apparently, to the doubling of the parts of Antigone 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 1 5 
 
 and Teiresias, Iphigeneia and Old Man in Iphigeneia at Aulis, Chryso- 
 themis and Pedagogue in Soph. Electra; and yet in the Phoenissae the 
 principle of doubling roles of hke age is given as the reason for combining 
 the part of Eteocles, rather than that of his somewhat younger brother, 
 Polyneices, with that of the aged Pedagogue. When the arrangement of 
 the scenes forces the doubling of inharmonious parts, Hermann seeks to 
 point out the heightened effect gained by such a combination, but when 
 the economy of the play allows some choice in the matter, the principle of 
 the fitness of the actor for the part is applied with the precision of a modern 
 stage-manager. 
 
 There are no principles which may be consistently appHed in the 
 doubling of parts under the three-actor law. This consideration led 
 Richter Vertheilung der RoUen (Berlin, 1842) to attack Hermann's funda- 
 mental thesis, viz., that the poets composed plays according to a three- 
 actor scheme. The poets, he says (p. 3), wrote their plays according to 
 certain principles of dramatic art, giving little heed to a three-actor rule. 
 They did not set up a schematic outline of three actors to which the arrange- 
 ment and order of the entire play was made to conform, but concerned 
 themselves with the division of roles only after the play was completed and 
 the time of presentation had come. The use, he urges, of " parachorege- 
 mata,"' extra-performers furnished by the choregus, proves that the poets 
 did not regard the three-actor rule as binding. The mixture of roles 
 which the different actors had to play also indicates that the three-actor 
 scheme was not an important factor in the composition of a play. The 
 protagonist plays the hardest role and other miscellaneous characters ; the 
 deuteragonist plays no special kind of roles, since the distribution of parts 
 is "etwas ZufaUiges," not premeditated. Of course the second actor 
 would take the part that stands in closest relation to the central figure, 
 that exerts the greatest influence on his life and destiny, and may be friendly 
 or hostile. In like manner the tritagonist gets his roles, not by the plan of 
 the poet, but in a haphazard way as the arrangement requires. The parts 
 that fall to him are usually of a miscellaneous character. The poet divided 
 
 ' See my article "On the Meaning of Trapaxop^jTij/m " in Class. Phil. II (1907), 
 pp. 387 ff. In this article I endeavored to show that irapaxopvyv/^"' had no application 
 to dramatic production at Athens in the fifth century, that the word does not occur 
 in the classical period at all, but is of late origin, being formed from the verb 
 Tapaxopy)yeiv in its late derived meaning of "to furnish in addition, or extra," and 
 thus had no connection wdth the choregus or the choregic system. ira.paxop'fiyrtiJ.a. 
 meant simply "an extra provision," "an additional expense," and was applied in 
 the technitae-period to all "extras" furnished over and above the regular traveling 
 company. 
 
1 6 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 the parts among three actors, not from choice, but because the state did 
 not put a fourth at his disposal. Sometimes the economy of a play causes 
 a happy doubling of parts, but more often the combination is bad. How- 
 ever, a fourth was never introduced; otherwise we should have had some 
 record of it. The appropriate name for a fourth actor does not occur. 
 Richter's results, however, when he actually distributes the parts in the 
 plays, are essentially the same as Hermann's. 
 
 The history of the discussion as to the applicabiUty of the rule to comedy 
 need not detain us long. It was for a long time the prevailing opinion 
 that the rule did not apply to comedy. For this view we may compare 
 Enger De histr. in Arist. Thesm. numero, p. 7 (Oppeln, 1840): "etiam 
 quartarum partium actorem ab Aristophane adhibitum esse constat;" 
 K. O. Miiller Gesch. griech. Litt. II^, p. 13: "Doch scheint Aristophanes 
 in anderen Stucken (i. e., than Acharnians) auch einen vierten Schauspieler 
 zugezogen zu haben: Die Wespen liessen sich doch schwerlich anders als 
 von vier Schauspielern auffiihren;" C. F. Hermann in Berl. Jahrb. 1843, 
 p. 391, expressly states that comedy was not under the three-actor law. 
 But since the appearance of Beer's book Ueber. d. Zahl d. Schausp. bei 
 Arist. (Lpz., 1844), opinion has undergone a complete change. It is now 
 generally believed that comedy was subject to the same rule. This con- 
 clusion is based on the following arguments: (i) There is no direct evidence 
 from antiquity for the employment of a fourth actor for comedy in contrast 
 to the three for tragedy; (2) No distinction is made between tragedy and 
 comedy in this regard by ancient writers (cf. Euanthus De com. et trag., 
 Diomedes in Keil Gram. Laf. II, pp. 490) ; (3) In the Soteric inscriptions 
 of Delphi the comic troupes consist, without exception, of three actors 
 (Miiller Buhnenalt., p. 174); (4) The comedies of Aristophanes may be 
 presented with three actors with the help of a goodly number of super- 
 numeraries. 
 
 Since Hermann, Richter, and Beer there has been no independent 
 work on this subject. These scholars have largely molded modern opinion. 
 We may say that the one point about which there is absolutely no difference 
 of opinion is that there was a three-actor law. The law is universally 
 interpreted to mean that three speaking actors, by doubling the roles, 
 presented a play. It was appUcable to both comedy and tragedy. 
 
 It is important to keep this last statement in mind. The external 
 evidence for a three-actor rule is the same for comedy as for tragedy; in 
 other words, if there was a rule for tragedy there must have been one for 
 comedy. This is negative argument. It assumes a priori that a rule for 
 tragedy existed. May the question not be discussed from another point of 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 1 7 
 
 view ? If the rule does not hold when applied to comedy, might we not 
 infer that there was no such rule at all ? The application of the rule is 
 not easy in either case ; we gain an impression from a review of the discus- 
 sion of the subject that the rule as usually applied is not altogether satis- 
 factory. Hermann recognizes the principle that the doubling of male 
 and female characters is to be avoided, that it is desirable to group together 
 for the same actor characters of a like age ; but in the distribution of roles 
 under the three-actor system he has not been able to avoid such objection- 
 able combinations. K. O. Muller finds in Oedipus Coloneus that the part 
 of Theseus must be divided among three different actors under this restric- 
 tion. Richter points out cases where widely different characters fall to 
 one actor. Van Leeuwen discovers many cases where a fourth actor is neces- 
 sary. May there not be some misunderstanding as to the real meaning of 
 the passages from which the "law" has been derived ? 
 
 The outcome of this study tends, in the writer's opinion, to show that 
 the three-actor law, if it ever existed, had no application to the classical 
 drama. The objections to be urged against the current interpretation of 
 the so-called law are: (i) Sometimes more than three actors are required, 
 i. e., more than three persons are on the scene at once. (2) The appHca- 
 tion of the law results in split roles, i. e., a character must often be divided 
 between two or more actors. (3) Parts are overloaded. The three-actor 
 division often forces one actor to bear an undue proportion of the entire 
 play, usually the "tritagonist." (4) Awkward situations are caused by 
 "lightning" changes of costume. Cases arise where only a few verses are 
 allowed for an actor to retire, change dress, and reappear as another person. 
 (5) Bad assignment of parts results, i. e., actors do not get parts which 
 are peculiarly adapted to their capacity. (6) The rule thus interpreted 
 assumes that the state limited its own expenditures and the demands made 
 on the choregus to a certain amount, regardless of the dramatic require- 
 ments of a particular play. (7) I hope to show, fiorther, that the "law" is 
 the result of a misconception, due to the unwarranted application of an 
 aesthetic principle, that gradually took shape and was later formulated by 
 Aristotle with reference to the drama as an art-form, to the economic 
 conditions under which the drama was produced — two things which cer- 
 tainly may be distinct and are not necessarily connected with each other at 
 all. Does the "law" mean that not more than three speaking persons 
 should be present at once, or that only three actors were employed to pro- 
 duce a play ? 
 
 I hold that, owing to the failure to distinguish two distinct periods in 
 the history of the Greek drama, two things have been confounded with 
 
1 8 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 each other, viz., an artistic law and an economic custom. The artistic law 
 excluded a fourth speaking person from the scene; it had no necessary- 
 connection with the number of actors used in the production of a play. In 
 dramatic performances outside of Athens at a later time it is very likely 
 that the practice prevailed of using the smallest possible number of actors 
 to present a play, and this number was generally three. This custom was 
 a natural outgrowth of material conditions — conditions essentially different 
 from those which prevailed during the classical period. A re-examination 
 of the plays is necessary, therefore (i) to point out the above-mentioned 
 objections to the law as usually applied, i. e., as an economic law; (2) to 
 show that it does apply when interpreted as an artistic law. A re-exami- 
 nation of the evidence will also enable us to determine what the "law" 
 really means. 
 
 II. THE EVIDENCE FOR THE SO-CALLED LAW OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 I. N£/U,7;0"et9 VTTOKpLTOiV 
 
 Perhaps no single statement has contributed more to a false conception 
 of the "law" than the much-debated passage in Photius (upon whom 
 Suidas drew; Hesychius and Photius used a common source) s. ve/xr/o-ets 
 (yifjLrjai^ Hesych.) VTTOKpirSiv: ol TTOLrjToi iXdfifSavov T/aets vTroKptTas KXr]po) 
 vefirjdevra'i viroKpLvovixivovi (Hemsterhuys, Bipont. ed. of Lucian I, p. 429; 
 MSS-vo/jievous) TO. 8pdfJ.aTa, wv (c3 Hesych.) 6 voci/o-as ets Toitnov aK/aiTOs 
 (oxptTcos Hesych.) irapeXapi^dveTO (Hesych., TrapaXaix^dveTac Phot.). In the 
 first clause it is stated that "the poets" (three' in number) received three 
 actors assigned by lot. The ambiguity of rpeTs vTroKpiras will be perceived 
 at once. Shall we say with Sommerbrodt (Scaenica, p. 168), Beer {Zahl 
 d. Schausp., p. 7), and Hermann (De dislrib., p. 56), that to each single 
 poet were assigned three actors, viz., protagonist, deuteragonist, and trita- 
 gonist, or with Meier (Hall. Litteratiirztg. [1836], p. 324 ff.) and Rohde 
 {Rhein. Mus. XXXVIII [1883], pp. 2705.) that to each of the three poets 
 was allotted one actor only, viz., the protagonist ? The succeeding words 
 v-KOKpivovp.(.vov<i TO. BpdfjxiTa favor strongly the latter view, for vwoKpLvecrdaL 
 is the technical expression for the part or activity of the protagonist. In the 
 didascalic records (/G. II 972, 973, 974, 975) the formula for the victorious 
 protagonist is invariably vTreKptvero 6 Belva. Only one person, the pro- 
 
 I That this applies only to tragedy is shown by the number three instead of five. 
 But the didascalic inscriptions IG. II 972, 974c (Wilhelm, Urkunden, p. 43), 975 
 show that the same method was used in comedy also; each comic poet, however, con- 
 tested with only one play. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA I9 
 
 tagonist, is ever said viroKpivta-OaL to Spa/xa.^ Furthermore, the phrase u>v 6 
 vtKT/o-as €is TovTTLov tt/cptTos TTapeXafxftdveTo can be satisfactorily explained only 
 on the assumption that it refers to protagonists. It is now commonly 
 agreed that o)v 6 viK-rjaa^ cannot, as Hemsterhuys thought, refer back to the 
 poet; also that wv cannot refer to vTroKpiras and 6 viKi^cras to the poet 
 (according to Schneider Alt. Theaterw., p. 130, and Grysar De Graec. trag. 
 qiialis jiiit circiim temp. Dem., p. 25). wv 6 vwciycras must refer to vTroKpiras 
 Toiis vTroKpivovfjievov<; to. BpdfMiTa. This Step toward a correct interpretation 
 was reached by Meier {loc. cit., p. 325), whom Beer (p. 7), Sommerbrodt 
 (p. 168), Muller {Philol. XXIII [1866], p. 518) followed; but these scholars 
 identified the contest of actors here mentioned with the K/atVis, the prelimi- 
 nary test to which all actors had to submit in order to become eligible for 
 assignment to the poets. This position is obviously untenable, as Rohde 
 (p. 273) has pointed out. It is impossible to speak of a single victor in a 
 contest in which a large number of actors qualify. 6 voci^o-as, however, 
 would not be applicable to ol vTroKptvovfj.evoi if secondary actors are included. 
 There is no record or mention in all literature of any contest between the 
 deuteragonist and tritagonist. The "victor" here referred to, therefore, 
 has no connection with a "contest " in which actors were selected by the 
 archon, nor with any contest of deuteragonists and tritagonists with each 
 other, but is merely the protagonist that won the prize over the other pro- 
 tagonists in the regular contest in the theatre. This actors' contest in 
 Athens is abundantly attested by the inscriptions. ^ 'Contests were insti- 
 tuted at other festivals outside of Athens in a similar manner.^ References 
 in literature to such contests are numerous. 4 
 
 1 This technical use of the word is admirably illustrated in Dem. De fals. leg. 
 246: rovTo rb Spdfjia (Phoenissae) oiiSeirdnroT'' oiire Qeddwpos oir' ' Apiarbd-rjixos inreKpL- 
 vavTO, .... Ai'Ti.y6vr]v di '2o(pOK\iovs iroWaKLS fx^p Qe68upos, TroXXd/ciS 5' ' ApicrrddTj/jMS 
 iiroK^KpiTai, Any actor, however, may be said to vwoKplveadai a given role {p-^pos or 
 irpixjUTTOv); cf. Alciphron Ep. iii. 35 Schepers [71]. 
 
 2 Dionysia: tragic actors' contest established in 450/49, cf. IG. II 971 b, col. iii 
 as restored by Capps; comic actors' contest, IG. 11 977 6' c', introduced probably 
 ca. 307 {Am. Jour. Arch. IV, 1900, p. 85); Lenaea: tragic actors' contest established 
 ca. 432, Reisch Zeitschr. oster. Gym., 1897, p. 306, IG. II 977 rs; comic actors' con- 
 test, IG. II 977 xi' (mid. iv cent.) and as early as the Pax (Korte Rhein. Mus. LII, 
 1897 pp. 172 ff.). See Wilhelm Urkunden dramat. Auffuhr. for the text of these 
 documents; the fragments are designated by his letters. 
 
 3 At Orchomenus, ii cent. B.C., IG. VII 3195 ff.; at Thespiae, iii cent. B.C., 
 ibid. 1760-62; at Oropus, i cent. B. c, ibid. 416-20; also at Samos, cf. Brinck Diss. 
 Halen. VII, no. loi, p. 211. 
 
 4 Schneider Alt. Theaterw., p. 146, cites a few cases; Plut. De Alex. fort. 334 e; 
 Vita Alex. 29; Quaest. cojiviv. ix. 757 b; schol. Aeschin. De fals. leg. 15; Athen. xiii. 
 584 d; Aristotle Eth. Nicom. iiii 6 24 (iii. 4); and other references are given by Miiller 
 Biiknenalt., p. 330. 
 
20 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 The above evidence is sufficient to show that the contest of actors was 
 common wherever dramatic performances were held, and secondly, that 
 such contests at Athens extended back to the middle of the fifth century. 
 The relatively late period at which the actors' contest was supposed to 
 have been introduced had long barred the way to a correct interpretation 
 of the passage. Rohde {loc. ciL, pp. 272 ff.) was the first to interpret the 
 passage correctly by recognizing the contest of protagonists as a part of 
 the dramatic contest. 
 
 In view of the information thus gained we may paraphrase the passage 
 in Hesychius as follows: The three competing poets received each one 
 protagonist assigned by lot. This protagonist acted in all the plays of 
 the poet to whom he was allotted. The actor who won the prize for act- 
 ing over his two competitors, was exempt the following year from the 
 preHminary test of actors who desired to be chosen by the archon as pro- 
 tagonists in the tragedies (and comedies) of that year.'' 
 
 The method described by the lexicographers is in accord with the 
 Athenian records of dramatic exhibitions in the latter half of the fifth 
 century, in which one and the same actor appeared in all the plays of a 
 poet. Thus Callippides^ acted the two tragedies of Callistratus ; the two 
 of his rival were acted by Lysicrates (IG. II 972, 418 b. c, Lenaea). The 
 formula in the didascalic records for tragedy is always: poet, plays, actor. 
 The system was modified before the middle of the fourth century, when 
 each actor appeared in one play of each of the three poets, e. g., Astydamas 
 exhibited three tragedies in 341 b. c. : his Achilles was acted by Thettalus, 
 his Athamas by Neoptolemus, and his Antigone by Athenodorus. The 
 tragedies of each of his competitors were performed by the same three 
 actors; see IG. II 973 (Dionysia). 
 
 J The exact nature of this preliminary test is not known. By some kind of a con- 
 test, however, the archon selected, from the large number of actors who had applied for 
 admission to play in the festival, as many protagonists as there were plays to be given. 
 These were assigned to the poets by lot. It is probable that the poets drew lots for 
 order of choice and then each poet selected his actor. The method of choosing the 
 other actors for each play is unknown. Probably each protagonist chose his troupe. 
 The "competitive test" at the Chytri, discontinued and then revived by Lycurgus 
 {Vit. X Oral. 841 fj, was very likely this preliminary test of the comic actors. The 
 victor was entered in the list of protagonists entitled to compete at the City Dionysia 
 (eis S.<iTV KaroKiyeadai) . 
 
 2 Wilhelm JJrk. pp. 52 f. Rohde's query whether it were possible to understand 
 rpih vTTOKpiTal to mean three protagonists which were allowed each poet is not to be 
 considered. It is against the inscriptional evidence according to which one protagonist 
 is allowed for a trilogy. Besides, it causes other difficulties. Which one acted the 
 sat)T-drama ? Did all nine of Rohde's protagonists compete for the victory ? The 
 lexicographers state explicitly "whichever one of the three actors won," etc. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 21 
 
 This method of assigning actors to poets by lot did not apparently 
 antedate the institution of the actors' contest 449 B.C.; cf. 6 vu<rj(ra<i.^ 
 This supposition is further justified by the statement of Ister that Sophocles 
 wrote plays for particular actors and by the tradition that certain actors 
 were permanently associated with Aeschylus. Furthermore, the passage 
 contains no reference to the assignment of comic actors, for in comedy 
 five poets competed and hence five actors, not three, except during the 
 Peloponnesian War. 
 
 What then does this gloss teach us with reference to the number of 
 actors assigned to each poet ? Merely that each tragic ^ poet was allotted 
 one protagonist. The passage has nothing to say in regard to the number 
 of actors allowed for the performance of a play; no reference is made to 
 the secondary actors, deuteragonist and tritagonist. We may add further 
 that our sole information on the manner of assigning actors to the poets 
 and the number of actors assigned to each is derived from this passage. 
 In other words, we know nothing about the assignment of other actors than 
 the protagonists; we have no evidence for a limitation of the number of 
 actors used for a play. The current conception that the state allowed 
 any special or Hmited number of performers to a poet is an assumption 
 based on no statement of the ancients, and is traceable to a misunder- 
 standing of this gloss in the lexicographers. 
 
 2. ARISTOTLE AND HORACE THE BASIS FOR THE AESTHETIC LAW 
 
 We may now pass to a more independent^ interpretation of Aristotle 
 Poet. iv. 1449a 11-14.4 In the preceding clause Aristotle has just spoken 
 of the origin of tragedy and comedy. Continuing he says: "Tragedy 
 
 1 At all events the passage is describing a system that existed after the institution 
 of the actors' contest and based upon such a contest. 
 
 2 Meier, followed by Rohde, p. 272, n. i, thinks that ol TrotrjTai refer to both 
 tragic and comic poets, and that the passage is applicable to the old comic contests in 
 which three poets, not yet five, competed; in this period, three protagonists would 
 have sufl&ced. But we now know (through A. Korte Rhein. Mus. LX [1905], p. 428, 
 cf. IG. XIV 1097 ff. and Aristotle Ath. Pol. 56. 3) that the normal number of com- 
 peting comic poets at the Dionysia was five, except for a time during the Peloponnesian 
 War, when the number was reduced to three (from 431-425 to 405-388; see Capps 
 in Class. Phil. I, p. 219, n. 5). 
 
 3 The passage in the lexicographers assvmied to mean that the state allowed each 
 poet three actors has, I think, been an important factor in the misinterpretation of 
 Aristotle; cf. Hermann De distrib., adn. i; Miiller Buhnenalt., p. 173, nn. i, 2. 
 
 4 Kal iroXKas /itera/SoXcts fiera^a^ovcra 17 Tpa'yipbia. iiraia'aTo, iTrel ecxf ttju avTrji 
 (piffiv, Kal t6 re tCov inroKptruv irXrjOos i^ €v6s ei'j dvo irpwros A^ffxt'Xos ijyaye Kal 
 rh ToO x°P°^ rfK\(iTTw<Te Kal rbv \6yov Trpurayoji/icrTriv TrapecTKeijacrev, rpeis di Kal 
 
22 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 advanced by slow degrees, each new element that showed itself was in 
 turn developed. Having passed through many changes, it found its 
 natural form and then stopped." The changes through which tragedy 
 passed are explained in the following words: "Aeschylus introduced a 
 second actor; he diminished the importance of the chorus and assigned 
 the leading part to the dialogue; Sophocles raised the number of actors 
 to three and added scene-painting" (Butcher), and with Sophocles tragedy 
 found its "natural form," and the development ceased. 
 
 We do not need to be reminded that Aristotle's information on the 
 Attic drama is drawn from the texts of plays extant in his own time, and 
 that the entire theoretic system of the Poetics is based on observations 
 taken directly from the plays. A recognition of this relationship is essen- 
 tial to a correct interpretation of the present passage. The tragic art had 
 developed out of its own inherent genius as an independent organism, not 
 circumscribed by limiting laws and doctrines, but following the feeling for 
 the beautiful and that aesthetic taste which strove for the appropriate, 
 the correct, and naturally the lawful. Purely technical prescriptive laws 
 played no part in this development, still less those conventions which 
 grew up gradually in the succeeding stages of tragedy to meet the practical 
 needs and conditions of the time. The application of tragic laws based on 
 philosophic-aesthetic speculation was out of the question. Only after a 
 rich and highly developed material was accumulated did philosophy enter 
 this field and make it an object of investigation. Thus Aristotle drew 
 tragedy into his all-comprehending system. From this material he shows 
 us the indwelling capacity, the genius, of tragedy. The canons of Aristotle 
 were not law-giving for the classical tragedians. 
 
 What, then, does Aristotle mean by the statement that tragedy found 
 
 ffKr)voypa4>la>' ^o<poK\7Js. Diogenes L. iii. 56, who depends upon Aristotle, says: Hiffirep 
 5^ t6 TraXaibv iv rfi rpayifsdlq. irpdrepov ix^v p.6vos 6 x°P^^ diedpafj.dTi^€v, iia-repov 5^ 
 Q^criTLS iva viroKpirrjv i^edpev xiirkp rov dLavairauecrdai rbv x°P^^-: '^"■^ devrepov Aiffx^^^os, 
 rbv 8i Tplrov 2o0o/c\^s, Koi ffvv€ir\T^po3<re tt)v rpaywdiav. It will be observed that 
 Thespis, who figures in the account of Diogenes, is conspicuously absent in Aristotle. 
 Aristotles' indefinite ij p-iv awb rtov i^apx^vrwv rbv Sidvpaix^ov seems to indicate that 
 he could name no particular leader of the dithyramb as the discoverer of the first 
 actor. Certain tragic poets of the one-actor period were doubtless knoviTi to the 
 philosopher, but dramatic poetry of this period had not taken on a literary form that 
 justified the mentioning of the names of any of its representatives. For Aristotle 
 the drama as a literary form began wdth the addition of the second actor. Of the period 
 antedating this innovation he had no definite information, or if he had it, he considered 
 it of no importance. Cf. Hiller Rhein. Mus. XXXIX (1884), pp. 322 ff. The Vita 
 and Suidas follow Aristotle regarding the introduction of the third actor. Themistius 
 Or. 26, p. 316 D., takes issue with Aristotle. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 23 
 
 its "natural form" with the introduction of a third actor by Sophocles and 
 that a fourth was not added ? Is there any hint that this limitation was 
 due to external or material causes ? Not the slightest. The situation is 
 this : Aristotle with the plays of Sophocles before him calls attention to the 
 fact that this supreme artist never allows more than three speaking charac- 
 ters upon the scene at one time. He is looking at the matter from the 
 aesthetic point of view, and as a spectator, not as one behind the scenes 
 who can describe the mechanism of the production. The genius of the 
 Greek mind and the material of tragedy were such that three speaking 
 persons on the same scene met the demands of the most perfect art. The 
 number of actors used in the production of a play did not concern Aristotle, 
 for that was merely an economic matter. The "natural form" of a play 
 bears no relation to the number of persons employed, but to the characters 
 introduced and more especially to the manner of their employment in the 
 scenes. The aesthetic law that there shall be present on the scene not more 
 than three speaking characters is not violated if a manager use four or five 
 actors, or even an actor for each role. 
 
 Horace Ars poetica 189, 190, nee quarta loqui persona laboret, is but f'*'J^' 
 an echo of Aristotle's aesthetic law. Both scholiasts' imply that Horace 
 is speaking of the number of persons that should take part in the dialogue 
 at one time, not the number of actors employed nor the number of characters 
 introduced in a play. 
 
 Diomedes 455 (Keil Gram. Lat. I, p. 491) quotes the words of Horace 
 in a connection which seems to show beyond all doubt the real significance 
 of the Horatian norm: in Graeca dramate fere tres personae solae agunt a ^ 
 ideoque Horatius ait: nee quarta loqui laboret, quia quarta semper muta. 
 at Latini scriptores complures personas in fabulas introduxerunt ut speci- 
 osiores frequentia facerent. Note the contrast between the paucity of 
 
 I Porphyrio's note reads thus: tres enim personae tragoediam itemque comoediam 
 peragunt; si tamen quarta interponitur non loqui debet, sed adnuere statimque dimitti, 
 j. e., when three persons are already engaged in the dialogue, a fourth should not 
 speak, but nod and at once take his leave. The word adnuere shows clearly, as it 
 seems to me, that only the number of persons present at once is thought of, not the 
 actors used for the performance. Aero has the same interpretation: quartam per- 
 sonam quando inducimus aut omnino non loqui debet aut pauca. non dixit, taceat, 
 sed non laboret loquendo, quo opertior fit dictio. inducitur autem quarta persona aut 
 ut annuat aut ut ei aliquid imperetur. Horace's laboret is almost equal to debet, which 
 shows that Horace was referring to the impropriety of a fourth actor speaking when 
 three are already present; he is writing as a literary and dramatic critic. It is a viola- 
 tion of one of the artistic laws of dramatic art to admit a fourth speaking person to 
 the scene. Wickham ad 191 explicitly says that Horace is referring to the number 
 present at once, not to the number of actors employed. 
 
24 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 speaking persons in the Greek drama and the Roman preference for a 
 crowd upon the stage. The tres personae of the Greek is set over against 
 the complures personas of the Roman, and the nee quarta loqui persona 
 laboret with the explanatory quia-clause suggests a further contrast, which 
 he adds in the words ut speciosiores frequentia facerent. On the basis of 
 this comparison there are ^Aree possible interpretations of Horace: (i) Is 
 the number of characters introduced in a Greek play contrasted with the 
 number in a Roman ? Obviously not, for the fact is that Greek plays 
 have a larger number of dramatis personae than the Roman. An examina- 
 tion of Aristophanes' plays will show that he employs an average of fifteen 
 characters to a play,^ while in Plautus and Terence the average is twelve 
 or thirteen. (2) Is the number of actors employed to produce a play the 
 point of contrast ? No, for this does not affect the audience. The very 
 purpose of the complures personae in a Roman play, according to the old 
 grammarian, was to make a display before the spectators. A poet might 
 use a dozen actors in a performance, an actor for each character, but if 
 only two or three of these characters appear in the same scene, the stage 
 effect would be the same as if two or three actors were employed for all 
 parts. (3) Is the reference to the number of speaking persons present at 
 one time on the scene ? This interpretation alone brings out the main 
 point of contrast. In speciosiores frequentia we have the clew to the 
 meaning, which has to do only with the number of persons present at once. 
 The plays of Plautus^ and Terence present many scenes in which five 
 speaking persons engage in the dialogue at once.^ 
 
 1 The Birds has twenty characters in the cast, the Acharnians eighteen, exclusive 
 of the chorus. 
 
 2 The Stichus is perhaps the only play of Plautus which can really be played by 
 three actors; cf. Leo Gott. Nachr. 1902, p. 391. 
 
 3 Five actors are regarded as the normal number for the production of Roman 
 dramas; cf. Bergk. Griech. Litt. Gesch. Ill, p. 86, Fr. Schmidt Ueber d. Schausp. bei 
 Plautus u. Terence u. d. Verteilung d. Rollen unter dieselben, Erlangen, 1870. Seneca, 
 on the other hand, follows the Aristotelian and Horatian norm except in one instance, in 
 Act V of the Agamemnon, where Agamemnon, Electra, Clytaemestra, and Cassandra are 
 simultaneously on the scene and take active part in the dialogue. Though the fourth 
 person as a rule is silent, many of Seneca's plays require four actors for production: 
 cf. Hercules 895-1054: Hercules, Amphitryo, Megara, Theseus (mute); choral ode 
 1055-1137 through which Amphitryo and Theseus remain as mutes. In 1138-1344 
 are present Amphitryo, Theseus, and Hercules. In this scene Theseus is a speaking 
 character, but is the same actor that appeared in the preceding scene as a mute, for he 
 did not leave the scene during the ode. The Troades also demands four actors: 409- 
 523, Andromache, the Old Man, Astyanax are present; Ulysses enters v. 525. The 
 Old Man and Astyanax are silent during the remainder of the scene. A fourth actor is 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 2$ 
 
 Horace, therefore, according to the interpretation put upon his rule by 
 the scholiasts, Porphyrio and Aero, and the grammarian Diomedes, was 
 referring to the number of characters that should appear at once, not to 
 the number of actors employed in the production. 
 
 There are artistic reasons for excluding a large number of persons 
 from taking part in the dialogue at once.' A large crowd of speaking 
 characters on a scene is confusing and is apt to divert the mind of the 
 spectator from the central idea. Those who have attended performances 
 of the more involved plays of Shakespeare will appreciate the advantage 
 of a small cast. It is exceedingly difficult for one not already familiar with 
 the characters and plot to follow accurately the details, or even to keep 
 track of the more important characters. The introduction upon the scene 
 of lords, dukes, officers, courtiers, gentlemen, etc., and the characters of the 
 subplot, and the rapid entrances and exits of these characters, is confusing 
 in the highest degree, and it requires no little concentration to keep one's 
 attention fastened on the more essential aspects of the drama. The play is 
 often well under way before we are able to recognize the leading characters 
 by sight. Shakespeare's art was complex. There was a leading plot, a 
 subplot, and other accessories which are closely related to the central 
 theme, and which may cause confusion at first. The modern stage in 
 general is fond of a lively action. Something must be taking place every 
 moment. With the modern Hking for stage-business as illustrated in the 
 plays of Shakespeare the comparative inactivity of the persons in the Greek 
 drama stands out in bold contrast. Characters do not, as a rule, come 
 and go in rapid and successive scenes, nor are they revealed in many 
 different situations, and thus quick shifts of scenery are avoided. In 
 general the action is slow and concentrated. Three speaking persons may 
 be on in the same scene, but usually the third remains inactive while the 
 conversation between the other two progresses. A fourth speaking char- 
 acter, also, may be present, but observes silence throughout the scene. 
 The extreme simpUcity of the two- or three-actor dialogue and the length 
 of each scene would certainly enable the spectator to rivet his entire atten- 
 
 necessary to present the Oedipus: 1-157, Oedipus and Creon speak; 288-402, Tire- 
 sias, Oedipus, Manto, Creon (mute). Seneca's tragedies throw considerable light on 
 the interpretation of the law. In the two cases cited above, four actors were present 
 at once, but only three took part. 
 
 I Schneider Alt. Theaterw., p. 134: "Mehr als drei Hauptrollen wiirden die Hand- 
 limg nur verwirren, so wie mehr als drei mit einander in einer Scene Sprechende, 
 was Horat. art. poet. 192 ausdriickt, etc." It is the number of characters introduced, 
 and the number that appear at once, that causes the confusion. The number of 
 actors employed does not affect the matter (cf. supra, p. 23). 
 
26 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 tion upon the words of the character and the evolution of the single plot. 
 For this reason the simple dialogue, from the ancient point of view, had 
 an artistic advantage. On the Greek stage the action was simple, not 
 complex. About one central theme the action progressed in a succession 
 of scenes. The introduction of extra speaking characters to add natural- 
 ness to the situation or for stage effect was unknown to the Greek drama, 
 and would have been considered highly impertinent. The simplicity of the 
 Greek drama made it unnecessary for more than three to speak in the same 
 scene; a fourth person would have been superfluous, and would have had 
 a tendency to divide the attention of the audience. It was from this 
 standpoint, the standpoint of dramatic propriety, that Aristotle and Horace 
 were treating the Greek drama. 
 
 The number of performers used in the production of a play depended 
 solely upon economic conditions. If a poet introduces thirteen characters 
 in his play, the only reason why he would not employ the same number of 
 actors would be either the lack of funds or the paucity of actors. But the 
 poet, observes Aristotle, does not allow more than three of these characters 
 to appear at once. The trouble occasioned by the application of the three- 
 actor rule is due to the fact that commentators have confused an artistic 
 principle with an economic matter. 
 
 3. WOULD THE "law" HAVE BEEN A NATURAL OUTGROV^TH OF THE 
 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE DRAMA DEVELOPED ? 
 
 Tragedy according to Aristotle developed from the leaders of dithy- 
 rambic choruses. These leaders were, of course, the dithjTambic poets. 
 The manner of the development in detail Aristotle passes over in silence. 
 He may have conceived the process to be somewhat as follows: The task 
 of training and developing the chorus must have devolved upon the poet 
 alone; he had to teach them the songs and dances. The only possible 
 means by which he could instruct them in the rendering of the odes was 
 to stand out and sing before them in the manner of the modern singing- 
 master. After a long period of drill and rehearsal in this manner the poet 
 might naturally be thought as performing the function of the poet-actor in 
 the production of the play. "The leader of the dithyramb" of Aristotle 
 corresponds to the "some one" of Pollux,^ the person who mounted a 
 table and answered to the chorus, and, in a somewhat developed form, to 
 Thespis. 
 
 I iv. 123: Tpdire^a dpxa-la i<p'' fjv 7rp6 G^ffTrtSos eh tis dva^as rots x"/'*'^'''*'^ 
 dirfKplvaTo. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 27 
 
 Thespis was the particular person to whom late antiquity' attributed 
 the introduction of the first actor. He gave the first dramatic performance 
 at Athens 534 b. c. Thespis, too, was poet-actor.^ The exact nature of 
 tragic performances in the one-actor period is not clear. It is clear, 
 however, that such performances were almost entirely lyrical rather than 
 dramatic. The part played by the actor was not important. At the con- 
 clusion of the first ode the actor in answer to the questions of the chorus 
 would relate some adventure or incident in the life of the hero of the story, 
 probably Dionysus. The narrative of this person, who may have imper- 
 sonated Dionysus, Pentheus, or Lycurgus, gave the chorus a pretext for 
 expressing their emotions in the ode that was to follow. During the execu- 
 tion of the ode the actor would remain upon the scene, or retire to his dis- 
 tant booth. 3 In either event he would come forth again at the conclusion 
 of the ode to relate some other adventure in the career of the person about 
 whom the action of the play centered. This process continued throughout 
 the drama: The stasima were interrupted by short episodes between the 
 actor and chorus. The function of the actor-role was therefore merely 
 subsidiary. There was no development or portrayal of character. The 
 actor only answered the questions of the coryphaeus. ^ The relation of 
 the actor to person whose makeup he wore was not close. He was nothing 
 more than an instrument, or utility person, to subserve the chorus in which 
 the main action of the play lay. Such was the crude state of tragedy 
 before the time of Aeschylus. 
 
 The drama made rapid progress in the hands of Aeschylus. He intro- 
 duced the second actor, lessened the importance of the chorus, and made 
 the dialogue the chief part.s Sophocles finally introduced the third actor 
 
 I Cf. Hiller op. cit., pp. 322 ff. Thespis was not regarded as the inventor of 
 tragedy until after the time of Aristotle; see also supra, p. 21, n. 4. 
 
 = Cf. Aris. Rhet. iii. I, p. 1403 6.' inrOKpivovTO yap avTolris rpayipdlas ol TroiTjral rb 
 
 TrpUTOV. 
 
 3 I have avoided raising the question discussed by Bethe Prolegomena, pp. 27 ff., 
 whether the actor came out of the chorus, or was an addition from without, since it 
 does not vitally concern my argument. However, I might say that the development of 
 tragedy from the dith)Tamb can be more easily and naturally explained by the former 
 theory. Bethe's arguments in no way, I think, invalidate Aristotle's plain statement 
 as to the origin of tragedy. 
 
 4 The coryphaeus, I assume, remained in the chorus, and spoke for the chorus in 
 the dialogue with the actor. He is not to be identified with the poet. 
 
 s According to Beer, p. 5, Hermann, p. 15, the poet remained in the chorus as 
 leader in the one-actor period, and the chorus was "protagonist," while the one actor 
 was a "parachoregematic" addition, or deuteragonist. Aeschylus, however, took the 
 poet from the position of chorus leader and made him protagonist. The Thespian 
 actor would thus remain deuteragonist. 
 
28 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 (between 467 and 458), the "numerus Justus," and it was in the subsequent 
 period that dramatic art reached its most perfect form. The history of the 
 development of tragedy at Athens may be divided into three periods: (i) 
 the so-called one-actor period from 534 b. c, the date of Thespis' first 
 appearance; (2) the two-actor period from ca. 500 B.C.;' (3) the three- 
 actor period from ca. 465 b. c. on through to the full development of the 
 drama in Sophocles and Euripides. 
 
 During the first period, before the drama became a state institution, it 
 depended solely upon the patronage of private individuals and the volun- 
 teer performers, and therefore rested upon an economical basis com- 
 parable to that of the traveling companies in the period of the technitae. 
 Thespis was the manager of his company. Tragedy was not yet sub- 
 sidized by the state, and a liberal patronage of the rich was probably 
 uncertain. The lack of constant and reliable financial backing played an 
 important part in the elaboration with which plays were presented. From 
 an economic standpoint, therefore, it would not have been unnatural if 
 one actor had been used for many roles. Furthermore, the extent of the 
 chorus' role, the relatively insignificant parts of the actor, and the similar 
 character of the different roles (if more than one) would have facilitated 
 such an arrangement. The sole actor remained on the scene during the 
 episodes, and if he was to reappear in the following scene in a different 
 role, ample opportunity for withdrawal and for change of dress was given 
 at the stasima.^ The largely predominant lyrical element made the 
 actor's role very slight. The combined parts most probably did not 
 exceed two hundred verses, by no means too great a burden for one 
 actor. However, it is probable that in the one-actor period the actor 
 carried only one role, certainly not more than two. This statement is 
 in a measure justified by facts gained from the earliest plays of Aeschylus. 
 The Suppliants, for instance, has a cast of only three characters, to 
 whom Aeschylus gave a total of 420 vv., an average of 140 vv. to 
 the character, 210 verses for each actor, assuming that Aeschylus used 
 only two actors. The chorus' part reaches 647 vv. The Persians has 
 
 ' At this stage true dramatic action became possible and tragedy assumed an 
 artistic form that aroused public interest and won the recognition of the state. L= it 
 not then probable that this innovation was synchronous with the institution of the cho- 
 regic system, i. e., 502 /i B. c, according to Capps Introd. 0} Com., pp. 27 ff; 505/4- 
 502/1 according to Wilhelm Urk., pp. 11-14? 
 
 2 See Dignan Idle Actor in Aeschylus, pp. 12 ff. The actor stayed on the scene unless 
 the poet introduced a motive (sometimes an awkward thing to do) for his retiring to 
 the dressing-booth, which was not yet so conveniently located as it was when the back- 
 scene was introduced. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 29 
 
 a cast of four, the Septem also four, leaving out the interpolated part at the 
 end. In the Septem each actor may have played two roles with a total of 234 
 w. If Aeschylus, who first made the dialogue the chief part, could em;~loy 
 only three or four characters, by what process of reasoning do we conclude 
 that Thespis with one actor introduced a large number of characters? 
 Dramatic action began with the two-actor scene. In the one-actor scene 
 there was essentially no action. Characters could not be shown in relation 
 to one another, and consequently there was no occasion for the introduc- 
 tion of more than one character. Be this as it may, the extent of the chorus' 
 part in the Thespian period was far greater than in Aeschylus, and the 
 part or parts which fall to the actor was very slight. One actor would 
 have sufficed in either case. 
 
 The whole status of the drama was changed in the second and third 
 periods, after the institution of the choregia. The liberal patronage of the 
 state gradually freed the poets from all concern about financial matters, 
 and thus made it possible for them to pursue their own ideals of dramatic 
 art, to work out problems of presentation, arrangement of plot, scenery, 
 and other difficulties which every new form of art must meet in the course 
 of its development. The drama enjoyed a free growth, "each new element 
 that revealed itself was in turn developed." The poets were masters of 
 their own art and of all questions pertaining to it, and were the source of 
 all innovations; while the provisions made by the state were adjusted to 
 their needs. The statuesque aspect of Aeschylean characters, their long 
 and formal speeches, the exclusion of a third or fourth speaker from the 
 scene, were in no way due to limitations imposed by the state through the 
 choregic system, but to the technique^ of Aeschylus, his inability to throw 
 off entirely the conventional mold of tragedy. In his earliest plays Aeschy- 
 lus experienced great difficulty in keeping two actors employed, and only 
 in the latter part of his career did he learn the art of employing three actors 
 at once, and even then from his younger contemporary, Sophocles. 
 
 Sophocles was the first to see the dramatic possibility of the three-actor 
 scene, and he alone was able to handle it with facility and skill. In the 
 famous scene in the Agamemnon, when Agamemnon makes his triumphal 
 
 1 Maurice Croiset "Le second acteur chez Eschyle," Mem. Acad, des Inscr. X, 
 pp. 193 ff., observes that the part of the second actor was still undeveloped in the 
 early plays of Aeschylus. He found difficulty in keeping two actors busy; even the 
 two-actor dialogue was not yet perfected. 
 
 2 Richter Dramaturgie des Aeschylus, p. 122, says, in reference to the last scene 
 in the Suppliants, that if Aeschylus had had three actors he would have made Danaus 
 enter with the king, forgetting (Dignan, p. 15) that in this scene the poet is unable to 
 keep two actors busy. 
 
30 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 entry in the chariot, Cassandra is left idle during Agamemnon's speech, in 
 the scene with Clytaemestra, and in the following stasimon, i. e., through 
 290 vss. (cf. Dignan, op. ciL, p. 26). The long scene in the Orestes between 
 Electra and Pylades will show Euripides' inabiUty to use three actors 
 successfully. From 1018 to 1069 Orestes and Electra engage in the dia- 
 logue, but Pylades, though present, does not interpose a word. Then 
 from 1069 to 1 177 there is a conversation between Orestes and Pylades, 
 while Electra is silent. A second dialogue follows between Orestes and 
 Electra (1177-1209), and Pyfedes is silent.' Neither Aeschylus nor 
 Euripides, therefore, could easily manage three actors at a time. Sophocles 
 was more successful, and yet he would not have attempted to bring on a 
 fourth or fifth, though he may have done it so far as we know; the state 
 treasury was at his disposal. The three-actor scene was the ideal, according 
 to Aristotle, who observed that scenes involving four or more actors were 
 rare. To this ideal alone must the Hmitation be attributed. 
 
 The development of the tragic art was one of natural evolution. Aes- 
 chylus' two-actor period does not necessarily mean that he employed only 
 two actors for the performance of a play, but that only two characters 
 appeared at a time. He may have used only two for the early plays, for 
 the characters are formal, and the roles few in number. Assuming two 
 actors for his early period, in the Supplices one actor plays a single role, 
 the other, two roles; while in the Persians and Septem each actor plays 
 two roles. This would be open to no serious objection. 
 
 The third actor, likewise, has nothing to do with the number of actors 
 used for a play, but merely to the number present at once. The increase 
 in the number of characters in the fully developed plays of this period, 
 the introduction of many different types — guards, messengers, princesses, 
 old men, pedagogues, kings, queens, heralds, etc., — the subtle and sharp 
 delineation of individual characters, and the requirements of a refined 
 Athenian audience, would have made it imperative to increase the number 
 of actors proportionately. Two actors may have sufl&ced at an earlier 
 time for three or four characters who indulge in formal speeches of highly 
 wrought poetry at a time when the lyrical parts constituted more than half 
 the play, but three actors would have been quite insufficient for the eight 
 or ten characters of individual types in plays where the chorus' part is 
 comparatively small. The main interest ceased to reside in the lyrics and 
 
 I Navarre Dionysos, p. 220: "A proprement parler, il n'y a presque jamais dans 
 le theatre grec de dialogues a trois, mais une serie de dialogues a deux, ou I'un des 
 interlocuteurs est remplace de temps a autre." This is especially applicable to Euri- 
 pides. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 3 1 
 
 speeches. These were supplanted by acting and the portrayal of char- 
 acter. The drama had developed from a crude lyrical representation to a 
 highly wrought dramatic form of art. The manner of production, we should 
 like to believe, progressed and improved as the drama became more perfect. 
 Do we find in tracing the development of tragedy any cause or source 
 from which a restriction of the number of actors used in the performance 
 of a play could logically have arisen ? There existed no such cause. A 
 strict limitation would not have been a natural outgrowth of the choregic 
 system, the very purpose of which was to make adequate provision for 
 dramatic exhibitions. 
 
 4. EVIDENCE BASED ON THE TERMS PROTAGONIST, DEUTERAGONIST, AND 
 
 TRITAGONIST 
 
 The use of the terms "protagonist," "deuteragonist," and "tritagonist" 
 and the absence of the appropriate term for a fourth actor, "tetragonist," 
 have seemed to many to signify that a fourth performer was never used 
 in the presentation of a Greek play. In view of the general misunder- 
 standing of the "law" it is not strange that the non-occurrence of such a 
 term should have been taken as corroborative evidence and thus should 
 have led to this conclusion. The facts, however, as to the usage of the 
 terms will show that no inference relative to the number of actors actually 
 used may be drawn from the lack of the words "tetragonist" and "pen- 
 tagonist." 
 
 The words "protagonist," "deuteragonist," and "tritagonist," as 
 titles by which the three actors who spoke all the roles of a play are desig- 
 nated, are late in origin, and even in the late period are conspicuously rare. 
 The earliest occurrence of "protagonist" is figurative — the well-known 
 passage of the Poetics (iv. 1449 a 16), where Aristotle enumerates the inno- 
 vations wrought in tragedy by Aeschylus.^ Demosthenes does not use the 
 word.^ It occurs in no inscription or official record; in these the leading 
 actor of a company is referred to always as wok/ditt;? or as Koj/MotSos or 
 Tpaya»8os.3 The leading actor was not designated in classical times by 
 
 1 ijKd.TT(j}(Te TO. Tov xopoO Kal rbv XSyov irpwrayuviffriji' irapeaKevaaev. In Pol. 
 1338 a 30 (v [viii]. 4. 5) he again uses the word in a metaphorical sense: wcrre t6 Ka\6v, 
 dXX' ov rb dr/pifdes, dec irpwrayuviffTeTv. The figure is not necessarily derived from 
 acting, as will be shown below. 
 
 2 But, of course, since he uses " tritagonist" of an actor, he might have so used 
 " protagonist." 
 
 3 .\ristotle Pol. 13366 29 (iv[vii]. 17. 13) speaks of Theodorus, not as Trpwraycj- 
 vKfT-qi, but as vwoKpiT^s rijs rpayifidlas; IG. II gTi d and g (Wilhelm Urk., pp. 23, 
 28), 7rape5/5a^ai/ ol Tpay(p8ol and Kwnifidol. In the didascaliae viroKpLveffdai and the 
 noun are always used. 
 
32 
 
 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 "protagonist" either in inscriptions or in literature. Not until we come to 
 Plutarch do we find "protagonist" with the connotation usually attributed 
 to it.^ Lucian^ in a comparison uses the term with reference to the 
 " leading character" in a calumny, as in a comedy. Pollux, 3 Plotinus^ and 
 schol. Eur. Phoen. 935 use the word unequivocally of the leading actor 
 in a dramatic action. 
 
 The "protagonist" was the principal contestant, the champion, the 
 leader, the bearer of the principal role, in any kind of action in which a 
 contest or struggle of any sort was involved. The six passages above quoted, 
 all of a late period, are the only instances I have found in which the noun 
 means the "leading contestant in a play," the first actor, and the verb "to 
 bear the leading role" in a play, and in each of these the reference to the 
 drama is made clear by an explicit phrase or term of comparison.^ It is 
 perfectly possible, and indeed, as will appear later on, probable, that the 
 word has come into the field of the drama as a term distinctly felt to be 
 figurative, as it clearly is in the two passages in Aristotle where it first occurs 
 and in other passages of like nature. ^ The literal and doubtless the original 
 
 1 Mor. 816 /.• droirov ydp icrri rbv fi^v iv rpay<fidicf. ■rrpwTa'yuivi<TT-{)v, Oebdwpov rj 
 IIwXoj' 6vTa, fuadwTip rt^ ra rplra \iyovTi TroXXd/ciS 'iw&rdaL Kal TrpoffdLoK&yeffdaL 
 rairecvus, &v iKetvos €XV '''^ diddrjfia Kal ffKrjiTTpov. Here protagonist is the "star." 
 In Lysand. 446 d, the actor who plays the part of a servant or messenger is said to 
 win all the praise and to be the "protagonist" (TrpuiTayuvKTreiv) — the "star" r61e 
 again — while the impersonator of the king is not even listened to when he speaks. 
 
 2 De calum. 7: irpCJTov ixkv 5^, ei doKei, ■wa.paydyujp.ev rbv irpcoTayuviffTTji' toO 
 dpdfxaTos, 
 
 3 iv. 124: v fieffT) ij.kv ^a<rL\eiov ij cnn^Xaiov ^ oJkos evdoKos fj wav tov TrpurayojvKrTov 
 ToO bpdiiaTos, i] 8i Se^id tov SevTepayujvKTrovvTos Karayibyiov • i] 5^ dpiaTepd rb evTeKicna.- 
 Tov ex« irpdcrioirov. According to this, Creon, being a third role, could not enter from 
 his palace, else every king in a play whose back-scene is a palace must be a fixst- 
 class part, i. e., of the protagonist. Pollux cannot be referring to the classical period, 
 but possibly to the production of plays in the post-classical period. 
 
 4iii. 2, p. 484 Creuz. (quoted by A. Miiller, p. 180, n. 4): wa-irep iv dpd/xacn rd 
 » fi^v rdrrei avrbs 6 Trotijriys, toTs Si xPV''''^^ oiicnv ijdTj ■ oi ydp avrbi TrpuTaycjviffTTji' ov8i 
 beiJTepov oiiSi rplrov iroiei, dWd didoiis eKacxTip roiis Trpo(rrjKovTa$ \6yov$, ktX. 
 
 5 Tavra p,rjx<i-vd(Tdal (pacri rbv ^vpnridriv 'iva Tbv irpuiTayo}vi(TTT)v dirb tov ttjs 
 'loKdffTTjs irpocrdiirov fieraffKevdcrri, 
 
 6 Plutarch, 6 iv Tpaycpdlg^ Trpwr 0701 wot 175 and 0^01' iv Tpayipdlai^; Lucian, KaOdvep iv 
 Tots KUfjLipdiais and 6 wpcoTayuvKrTTjs tov dpdftaTOi (the slanderer is, as it were, the 
 leading actor, the slandered is second, the hearer of the slander third, see below, p. 37, 
 n. i); Pollux is speaking of the theatre, and schol. Eur. Phoen. of the drama; Plotinus, 
 ihffTrep iv dpdnaffi, 
 
 7 ApoUon. Lex. Horn. s. viroKplvaiTO • wpuTayuvKXTOvvros rod x°P°^l [Plut.] De 
 mus. ii4i<f, irpwTaywvLffTovcrrjs d-rjXovbTi ttjs iroi-fiaeus, i. e., in comparison with the 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA -^V i: 33 
 
 meaning, "first or foremost contestant" in a battle, or a struggle compared 
 to a battle ("champion"), is common enough in later writers, but seems not 
 to occur early. ^ The word is found also in the judicial sphere, but again 
 only in late writers. ^ In all the instances of the occurrence of "protagonist" 
 (and the same holds true of "deuteragonist," "tritagonist," and "hysterago- 
 nist"3), the emphasis is always felt to be on the rank (first in importance) or 
 position (first in order) of the person, rather than upon the relative grade or 
 merit of the person's performance. 
 
 The investigation of the word " deuteragonist " produces a surprising 
 result. Only two passages can be cited where it is absolutely certain that 
 the term means the second actor of a play, let alone "actor of second parts." 
 In the sole passage in which the word occurs in the fourth or third century 
 (it does not occur before this time at all), viz., Dem. De jals. leg. 10: (Aes- 
 chines) koX c^wv ''l(r-)(avhpov Tov NeoTTToAcjiiov SeuTepaytovicrT^v -rrpocTLdiv, ktX., 
 its significance is doubtful. However, the more natural interpretation 
 and the one that seems to be required by the context is to understand 
 it to mean the one who as orator seconds another in speech, 4 i.e.," Aeschines 
 it is who, having Ischander, Neoptolemus' son (as orator) to 'play second 
 fiddle' to him, to assist in forwarding his designs, applied himself to the 
 
 music; Plut. Mor. ^^2 d, fiia dperT] irpdjTayuvicrTet irpd^eus eKdffTtjs; Clearchus apud 
 Ath. 2576, iirrjpeffias TrptorayuviffT-^s. Suidas' statement about Chionides, Trpcorayu- 
 viar^p TTJs dpxalas KufiipSlas, i. e., " leading representative " in the sense of first repre- 
 sentative, is an easy step; cf. the judicial use of the word below. We need not change, 
 with Wilamowitz Gott. gel. Anz., 1906, p. 620, to irpwrov dyojvKTTi^v, nor with Schenkl 
 to TrpoaywviffT-^v. 
 
 1 E. g., Etym. Mag., p. 612, 51, p.erd ■n-pop.dx<^v dapicrrvv ■ dvrl tov iv ry irposra- 
 ywviffTwv ofiiXlq.; Maccab. ii. 15, 30, irpwr ay uvKrral virip rwv ttoKitQiv; Greg. Nyss., 
 p. 137 D., 6 yevvaloi rrj^ dXrjOelas irpurayupicrTTfis, etc. 
 
 2 The scholiast to Dem. Lept., p. 455. 8 Dind., referring to the fact that the 
 oration was a devrepoXoyla, and contrasting the position of those \ayxo.v6vTtj3v tov \iyeiv 
 Tr)v irpwTTjv x'^po-", adds that the first oration against Aristogeiton was also a devTfpo- 
 \oyia, TrpwTayu}vi(TTovvTos tov XvKoipyov (cf. Hyp., 6 AvKovpyos Ute -irpdrepos X^ywv). 
 It seems clear, in spite of the argument of Schenkl Herm. XLII (1907), p. 334, that the 
 order of the speakers is the chief idea here in the figure. But ibid., p. 467. 14, raiTT^v 
 Si p.bv7tv xaXeiTTjv koL dvTa.y(i)vi^op.4vr)v exei (sc. dvTLdecnv). diSirep oiiK iOdppijffev avTrju 
 TrpwTayuvKTTOvaav deivai, and schol. Dem., p. 256. 27 Dind., TrpwTayuvKxrQs dadyerai 
 (to. KecpdXaia), the importance of the action itself is emphasized. See below, p. 30, n. 3. 
 
 3 Referred to in the Thesaurus and in Liddell & Scott under devrepdycjviffTris, but 
 not given 5. v. Cf., however, v<rTepo\6yos, TrpwTo\6yos. 
 
 4 In this sense the scholiast also interprets the passage: irapix^Tai /xiv tois 
 Mffx^vov \byoLS 17 fiapTvpla- ovk dir-^WaKTai Si Kal (TKdsntiaTos. inroKpLT7]v ydp €xci 
 rbv ffvvayu)vi^6fj.€vov, i. e., Ischander, an actor, is a ffvvayojvijT-ris in another capacity. 
 But for o-vvayuviffTT^s in its technical sense, cf. infra, p. 35. So Pabst interprets the 
 
34 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 council and the people, and persuaded you, etc." The other interpreta- 
 tion,^ viz., "having Ischander, the deuteragonist of Neoptolemus' com- 
 pany," would be almost pointless in this connection. The word is quite 
 rare. Lucian^ and Suidas employ it in a metaphorical sense. In a cor- 
 rupt scholium^ to Demosthenes and in the passage of Pollux quoted above 
 (p. 32, n. 3) it means the second actor of a troupe. The definition given 
 by Hesychius4 does not indicate the sphere of the word. 
 
 "Tritagonist" occurs often, but is a term apparently invented by 
 Demosthenes, was applied only to Aeschines,^ and was never in any period [ 
 a recognized title. The word is never mentioned in late writers except with 
 direct reference to Aeschines, or in such a way that it is clearly but a remi- 
 niscence of Demosthenes' use of it.^ 
 
 word metaphorically, translating: "indem er dem Ischander dem Sohne des Neop. 
 die zweite Rolle bei seinem Umtreiben iibertrug;" Heslops: "who having Ischander 
 the son of Neoptolemus to play second part to him;" Taylor: "the ser\-ant or assistant 
 of Neoptolemus;" "quasi secundas partes negotii suscepti tractantem," Thesaurus. 
 
 1 Schafer Demos, u. seine Zeit 1^, p. 247 and Volker Diss. Halen., IV, p. 200, 
 favor this interpretation, which Kirchner Pros. Alt. adopts. Dobree: "Ischander of 
 Neoptolemus' company." 
 
 2 Peregr. 36: Kal fidXicrTa 6 yevvddas 6 Ik HaTpQv, 8g.Sa exwy, oii (pav\os devrepa- 
 "ywvKTTTjs; Suid. v. ' A^poydffT-rjs : ' A^poydcrrTis ^pdyyos, 5s Kara dXKTjv ffiofiaros Ka \ 
 ffvfioO rpax^TtfTa (f>\oyoei.dT]s ^v, SevrepayuvicrTTjs rvyxdvuv 'Bavduvos. Here we should 
 correct to read SevrepayuvKXTov, "finding in Baudon (i. e., Bauto) a helper; " cf. Cic. 
 Brut. 69. 242 : Q. Arrius, qui fuit M. Crassi quasi secundarius. 
 
 3 Schol. Dem. De pace 58. 6: viroKpird^ eKdXovf oi dpxaToi rods vvv Tpaytpdoiis 
 "Keyo/JL^vovs, toi)j TroiTjTds, oroj' rbv ^vptirLdriv Kal ApKTTocpdvrjv, roi/s de vvp vwoKpiTds 
 (oSroi 5^ ijffav Svo) rbv fikv SevTepaycovLarriv, rbv 5^ TpirayuvicrTriv, avroiii S^ roi/s Troirjraj 
 rQv dpapLdTuv rpaytfidovs /cat Tpay(iidodida<TKdXovs. 
 
 4 5euTe/)a7aii't(rTT7s, devrepos dywvi^dfjLevos. Notice that Hesychius does not say rd 
 Se&repa dyuvi^b/jievoi. 
 
 5 Except in schol. Dem. De pace quoted in n. 3. Observe that in Pollux (p. 32, 
 n. 3) the left door is said to belong to "the cheapest character." 
 
 6 Demos. De corona 267: koI KaKbv /ca/ccDs <re oi Oeol diroXicreiav, irovijpbv 6vTa 
 Kal ttoXItijv Kal TpiTaydiviaT-^v ; ibid. 265: irpiTayuviffTeTs, iyw S' idewpovv; ibid 262: 
 ^ifivX(jp Kal 'SiWKpdrei iTpirayuvltrTeis ; ibid. 129: rbv KoXbv dvSpcdvTa Kal TpiTayuvurrTjv 
 &Kpov ii,idpe^4 <re. Cf. also De fals. leg. 247, De corona 180. Vit. X. oral. 840 a 
 quotes Demosthenes as saying of Aeschines: Kal TpiTayuvicrTwv ' KpiaroS-fifit^ ii> roTs 
 AiovvffLois Ster^Xet. It should be observed that wherever Aeschines is spoken of as 
 "tritagonist" to anyone, it is with reference to performances in the country. Bekker 
 Anec. Gr., p. 309 . 32, TpiTaywvL(TT-f)% ; 6 Ai<rx^'''7S. dSoKt/iiiraros Tdv viroKpnCbv iv ry oS 
 TpiT-Q T(i|et KaTapid/jLovfievoi. These passages seem to show that the term "tritagonist" 
 
 was inseparably connected and associated with the name of Aeschines, which would 
 not be the case if tritagonist was the term commonly used of an actor who spoke "the 
 third parts of a play." Suidas s. So</>o/cX^s: oCtos irpdros rpta-iv ixp'^a-aro inroKpirals 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 35 
 
 How then did these terms come to be applied to actors ? A plausible 
 explanation and the one most consistent with other evidence is as follows: 
 The principal actors, i. e., those that competed, began to be called dytovio-Tat 
 soon after the introduction of the actors' contest in 449, a term borrowed 
 from athletic contests. In that case o-waywno-Tat would be the appro- 
 priate designation for those secondary actors who were the assistants of 
 the aywvL(rTrj<i, but did not themselves contest for the prize. In the course 
 of time dywvto-Tat came to be a general term for all actors.^ The talent 
 and capabihty of the different dycovio-rat varied with individuals and so 
 led to their classification according to the relative histrionic ability of each. 
 The words "protagonist," "deuteragonist," " tritagonist" were formed, 
 therefore, as a means of differentiating the classes or grades of actors. 
 The leading actor, the "star," was protagonist, an actor of the first grade. ^ 
 He played, of course, the first part, and in the period of the technitae other 
 parts in addition to the first. The deuteragonist was an actor of the second 
 class. He played the second part, and in the three-actor period such other 
 parts as the case required. The tritagonist, a third-class actor, played the 
 least important role or roles as the case might be. The terms never 
 signified in the classical period the actor of first, second, and third parts 
 respectively. 3 This would imply necessarily that the lines of demarcation 
 
 Kal Tip KoKovfi^vcfi TpLTayuvKTTrj, T(f5 Ka\oviJ.4v(f> ' TpiTayuvicTT'^ ' is a reference to 
 Demosthenes' application of the term to Aeschines. Apollonius Vit. Aeschin., p. 13: 
 Alffxl-vi]^ .... TpirayuviffTTis iy^vero rpayifidiuv, Kal iv KoXKvrip irore Olv6p.aov viroKpi- 
 v6fj.€vos Kariireaev. Demochares (ap. Vit. Aeschin., p. 11) relates the same story at 
 greater length, but thinks that the story deserves little credence. The story is also 
 told by Hesychius s. apovpato^ OlvS/xaos, and by Harpocration s. 'I<rxo-v8pos. Juba 
 is simply generalizing from Dem. De fals. leg. 247 when he says (apud schol. ad. loc.) 
 that the roles of kings are always given to "tritagonists." See Volker "De Graec. 
 fab. actoribus," Diss. Halen. IV (1880), pp. 197 ff. Of Antiphanes' play Tritagonist 
 we know nothing. Aeschines himself is made to use the word in Ep. 12. i. 
 
 » Cf . Poland De collegiis artif. Dionys., p. xi : ut enim voce dycoviffral ei signifi- 
 cantur in titulis, qui certamini cuidam intersint, ita avvayuvicrTal vario modo de 
 artificibus una de palma certantibus usurpatur. The use of dyuviffral to designate 
 actors is common in inscriptions of the guilds: CIG. II 3082. 18 (Liiders 89): diimra 
 iK tQv idiuv iOrjKev rots dyu}VL<jTa.'ls; Lebas .45. Min. Ill, 1620 c (Aphrodisias) : 5id rd 
 Toi>s dyuiviaTCLs ixxTepov dirodrjuTJcrai, ktX.; Arch. Epigr. Mitt, aus Oesterreich IX, p. 130, 
 n. 98: rt^T) Tovs dyojvKTTas dveKaX^a-aro; Lebas III. 139 (Ephesus): ra difiara rois 
 dyuviffrais aii^rjcavTa. 
 
 2 There is no reason why more than one protagonist should not be in the perform- 
 ance of a play. There can be little doubt that many presentations were given at 
 Athens by an all-star cast. The fact that an actor plays second part to another does 
 not necessarily imply that the actor is of second grade. 
 
 3 Wilamowitz' contention {Gott. Gel. Anz. [1906], p. 620, n.) that irpuiT ay us viffT-qs 
 
36 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 between the first, second, and third parts in the plays were clearly and 
 firmly drawn, which is obviously not the case. The protagonist plays 
 insignificant parts along with the first part ; the deuteragonist plays second 
 part and characters of little importance, while the tritagonist very often 
 plays one role or more, vastly more important than the minor roles of the 
 other two actors. Shall we call all the roles played by the deuteragonist 
 second parts, irrespective of the relative importance of these parts ? No, 
 this would be clearly inaccurate. The definition "actor of first, second or 
 third parts" is wrong and misleading in that it implies an arrangement 
 and disposition of the roles in the plays which is quite inconsistent with the 
 actual facts, viz., that all first-class parts should be taken by the pro- 
 tagonist, all second-class parts by the deuteragonist, and all third-class 
 parts by the tritagonist. 
 
 Perhaps one cause of the confusion which has prevailed since Bottiger 
 regarding the real significance of these terms has been the tendency to inter- 
 pret the plurals, to. Tr/awra, TO. 8evTepa, ra rptra and the Latin partes as if 
 they implied a plurality of roles rather than a single role. But a considera- 
 tion of the pertinent passages will show that, even when xpwTaywvio-Tiys 
 means to, Trpwra dywvi^Ojuevos, the meaning must be "actor of the leading 
 role," not roles. The comic poet Strattis, using the neuter plural, alludes 
 to the fact that the unfortunate Hegelochus played the title role in Euripi- 
 des' Orestes.^ Menander^ indicates the wife's proper subordination to her 
 husband, and the lot of the plain knave in comparison with that of the 
 
 is a word with a fixed technical meaning and signifies to. irpCiTa a-ywvi^bfievos, is not 
 supported by the facts. In answer to his query, "wo gibt es eine Komposition, in der 
 ■n-pwros den zeitlich ersten einer Reihe bezeichnet ?" we may cite Hesychius' definition 
 of bevTepayu}vi.(TT-r]s: 6 bedrepos dyuvi^6iJ.€uos, and of TpiTa^wviarrfs (after 'YpifiiaKov): 
 6 Tplros a/yu}VL^bnevos. So wpuiTayusvicrT'^s is 6 irpGiros dycjvi^dnevos, as well as to. 
 irpwTtt dyu)vi^6iJievo<!. This meaning is natural if we remember that these terms were 
 quite as commonly applied to orators as to actors. The first speaker in point of time 
 came to be regarded as the leading or best orator; the one who seconded him in 
 speech, his assistant, was probably as a rule inferior in ability. Hence the orator 
 or actor who played "second or third fiddle" came to be considered of inferior rank. 
 In such compounds irpCiTos, Se^repos, etc., generally refer to rank, it is true, but sequence 
 in the one is readily transferred to sequence in the other. Plotinus (below, p. 70, 
 n. 3) has wpt>)Tay<j}vi.<TT'f)S — Setirepos (sc. dyuivLffT^fis or VTroKpiTrji) — Tplros. 
 
 1 Fr. I, Kock, p. 711: the archon, apparently, regrets that he spoiled this play, 
 'Ky4\oxop fuffOtaffdfievos to. irpura tQi> iirdv X^7etj'. 
 
 2 Fr. 484, Kock, p. 140: TOk Seiyrep' del ttjv yvvaiKa Set X4yei.v, ttjv 5' rjyefwvlav tQv 
 8\uv rbv fivSp' exeiv. In the household irpureuei yvv^. Fr. 223, Kock, p. 64: irpdrTfi. 
 5' 6 K6Xa| dpKTTO. irdvTcov, de^repa 6 ffVKO(f>dvTt}S, 6 KaKorjdrjs rplra X^76t — "plays the 
 third role," Trapa TrpouSoKtav for rd rplra ex^'- The decent man's lot is even worse. If 
 the figure is derived from the drama is there not here a suggestion of a " tetragonist " ? 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA ' 37 
 
 flatterer and sycophant, in language that suggests either the theatre or the 
 law court. A better illustration is Luc. De calumnia 133, where the three 
 leading roles in a comedy are compared with the three parties to a slander.' 
 Here both the sequence and the relative importance of the three are brought 
 out, with emphasis on the sequence. There are just three roles and three 
 persons to act them. Cf. also the four roles for the four performers in 
 Luc. Tyr. 22. ^ In Plut. Mor. 816/, quoted above (p. 32, n. i) 6 to. 
 rpira Xc'ywv is referred to as carrying the single role of king, and so 
 Pollux (p. 32, n. 3 above) designates the left door of the scene as the 
 residence of the "cheapest role" or character — not the cheapest actor or the 
 bearer of several roles. Cicero Div. ad Caec. 15 develops a similar idea in a 
 passage that has been misundertsood.3 He has in mind a scene in which 
 two persons participate, the actor of the star role and the bearer of a minor 
 role. The former was also the leading actor, even if he had not so good a 
 voice. Cicero Pro Flacco 27 again makes it clear that partes is a single 
 role'* — a conclusion that cannot be doubtful to the reader of the prologue 
 of the Phormio of Terence. 
 
 We may now better understand the derogatory significance of the term 
 " tritagonist " as applied by Demosthenes to his bitter enemy, Aeschines. 
 It has always been difficult to comprehend why the "actor of third parts" 
 in a Greek play should have been so despised, for the roles assigned to the 
 actor in a three-actor distribution are exceedingly important. Such an 
 actor, we may affirm with a high degree of certainty, was not as a rule 
 
 1 rpiQv 5' 6vT(j}v vpoffiiiruv, Kaddirep iv rais KcofXifiSlaLS, rov dia^dWovros Kal rov 
 
 dia^aWofi^vov Kal rod irpbs 6v ij 8ia^o\T] ylverai irpuTOv .... Trapayayafiev 
 
 rbv Trpu)Tay(i}vi.(TTi]v rod 5pap.a.Tos. In 135-36 6 irpSrepos \6yos (irpwTayuvKXTrjs) is con- r 
 trasted with 6 Sevr^pov X670S or 6 Sei/repoi X670S. Cf. Aristoph. Eccl. 634: Srav ^S-q 
 '70) diaTrpa^dfj,evos irapabCi <roi devreptd^eiv = Td Seirepa Xiyeiv, and TrpwroXoyla in schol. ! 
 Dem., p. 189 Dind., and elsewhere in judicial terminology. 
 
 2 fiefi^piffrai. di is 7roXXoi)s t6 epyov wcrirep iv Spd/iari • Kal rd piv TrpQra iyoi) inreKpi- 
 vdfjL-qv, TO, di de&repa dk 6 iraTs, rd Si rplra (5i' 6 njpavvos avrds, t6 ^l\l/os Si iraffiv 
 vir-qpirriffev.. The Sword was of course a mute. 
 
 3 ut in actoribus Graecis fieri videmus, saepe ilium qui est secundarum aut terti- 
 arum partium, cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere quam ipse primarum, multum 
 submittere, ut ille princeps quam maxime excellat. The " Greek " actors are speci- 
 fied because they were the best in traihng and ideals. In Pliny A^". H. vii. 12. 10. 51, 
 Spinther secundarum, tertiarumque Pamphilus, and many other passages that could 
 be cited, we need not think of a plurality of roles. 
 
 4quis umquam Graecus comoediam scripsit, in qua servus primarum partium 
 non Lydus esset ? Where the slave-role is the leading role the slave is a Lydian. 
 Terence Phonn. prol., quia primas partes qui aget, is erit Phormio parasitus, per 
 quem res geretur maxime. 
 
38 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 held in disrepute. Why, then, does Demosthenes continually taunt 
 Aeschines with this opprobrious term ? The answer is stated in the old 
 gloss (Bek. Anec. Gr., p. 309. 32) on TpiTaywvto-ri^s : 6 Aiaxivr^s a>s dSoKt^w- 
 
 TttTOS TWV VTTOKpiTUiV iv TTj TpLTY} TO^Cl KaTapL6fJiOVfX€VO<;. DcmOStheneS' 
 
 implication was merely that Aeschines was a weak, third-rate performer, 
 not an "actor of third parts." The correctness of this interpretation 
 is borne out by the further assertion of Demosthenes {De jals. leg. 247) 
 that Aeschines played the part of Creon in the Antigone. On the basis 
 of this statement, critics^ have in almost every case assigned the part 
 of Creon to the tritagonist as "the player of third-class parts," although 
 the role has important lyrical parts, and to the modern reader, at least, 
 the interest centers about him only less than about Antigone. Shall 
 we say with Wilamowitz Heracles'', p. 150, n. 60: "Aber was ein redner 
 in demosthenischer zeit sagt, ist iiberhaupt unglaubwiirdig, und wenn 
 vollends der hass spricht, wie hier, ist die liige an sich wahrscheinlicher" ? 
 No. Demosthenes was addressing people who knew the facts and such 
 a malicious misrepresentation of facts would not have gone by unchal- 
 lenged. There can be little doubt that Aeschines did appear in the role of 
 Creon and the statement De cor. 180^ must refer to some special occasion 
 when Aeschines "murdered wretchedly" the role of Creon. Wilamowitz 
 asserts further that Aeschines could hardly have been a poor actor, and that 
 only on this assumption is it at all probable that he took the part of Creon, 
 inasmuch as the latter is beyond all doubt the second role of the drama. 
 In view of the seemingly contradictory evidence, one cannot be dogmatic 
 on the question of Aeschines' efficiency as an actor, but, even in spite of 
 Demosthenes' frequent aspersions, it seems very probable that Aeschines 
 was naturally well adapted to the stage.3 His figure was handsome, he 
 possessed a fine voice, well modulated and capable of great variety, and a 
 good delivery. It is reasonably certain, then, that Demosthenes depreciates 
 Aeschines' ability as an actor to the point of exaggeration. However, the 
 fact remains that Aeschines is taunted with the "butchering" of Creon's part, 
 which must be the second part, and yet in the same speech is called "tri- 
 tagonist." The two statements seem contradictory, but the solution is 
 apparent. "Tritagonist" could be applied to any poor or third-rate actor 
 without reference to the roles he played. A tritagonist was not necessarily 
 
 ^ Richter loc. cit., p. 105; Hermann loc. ciL, p. 27. Frey Fleckeis. Jahrb. CXVII 
 (1878), pp. 460 ff., however, assigns Creon's part to the protagonist. 
 
 3 Blass Att. Bered. III^, p. 222, n. i. See Schafer Dem. u. seine Zeit 1^, pp. 240-50, 
 and Volker loc, cit., pp. 197 ff. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 
 
 39 
 
 an actor of third roles or role, but of second as well. Aeschines was tri- 
 tagonist in that, according to Demosthenes, he failed to make a success of 
 Creon's part.' If custom had admitted four or live actors upon the scene 
 at once, Demosthenes could surely have called Aeschines "tetragonist" or 
 "pentagonist" quite as truly. 
 
 The words sometimes had a different meaning in the period of the 
 technitae (infra, p. 70, (3)), when dramatic companies, under the supervision 
 of private individuals or of the guilds, traveled over all parts of Greece and 
 gave dramatic exhibitions. The companies of this period commonly 
 consisted of three actors and under this regime the terms "protagonist," 
 "deuteragonist," "tritagonist" might well have been applied to the three 
 actors who acted all the roles of a play. It is remarkable, however, that these 
 terms are not found in any of the documents or inscriptions of dramatic 
 contests of this period, o-waywvio-ri/s is the regular title for the actor who 
 was the assistant of the rpaywSos or KWfxw86<:, the leading actor and manager 
 of the company. For this use of the term we may compare BCH. V, p. 35 
 (Mylasa) : if^vijcrOrj Evdv$r]s Pou</)ov Koi twv (TvvaywvKTTwv.^ The editors 
 of the inscription plausibly assume that this Rufus is the leading actor 
 of the troupe and that oi o-waywvio-Tat were the subordinate actors. 
 
 1 Demosthenes mentions other roles played by Aeschines, but we derive no definite 
 information from them, as the plays are no longer extant. He played Cresphontes, 
 the title-role of a play of Euripides, and Oinomaus, the title-role of Sophocles' play. 
 The leading part in the Cresphontes is thought to be Merope; cf. Schaier loc. cit., p. 243. 
 We do not know what the leading role in the Oinomaus was. Grysar loc. cit., p. 29, 
 thought Pelops to be the leading part ; Schafer loc. cit., p. 248, n. i, Hippodameia. 
 I am inclined to think that Oinomaus was the leading character. A priori the title- 
 role is likely to be the chief one. Besides it is indicated by Hesychius s. OtV6/uaos: 
 iirel (card tt)v xwpac irepivoaTCov vweKplvero (Aeschines) ' ^o(poKX4ovs rbv Oivbfiaov. 
 We have here the technical expression for the leading actor. Aeschines played also 
 the part of Thyestes in the Cretan Women, and Talthybius and Menelaus in Troades 
 (Dem. De fals. leg. 337: bre fiiv tA Qv^arov Kal tuv iirl Tpolq. /ca/ccl -fiyuvl^ero). 
 Cf. Schafer, pp. 243, 244. The importance of the roles played by Aeschines warrants 
 the conclusion that he was an actor of much talent. 
 
 2 Cf. Poland loc. cit., p. xi. The phrase rd Koivbv tQiv <Tvvayo)via-TU)v (CIG. II. 
 3068 B; Liiders 85) has caused much discussion. Bockh thought of it as a company 
 of actors outside the guild who had devoted themselves to celebrating games at home. 
 Liiders (p. 78) sees in it a band of lesser importance joined to the larger college. Foucart 
 De collegiis, p. 8, considers it a body of actors as distinguished from other members of 
 the guild, i. e., musicians, poets, etc. Reisch De mus. certam., p. 105, whom Miiller 
 {Buhnenalt., p. 395, n. 4) follows, thinks that the deuteragonist and tritagonist were 
 meant. Poland, however, shows that the word is such that it need not have the same 
 meaning in every case. Cf. Papers Amer. School III, p. 167, n. 275. 11 (Pisidia), ^d;' 
 evTvxMv SoOXos veiK-qaas, tov diixaTO% rb T^raprov xwperi/ ets toi)s (Tvvayo}iii.(rras aiirov. 
 
40 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 In the Delphic inscriptions BCH. XVIII, pp. 86 f., o-waywvto-Tr?? has the 
 same meaning. In the Ptolemaic inscription BCH. IX, p. 132. 38, with 
 one T/jaywSos are joined four uwaywvio-Tai ; in a Delphic inscription 
 {Eph. Arch. 1883, p. 161; 1884, p. 218. 16) one o-waywvio-Ti^s occurs 
 (under the heading o-waywvto-Tat ) ; in a document of the Tean guild 
 (Lebas As. Min., n. 281. 36; Luders, n. 91), NtKoar/DaTos o-waywvto-T^s 
 T/aaytKos is mentioned as the one chosen to carry the decree of the synod 
 to the people of lasos. Reisch (p. 104), Poland (p. 11), and Miiller (p. 395, 
 n. 4) are agreed that avvaywyia-Tat in these inscriptions refer to the deuter- 
 agonist and tritagonist. That the secondary actors of the companies are 
 meant is beyond all doubt. The significant fact is, however, that the 
 terms "deuteragonist" and ''tritagonist" are never fused to designate the 
 secondary actors of a troupe.' These actors are either not recorded at all, 
 which is the more usual method, or are referred to as a-waywvLo-Tai.^ 
 
 The terms "protagonist," "deuteragonist," and "tritagonist," so far as we 
 may generaUze from scanty evidence, were used in the time of Demosthenes 
 to denote merely the rank or class of an actor. Hence it is not strange that 
 a name for an actor of the fourth class is wanting. "Third class," com- 
 monly speaking, is broad enough to include the lowest grade of an actor, 
 with us as with the ancients; we never speak of "fourth-rate" actors. In 
 the period of the technitae organizations the three actors of a traveling 
 company might have been designated by these titles, but there is no proof 
 that such was the case. In all records of this period the members of a 
 company are referred to as 6 rpaywBos (or kw/xwSos) koI ol crwaywvto-Tat. 
 
 III. A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE AESTHETIC CANON OF ARIS- 
 TOTLE AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WHICH DETERMINE THE 
 NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED AS ACTORS IN A PLAYt 
 
 Aristotle's information relative to the drama was derived from copies of 
 the plays extant in his own time, and from observations drawn from these 
 were formulated his aesthetic laws. An application of his artistic rule of 
 three actors to the drama will illustrate in a convincing manner the truth 
 
 1 One exception may be noticed where Demosthenes {De cor. 261) says that ^/ 
 Aeschines irpiTayutvla-Tei for Simylus and Socrates, i.e., "played third fiddle" 
 
 to them, not necessarily the least important roles. It is quite incredible that Aeschines 
 should have played third parts with these men, who were proverbially verj' poor actors.. 
 Vit. Aeschin., p. 11, speaks of these men as ol kokoi viroKptral ; Dem. De cor. 261: 
 oi papvffTovot iiriKoKo^nevoi iKeivoi viroKpiral. Demosthenes means that it was disgracefiil 
 even to be associated with these "ranters." • 
 
 2 In a Delphic decree (end I cent. b. c), Colin BCH. XXX (1906), p. 278, six 
 synagonists are associated with four Kw/x(p8ol and seven with two rpayifidoi. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 4I 
 
 of this Statement. In the thirty-three extant tragedies, with but one excep- 
 tion,' there is no scene in which more than three speaking characters take 
 part in the dialogue. The fourth character is always silent. ^ In the 
 Andromache, Peleus, Molossus, Andromache, and Menelaus are on the 
 scene at once. Molossus observes silence. Ismene is not allowed to 
 interpose a word in those scenes in Oedipus Coloneus in which Oedipus, 
 Antigone, and Theseus are the interlocutors. 
 
 Comedy is naturally less conventional than tragedy and should not be 
 subjected to the rigorous test of any law, and yet, allowing for a certain 
 degree of flexibility in application, comedy also conforms to a very great 
 extent to the restrictions imposed upon tragedy. It is comparatively rare 
 that more than three engage in the dialogue at once. Four^ comedies may 
 be cited where four characters speak together: Ach. (98-125), Dicaeopolis, 
 Herald, Ambassador, and Pseudartabas ; Av. (1565-1693), Poseidon, 
 Heracles, Peithetaerus, Triballus; Lysistrata (78-253), Lysistrata, Calo- 
 nice, Myrrhina, Lampito; i^aw."* (549-578), Dionysus, Xanthias, Board- 
 ing-house Keeper, Plathane. Pseudartabas {Ach.) speaks two verses, 
 Triballus {Av.) four, and Dionysus {Ran.) interposes only one verse. 
 Lampito, however, plays a more important part. Even in these scenes, 
 therefore, there is no serious violation of the Aristotelian norm. But these 
 are the exceptions. The artistic law is commonly observed. For example, 
 in Nuhes 889-1104, where Strepsiades, Pheidippides, and two orators are 
 present, only two speak. Only after the departure of the orators do 
 Strepsiades, Pheidippides, and Socrates resume the dialogue. In Pax 
 1210 ff. Trygaeus, Crestmaker, Spearmaker, Breastplatemaker, are present, 
 but the fourth is mute. In Lys. 1 216-41, Athenian B, Athenian A, Spartan, 
 Lysistrata are simultaneously on the scene, but after the entrance of 
 Lysistrata the other characters become silent. The same situation is 
 found in Eccl. 1043-65, where Old Woman a, Old Woman y8. Youth, and 
 Maid are on the scene together, but in no case do more than three of them 
 
 1 Rhesus: Diomedes, Odysseus, Athena, and Paris are together. But even in 
 this scene there is really no violation of the aesthetic rule. There is no intercourse 
 between Paris and Diomedes and Odysseus. Paris takes no notice of either of these 
 persons. During the whole time that Paris is present (642-67), the dialogue is carried 
 on by him and Athena. After his exit the dialogue is resumed between Athena, Dio- 
 medes, and Odysseus. 
 
 2 Diomedes 488 (Keil I, p. 491): quia quarta persona semper muta. 
 
 3 I omit the scenes like the assembly scenes in the Thesmophoriazusae, where 
 the chorus-members are not distinguishable from actors; cf. Capps Stage in Gk. 
 Theat., p. 29. 
 
 4 In the last scene Euripides, Aeschylus, Dionysus, Pluto are present. 
 
42 
 
 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 speak. We may affirm, therefore, that Aristotle's aesthetic law is, with 
 unimportant exceptions, in harmony with the plays. 
 
 On the other hand, if interpreted as an economic law, it is violated in 
 almost every play (infra, A and B). In Choe. 889 ff. four persons are upon 
 the scene within five verses. Theseus' part in O. C. must be divided among 
 three actors. Andr. 547-765 is a palpable transgression of the economic 
 rule. In Ntih. iio5ff. Strepsiades, Pheidippides, and Socrates are upon 
 the scene immediately after the exit of the orators. In Vesp. 136-45 
 Bdelycleon, Philocleon, Xanthias, and Sosias each requires a separate 
 actor, and yet but three are present at once. 
 
 There is an essential difference between the aesthetic law, which is 
 concerned with the number of persons who may speak together in the same 
 scene, and the operation of economic conditions, which alone determined 
 the number of performers used in a play. The three-actor law has to do 
 only with the aesthetic side; it has no application, so far as ancient 
 authorities inform us, to the economic side. 
 
 IV.— OBJECTIONS TO THE LAW AS USUALLY APPLIED 
 
 A. Sometimes more than three actors are required. — The following table 
 contains all scenes of the plays in which four speaking characters take active 
 part in the dialogue at once, or where the fourth, though a speaking char- 
 acter, is silent, or, finally, those instances where four or more speaking 
 persons are together upon the scene within the space of five verses. I use 
 the term "Actor I," "Actor II," etc., without reference to the "class" of 
 the actor, but merely as matter of convenience. 
 
 Play 
 
 Actor I 
 
 Actor II 
 
 Actor III 
 
 Actor IV 
 
 Actor V 
 
 Choe. 886-91 
 
 Orestes 
 
 Clytaemestra 
 
 Exangelus 
 
 Pylades 
 
 
 Andr. 547-765 
 
 Andromache 
 
 Peleus 
 
 Menelaus 
 
 Molossus 
 
 
 Rhes. 642-67 
 
 Odysseus 
 
 Diomedes 
 
 Athena 
 
 Paris 
 
 
 ~Ach. 98-125 
 
 Dicaeopolis 
 
 Herald 
 
 Ambassador 
 
 Pseudartabas 
 
 
 Ach. 1068-72 
 
 Dicaeopolis 
 
 Messenger 
 
 Lamachus 
 
 Paranymph 
 
 
 Nub. 1104-1105 .... 
 
 Strepsiades 
 
 Pheidippides 
 
 Just Orator 
 
 Unjust Orator 
 
 Socrates 
 
 Pax 1210-40 
 
 Trygaeus 
 
 Scythemaker 
 
 Crestmaker 
 
 Spearmaker 
 
 Breastplate- 
 maker 
 
 Aves 1579-1693 
 
 Poseidon 
 
 Heracles 
 
 Triballus 
 
 Peithetaerus 
 
 
 Lys. 78-253 
 
 Lvsistrata 
 
 Calonice 
 
 M\Trhina 
 
 Lampito 
 
 
 Lys. 431-613 
 
 Lysistrata 
 
 Proboulus 
 
 Old Woman A 
 
 Old Woman B 
 
 Old Woman C 
 
 Lys. 742-80 
 
 Lysistrata 
 
 Woman A 
 
 Woman B 
 
 Woman C 
 
 
 Lys. 1273-1321 
 
 Lysistrata 
 
 Athenian Am- 
 
 Athenian Am- 
 
 Spartan Am- 
 
 
 
 
 bassador A 
 
 bassador B 
 
 bassador 
 
 
 Thes. 371-466 
 
 Heraldess 
 
 Micca 
 
 Woman B 
 
 Kedestes 
 
 
 Ran. 549-78 
 
 Dionysus 
 
 Xanthias 
 
 Boarding-house 
 Keeper 
 
 Plathane 
 
 
 Ran. 1411-1533 
 
 Dionvsus 
 
 Aeschylus 
 
 Euripides 
 
 Pluto 
 
 
 Eccl. 1042-65 
 
 Old Woman B 
 
 Old Woman C 
 
 Young Woman 
 
 Youth 
 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 43 
 
 Choephori. — The Exangelus leaves Clytaemestra upon the scene at 886. She 
 is alone 886-91. Orestes' and Pylades enter 892. The brief interval between 
 the exit of the Exangelus (886) and the entrance of Orestes and Pylades (892) 
 preclude the possibility of the Exangelus changing costume and reappearing in the 
 character of Pylades or Orestes. 
 
 Andromache. — Peleus enters 547 upon a scene in which Andromache, Mene- 
 laus, and Molossus are engaged in the dialogue. Molossus, however, observes 
 strict silence at the entrance of Peleus.^ The part of Molossus was most probably 
 taken by a boy. Boys appear on the modern stage, often to great effect, and 
 there is no reason why they might not have appeared in ancient times. The 
 assumption that they did not implies that Athens possessed no youth capable of 
 rendering such parts. This is a priori improbable and is further inconsistent with 
 other evidence. The frequent competitions of boy-choruses at Athens and at 
 other festivals tend against the assumption that boys were excluded from taking 
 part in dramatic exhibitions. ^ 
 
 Rhesus. — As indicated in the table Odysseus, Diomedes, Athene, and Paris, 
 all speaking characters, are simultaneously upon the scene and all speak during 
 the course of the scene {supra, p. 41, n. i). This exceptional situation is probably 
 due to the late date of the play."* The aesthetic law that not more than three 
 shall speak in one scene is not so rigorously observed as in the fifth century. 
 
 1 I assume with Richter Verteil d. Rollen, p. 39, that Pylades is the ever-present 
 companion of Orestes and enters with him 892. But for a full discussion of this passage 
 see Class. Phil. II (1907), p. 387, n. i. 
 
 2 The silence of Molossus can be due only to artistic reasons. Devrient Das 
 Kind auf d. ant. BUhne, p. 8 (Weimar, 1904), thinks that the silence of Molossus in 
 that scene indicates that the " tritagonist, " who in this scene comes forward in the char- 
 acter of Peleus, had formerly stood behind the scene and sang or spoke the words of 
 Molossus, while Molossus acted the part upon the scene. Thus at the entrance of 
 Peleus Molossus cannot speak! 
 
 3 Richter loc. cit., p. 65, holds that for the part of Molossus may have been used 
 "ein Erwachsener, jedenfalls aber nur ein kleiner, zwergartiger Schauspieler, wenn 
 wir nicht ganz in's Unnatiirliche gerathen sollen." Beer Zahl d. Schausp., p. 15, shows 
 the absurdity of a chorus-member singing the part behind the scene, as assumed by 
 Miiller Litt. Gesch. II, p. 146. On the question of children roles in the Greek drama 
 see Haym Diss. Halen. XIII (1897), pp. 217 £f. 
 
 4 Since Valckanaer's Diatribe iji Eur. fragg. (sec. 88, p. 85 of the Glasgow Euripides, 
 Vol. I), the Rhesus has been commonly regarded as a ivcent. production; Wilamowitz 
 Heracles I, p. 130, suggests 370-80 as a probable date. Capps Am. Jour. Arch. X 
 (1895), pp. 295 f., finds in the external characteristics of the chorus an indication that 
 the play is late. Cf. Rolfe Harv. Stud. IV (1893), pp. 61 ff., for the literature on the 
 subject. G. Hermann Opusc. Ill, p. 284, to avoid the difficulty of a four-actor scene, 
 conjectures that the departure of Odysseus 627 had already given the same actor oppor- 
 tunity for assuming the role of Paris. But Odysseus and Diomedes never leave the 
 scene, as 668 shows, um^s, kt\.; cf. also 673; rl /uAXere; is addressed to Odysseus 
 and Diomedes. Vater Rhesus, p. 53 (Berlin 1837), regards Paris, Dolon, and Athene 
 
44 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 Acharnienses. —g2>-\2$ : Dicaeopolis, Herald, Ambassador, and Pseudar- 
 tabas speak together; 1068-1072: Paranymph departs 1068, Dicaeopolis remains ■ 
 
 upon the scene. The Herald re-enters 1071, followed by Lamachus 10^2. The 7 
 
 short interval between the exit of the Paranymph 1068 and the entrance of the 
 Herald 1071 and Lamachus 1072, viz., three and four verses respectively, makes 
 a different actor necessary for each of these parts. 
 
 Nubes.—l follow Van Leeuwen' in the assimiption that the contest between 
 the Just and Unjust Orators (888-1104) took place in the presence of Strepsiades 
 and Pheidippides. The Orators depart 1104; Strepsiades and Pheidippides 
 remain. Socrates re-enters 1105. There is no good evidence for a choral ode 
 between the exit of the Orators and the entrance of Socrates.^ Five actors are 
 necessary, therefore, for these five characters. 
 
 Pax. — 1210-40: Trygaeus and the Scythemaker engage in dialogue up to 
 1209, at which point Scythemaker departs 1210. Trygaeus, Crestmaker, Spear- 
 maker, and Breastplatemaker are present, as the words of the Crestmaker 12 13 
 show. The Breastplatemaker and Spearmaker were present throughout the 
 scene, though the Breastplatemaker does not speak until 1224 and the Spear- 
 maker until 1255. 
 
 Aves. — 1579-1695: Poseidon, Heracles, Peithetaerus, and Triballus speak 
 together. 
 
 all as " parachoregemata " (personae supererogatiae). Hermann De distrib., p. 63, 
 says: poetaster ille praeter omnem necessitatem quatuor simul histriones iniscaenam 
 produxit. This happens, according to Hermann, because the author did not intend 
 the play for production. 
 
 1 Nub., p. 2, n. I. He calls attention to the fact that the contest woxold be pointless 
 if Strepsiades and Pheidippides were not present. 
 
 2 Van Leeuwen ad v. 888. At the exit of Socrates in ^86, R and Cant. 2 have § ' P,' 
 XopoO, which indicates that a choral ode intervened between the exit of Socrates and 
 
 the entrance of the two Orators. The scholiast's comment indicates that the ode was 
 wanting in antiquity. Whether Aristophanes ever wrote an ode at this point is uncer- 
 tain. Brunck held that the ode had dropped out by the fault of some copyist. G. 
 Hermann, Blaydes, Teuffel saw in the lack of an ode an indication that the second 
 edition of the Clouds was never completed. At any rate Hermann and Blaydes are of 
 the opinion that there was some kind of a pause here, for the same actors who played 
 Socrates and Strepsiades take the part of the two Orators. Westphal argues for a short 
 choral ode, or a few anapaests by the coryphaeus to exhort Pheidippides, to give the 
 actor of Socrates time to change dress and appear as one of the Orators. This argu- 
 ment is of no weight unless we assume that an ode intervened also after 1104 between 
 the exit of the Orators and the entrance of Socrates, and there is not the sHghtest prob- 
 ability that such was the case according to Van Leeuwen. The main argument adduced r.<!'<U^M^ 
 to prove that this edition of the Clouds was not produced and is in an unfinished con-H T^^a4u 
 dition is the fact that five actors are necessary for its presentation. This would be a ^^jC^,^.^^ I'l- 
 cogent argument if the Clouds were the only comedy that demands more than three -.tW<0 
 actors. Cf. Beer loc. cit., pp. 114-38, for an exhaustive discussion of Clouds in its 
 present condition relative to the number of actors employed. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 
 
 45 
 
 Lysistrata. — 78-252: Lysistrata, Calonice, Myrrhina, and Lampito, all 
 prominent speaking characters, are present upon the scene; 431-613: Lysistrata, 
 Proboulus, Old Woman A, Old Woman B, and Old Woman C. Old Woman C 
 speaks two verses (447 f.). Old Woman A and Old Woman B are more impwrtant 
 characters, and though Lysistrata and the Proboulus are the chief interlocutors, 
 still these old women are by no means out of the action; 742-80: Lysistrata, 
 Woman A, Woman B, Woman C are present; Woman B is silent in this scene, 
 but speaks in the preceding scene; 1273-132 1: Athenian Ambassador A, Athen- 
 ian B are the interlocutors in 1216-41, in 1242-99 the Athenian Ambassador, 
 Spartan Ambassador, and Athenian Ambassador B (mute) are together. Lysi- 
 strata enters 1300. There are, therefore, four speaking characters present at once 
 though only Lysistrata speaks; the three Ambassadors are silent after the entrance 
 of Lysistrata. 
 
 Thesmophoriazusae. — 371-465:" Heraldess, Micca, Woman B, and Kedestes 
 are together in an assembly scene; the Heraldess speaks 372-80, Micca 383-432, 
 Woman B 443-58. In 466 the Kedestes, who up to this point has been mute, 
 begins to address the assembly in the voice of a woman. 
 
 Ranae. — v549-78: Dionysus, Xanthias, Boarding-house Keeper, and Plathane 
 carry on the dialogue. Dionysus, however, speaks but two verses while the women 
 are present. 
 
 Ecdesiazusae. — 1037-65: Old Woman B, Old Woman C, Young Woman, 
 and Youth appear together. Old Woman C enters 1065. Young Woman has 
 been present since 1037. 
 
 B. Four actors are necessary; otherwise split rdles. — The dramas in which 
 the objectionable device of split roles must be resorted to in order to avoid the 
 
 Play 
 
 Oedipus Coloneus: 
 
 33-88 
 
 551-667 
 
 721-886 
 
 887-1043 
 
 1669-1777. . . . 
 
 Plutus: 
 
 58-256.. 
 641-770. 
 
 771-801. . 
 
 Equites: 
 
 15-155-. • 
 
 235-46... 
 
 997-1255- 
 
 1255-63- ■ 
 Fe5/>ae.• 
 
 1-142. . . . 
 
 144-403.. 
 
 456-60 . 
 
 Actor I 
 
 Oedipus 
 
 Theseus 
 
 Chremylus 
 
 Chremylus 
 Sausage Seller 
 
 Xanthias 
 Philocleon 
 
 Actor II 
 
 Antigone 
 
 Theseus 
 
 Antigone 
 
 Carion 
 
 Plutus 
 
 Servant A 
 Paphlagonian 
 
 Bdelycleon 
 
 Actor III 
 
 Ismene 
 
 Theseus 
 
 Creon 
 
 Ismene 
 
 Plutus 
 
 Wife of Chremy- 
 lus 
 
 Servant B 
 Servant B 
 
 Demus 
 
 Sosias 
 
 Actor IV 
 
 Servant B 
 
 Xanthias 
 
 ' If the part of the Priestess in 295-371 is not taken by the coryphaeus, five actors 
 are required for this scene, i. e., for Heraldess, Kedestes, Micca, Woman B, and 
 Priestess. 
 
46 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 admission of a fourth actor are collected in the preceding table. The char- 
 acters in bold-faced type are those whose parts must be divided as shown in the 
 diagram; the dash indicates that the character above it is not on the scene; the 
 dots = ditto marks. 
 
 Oepidus Coloneus. — The part of Theseus must be divided among three actors 
 in any three-actor distribution, unless the situation be further complicated by 
 splitting the part, of Ismene and Antigone. Miiller Litt. Gesch. II, p. 56, was the 
 first to call attention to the necessity of dividing Theseus' part in this play, and 
 to the extreme impropriety of dividing roles in general. It is quite impossible 
 for two actors to play the same role in the same manner, spirit, and with a like 
 voice. It is, furthermore, unlikely that the three actors were of the same size. 
 The frequent appearance of Theseus adds to the difficulties of assuming that 
 he was impersonated each time by a different actor. The spectator's conception 
 of Bang Theseus would have been seriously marred at the conclusion of the per- 
 formance if three actors of different statures, of unlike temperaments and manner- 
 isms, and of unlike voices had attempted to interpret the part. That such a 
 practice would have been vmdersirable no one will deny, and it is reasonably cer- 
 tain that such an artificial device would not have foiind favor under the Athenian 
 system of stage management where the matter of expense was not an important 
 consideration.' 
 
 Plutus. — Actor III plays the role of Plutus 58-229, but in 771-801 only actor 
 II is available for the part.^ Hence the necessity of dividing the role between two 
 actors. 
 
 Equites. — The role of Servant B must have been divided between one of the 
 regular actors and a supernumerary. In 15-155 and in 235-46 Actor III is 
 available for Servant B, but in 977-1263 the three actors are employed for the 
 
 1 In spite of the serious objections to the practice, many scholars insist on dividing 
 parts wherever the three-actor distribution demands it. C. F. Hermann makes much 
 of the relative difference in the capacity of the three actors, and yet he expects, appar- 
 ently, these three actors to play the same role in the same manner. C. F. Hermann 
 praises O. Miiller for discovering that Theseus' part must be divided or else a fourth 
 actor introduced. However, since in no scene of the play do more than three characters 
 appear, he favors the division of the part. So Jebb {Oed. Col., p. 7) thinks that 
 Miiller exaggerates the objections to split roles. Croiset Hist. litt. grec. III^, p. 246, 
 n. I, suggests that the character of Theseus is rather impersonal, his character is not 
 keenly delineated, and that there is little psychology in the part, making the doubling 
 less objectionable, in his opinion. Richter (p. 51), Lachmann (p. 45), Miiller {LiU. 
 Gesch. I, p. 403) assume a fourth actor for the part. 
 
 2 Beer (p. 102) has Actor II play the role of Plutus in 771-801, assigning it in 58-229 
 to Actor III. There is another possibility. One actor may play Plutus' role through- 
 out. In that case the part of Wife of Chremylus must be played by Actor I in 641-770 
 and by Actor II in 771-801. Van Leeuwen remarks a propos of the latter possibility: 
 quae mihi quidem nimis artificiosa videtur ratio. He therefore allows a fourth actor 
 for Wife of Chremylus. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 47 
 
 Demus, Sausage-Seller, and Paphlagonian. For Servant B, who is also present 
 with these three characters and who speaks 1254-56,' a fourth person must be 
 employed, thus necessitating the division of the Servant's role between Actor III, 
 who is now present in the character of the Demus, and an extra person. Since 
 a fourth actor is necessary in any case, why should not the difficulty be avoided 
 by allowing the same actor to play the part of Servant B throughout ? It is 
 ridiculous to suppose that a fourth efficient actor could not have been found for 
 the role. Athens was certainly full of young and aspiring apprentices in the 
 actors' profession who were capable of acting the part of Servant B or of the 
 Demus, or any part of like importance. The difference in the matter of expense 
 would have been insignificant. The division of Servant B's role seems to me, 
 therefore, to be unreasonable and unnecessary. 
 
 Vespae. — The case in the Wasps is quite analogous to the one just mentioned 
 in the Knights. Actor I is used for Xanthias 1-142, but from 144 the same actor 
 impersonates Philocleon. Hence 456-60, when Xanthias is present with Philo- 
 cleon, Bdelycleon, and Sosias, his part must be assigned to a supernumerary.^ 
 
 The plays show us several instances where a character takes an active 
 speaking part in one or more episodes, but observes strict silence in others. 
 The silence of characters in Aeschylus' early plays has been shown^ to be 
 due to the material conditions of the primitive theatre, chiefly the lack of a 
 back-scene which characters might use freely for coming and going. At a 
 later time, however, when a conventional background, temple or palace, 
 was provided, the poet had no such material difficulties to contend with. A 
 character could retire to the temple or palace on the slightest pretext. 
 The silence of a character in the developed drama, therefore, was not due 
 to material or economic causes, but to an artistic consideration. The poet 
 did not choose to have the character speak. However, such parts are 
 invariably divided by modern critics between one of the regular actors and 
 a mute. The division of a part in this case presents no serious obstacle, 
 but it is always desirable that the same actor should play a given role through- 
 out. That a character is mute does not necessarily imply that he is idle. 
 The facial expression of Ismene and Tecmessa was probably very effective 
 when they were not speaking. The spectator would certainly detect the 
 splitting of a role, especially the judges and other prominent officials who 
 sat nearest the orchestra. The consciousness that the same character 
 
 1 R A give these verses to Servant B (Demos.), R to Demus, other MSS to the 
 coryphaeus. Van Leeuwen ad v. 1256 points out that these verses are appropriate 
 only in the mouth of Servant B. 
 
 2 v. 456: Trate ira?', <3 'S.avdla, rovs <7<pT}Kas onrb rfji oiKias. Sac: dXXd dpQ tovt\ 
 Cf. Van Leeuwen ad. v. 457. 
 
 3 Dignan Idle Actor in Aeschylus, Chicago, 1905. 
 
48 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 was being carried by different actors would detract from the effect and tend 
 to destroy the illusion. 
 
 Oedipus Coloneus. — In 1096-1555 Ismene is silent, since three speaking persons 
 were already engaged, viz. Oedipus, Antigone, Theseus (1096-1210), Oedipus, 
 Antigone, Polyneices (1249-1446), and Oedipus, Antigone, Theseus (1486-1555). 
 She is a speaking character, however, in 324-509 and 1670-1779. The lack of a 
 fourth performer, assuming that Theseus' part was split, would necessitate the 
 division of Ismene's part between one of the regular actors and a "superntunerary " 
 who was a "mute." The silence of Ismene is to be attributed to the poet's 
 unwillingness or inability to employ effectively more than three persons at once. 
 Dignan well observes that the scenery of the Oedipus Coloneus reproduces the 
 conditions of the primitive theatre, in that there is no back -scene available for 
 exits and entrances. 
 
 Orestes. — In 1554-1625 Electra (mute), Hermione (mute), Orestes, Menelaus, 
 and Pylades (mute), are present; in 1625-93 Orestes, Menelaus, and Apollo are 
 together upon the scene. Electra, Hermione, and Pylades, who were speaking 
 characters in the first part of the play, would now be taken by mutes if the three- 
 actor rule applies. The three regular actors are present in the character of 
 Orestes, Menelaus, and Apollo. 
 
 Iphigeneia in Tauris. — Iphigeneia and Thoas are engaged in a dialogue when 
 Orestes and Pylades enter (cf. 1222) and both are silent throughout the scene, 
 though important speaking characters in preceding episodes. Mutes are assumed 
 for both parts in this scene. It is obvious that in this case at least the silence of 
 Orestes or Pylades could not be due to the scarcity of actors; at least one of them 
 might have spoken, since only two of the regular actors were engaged. The 
 fondness of Euripides for the two-actor dialogue has been observed by all students 
 of this author {supra, p. 30). In many cases the silence of the third person has 
 no special significance. In other cases he aims at an artistic effect, as perhaps 
 in the scene under discussion.' 
 
 Ajax. — Tecmessa is a speaking character up to 977. Later, 1168, she reap- 
 pears with her son but does not speak. The three regular actors are busy with 
 the characters of Agamemnon, Teucer, and Odysseus. An extra person is com- 
 monly assumed for Tecmessa, thus dividing the part between a regular actor and 
 a supernumerary. 
 
 C. Parts are overloaded. — It has always been a principle with those 
 
 who have made a distribution of the parts among the actors to give to each 
 
 I The obstinate silence of Alcestis on her return from the tomb has been a puzzle 
 to many. Elmsley {Class. Jour. VIII [181 3], p. 434) attributed her silence to the lack 
 of a third actor for adult roles. But a more plausible explanation is that Euripides 
 had a special artistic motive in not allowing Alcestis to speak. Her very silence spoke 
 in condemnation of Admetus. She could not throw her arms about his neck and say 
 how happy she was to be restored to him, nor was the occasion appropriate ; nor would 
 it have been consistent with the character of Alcestis to have upbraided him. The 
 excuse which Heracles gives (1144) is but a cloak to hide the poet's real motive. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 
 
 49 
 
 actor as far as possible an equal share of the burden. Wilamowitz {Her- 
 acles I', pp. 380 £f.) sees in certain plays a conscious effort on the part of 
 the poet to shift the burden of the roles equally upon all the actors, to 
 make them as uniform as possible (gleichmassige Belastigung der Rollen). 
 A poet would certainly have an eye to such an important consideration if he 
 were composing for a fixed number of performers, but when we find this 
 "equal burdening" of parts exceptional, rather than normal, the question 
 may be justly raised whether the poet himself was conscious of any such 
 practical restriction, especially since we find many plays in which parts are 
 overloaded, in the usual distribution, beyond all due proportion. 
 
 The combinations of roles given in the table below are those which we 
 are required by the economy of the plays to assign to each single actor. 
 Where a choice exists I have indicated it by a note. "Actor I " and "Actor 
 II," etc., are used for "protagonist" and " deuteragonist " in the sense 
 usually attributed to these terms. The numbers following the name of 
 the character indicate the number of verses given to the character. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i? 
 
 
 
 
 
 in 
 
 1^ 
 
 Actor 
 
 Play 
 
 Roles 
 
 <3 
 
 > 
 
 i2 
 
 
 
 
 Pi 
 
 -a 
 
 ll 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 e2 
 
 ^0 
 
 I 
 
 Track. 
 
 Deianeira37o; Heracles 206. 
 
 2 
 
 576 
 
 492 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 Oed. Col* 
 Phoen. 
 
 Oedipus 600; Messenger 87; Theseus 17. 
 
 Oedipus 78; Eteoclesi2i; MenoeceusaS; Messenger 298; 
 
 3 
 
 700 
 
 693 
 
 
 
 Pedagogue 50. 
 
 5 
 
 585 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 Oedipus 78; Polyneices 136; Teiresias 98; Pedagogue 50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Messenger 298. 
 
 s 
 
 660 
 
 825 
 
 Ill 
 
 Elec. (Eur.) 
 
 Peasant 90; Clvtaemestra 75; Old Man 84; Messenger 91; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Castor or Pollux 86. 
 
 s 
 
 426 
 
 684 
 
 Ill 
 
 Oed. Col. 
 
 Ismene 69; Theseus 105; Creon 91; Polyneices 122; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stranger 32. 
 
 s 
 
 419 
 
 974 
 
 m 
 
 loni 
 
 Hermes 81; Xuthus 72; Pedagogue 132; Servant 114; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pythia 32; Athena 56. 
 
 6 
 
 487 
 
 840 
 
 m 
 
 Oresl. 
 
 Tyndareus 87; Apollo 51; Helena 39; Pylades 112; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hermione 11; Phrygian 140. 
 
 6 
 
 440 
 
 
 in 
 
 Agam. t 
 
 Guard 39; Herald 126; Aegisthus 64; Agamemnon 82. 
 
 4 
 
 311 
 
 658 
 
 n 
 
 Aves 
 
 Euelpides 164; Poet 32; Meton 18; Heracles 30; Mes- 
 senger 50; Herald 35; Cinesias 13; Prometheus 33; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Legislator 7. 
 
 9 
 
 382 
 
 
 Ill 
 
 Aves 
 
 Epops 148; Servant of Epops 15; Priest 15; Guard 14; 
 Seer 17; Inspector 8; Iris 22; Parricide 11; Syco- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 phant 26; Poseidon 37. 
 
 10 
 
 313 
 
 
 I 
 
 Eccl. 
 
 Praxagora 315; Chremes 73; Man A 54; Old Woman A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 85; Old Woman B 10; Servant 31. 
 
 6 
 
 568 
 
 S17 
 
 * I assume provisionally that Theseus' part was split, thus giving 95 verses to the protagonist and 
 deuteragonist. 
 
 tBy giving to the protagonist the part of the Servant, i. e.. 115 vss. we might relieve Actor III, but 
 would overload the part of Ion, which alone comprises 467 vss. The above distribution is the one pre- 
 ferred by Hermann, p. 48, and Richter, p. 69. 
 
 J This assignment is not the only possible one, but seems the least objectionable. 
 
50 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 The first two cases in the table deserve special attention. In both 
 Trachiniae and Oedipus Coloneus the first actor ^ plays roles which exceed 
 in the actual number of verses the combined parts of the other actors, an 
 arrangement that no poet would have made were he composing for three 
 actors. It is to be observed, further, that the large majority of overbur- 
 dened parts fall to the actor of third parts, the so-called tritagonist. This 
 has a special significance, for it is least to be desired that the worst per- 
 former should bear the hardest burden of the performance. The roles 
 taken separately may not be either diflficult or important, but when five or 
 six minor parts are shifted upon a relatively poor actor, almost half the 
 play is placed in the hands of one actor, and that the least competent and 
 capable of rendering these roles with efliciency. The general effect of the 
 play could thus not have been satisfying. If, however, the actors were 
 equally versatile, then no part should be unduly heavy. 
 
 D. Awkward situations caused by a '^ lightning^' change 0} dress. — The 
 actual time required for an actor to retire, change costume, and reappear 
 depends upon the situation of the dressing-room with reference to the 
 orchestra, upon the difference of dress required by the two characters, and 
 finally upon the actor's costume in general. In the early fifth century the 
 dressing-room was probably at some distance from the orchestra. ^ It 
 would also require an actor a longer time to change from a female character 
 to that of male, or vice versa, than to change from one male character to 
 another. The extent of the change is much greater in the former case. 3 
 Further, if the Greek actors wore full masks,'* the time to change this part 
 
 1 Since a prize was offered for the best protagonist, it was to his interest at least 
 to keep his owoa roles within reasonable and appropriate limits. The protagonist (and 
 in most cases his wishes and interests were doubtless consulted by the didascalus, whose 
 success with his play was largely dependent upon his chief actor's hearty co-operation) 
 would see to it that, if he was a accept more than a single role, the other roles were 
 light and adapted to display to advantage his strongest characteristics. 
 
 2 In the theatre at Thoricus a building at one side of the orchestra is thought to 
 have been the actor's dressing-room. The distance of this room from the theatre 
 would materially affect the time required for a change of dress. Cf. Dorpfeld-Reisch 
 Gr. Theat., p. iii. 
 
 3 To assume the elaborate costume of the Persian Ambassador or of Pseudartabas 
 in the Acharnians would require more than twice the time needed for changing the 
 ordinary costume. 
 
 4 The question is a very difl&cult one. It seems hardly credible that a stiff, expres- 
 sionless mask could have been used in the classical period; there was no name for a 
 mask until about the middle of the fourth century. The facial expression which to 
 the modem actor is the most effective instrument of power would be entirely lost by 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 51 
 
 of the make-up would be insignificant, but if the actor wore a wig, nose, 
 and a "make-up" in general comparable to that of a modern actor, 
 obviously the time required for a change would be more than doubled. 
 Elmsley concluded from a scene in the Choephori, where thirteen verses 
 (886-899 ?) are interposed between two speeches spoken by the same actor 
 in two different characters, that twelve or fifteen trimeters allowed an 
 actor time for such a change.' I shall set up no fixed rule, but shall be 
 guided by the situation in individual cases, allowing a reasonable length of 
 time for the change in every case. I work on the hypothesis that the 
 action proceeds continuously, without pause. 
 
 Choephori. — Servant retires 886. Clytaemestra remains. Orestes and 
 Pylades appear 890. The intervening verses (886-890) do not allow time for ii^7-29/ 
 a change of dress. 
 
 Orestes. — Hermione, Electra, Orestes, and Pylades (mute) are present 1323-52; 
 stasimon 1353-68. Enter Phrygian 1367. It would be extremely inconvenient 
 in these fifteen short verses (1353-67) for either of the actors in the preceding 
 episode to change costume and appear in the character of the Phrygian, especially 
 since the actor of Electra or Hermione would have to make the change. Orestes 
 is present with the Phrygian 1506. 
 
 Acharnians. — Dicaeopolis, Herald, Amphitheus' (exit 56); Dicaeopolis, 
 Herald, Persian Ambassador (enters 64). Only eight (56-64) verses would be 
 available for the impersonator of Amphitheus to retire and assume the elaborate 
 dress of the Persian Ambassador. In 98-135 Dicaeopolis, Ambassador, Pseud- 
 artabas, and Herald are present at once. Even if it be granted that the Herald 
 and Pseudartabas are played by non-regular actors, we shall find it inconvenient 
 in this scene to make out with less than four. Ambassador and Pseudartabas 
 
 such a wooden appliance. Objections to masks for the classical period are not unap- 
 preciated; cf. P. Girard Rev. et. grec. VII (1894), pp. i ff., and VIII, pp. 88 ff.; and 
 Capps's review Am. Jour. Arch. (1905), pp. 496 ff., in which the facts are briefly stated. 
 O. Hense's extreme view {Modifizierung d. Masken in d. gr. Trag., Freiburg, 1905) 
 is not convincing to some minds. It is hard to believe that the classical poets accepted 
 so awkward a convention and then resorted to such strained and artificial means in 
 trying to make a virtue of necessity. 
 
 1 Beer assumes that the change of dress was actually effected in the Choephori 
 in so short a time, and thus, in his distribution of parts in comedy, he regards thirteen 
 trimeters as representing the minimum time for the change. Romer Philol. LXV 
 (1906), pp. 74 ff., has a few remarks on the quick changes of costume. For instance 
 Teucer does not appear in Ai. 780 because "der Schauspieler, welcher bisher den 
 Aias spielte, muss bald als Teukros auftreten und so musste Zeit geschaffen werden 
 fur die (leTaaKeiiaffis" and in Ant. 441 the poet sends the Guard from the scene that his 
 actor may take the part of Ismene, who is soon to appear. 
 
 2 The italicized characters are those that depart and enter respectively; the 
 other two characters are present in both scenes. 
 
52 RULE or THREE ACTORS 
 
 retire 126, Amphitheus 133, but Dicaeopolis remains. Enter Theorus 134. 
 Between the exit of Ambassador 126 and the entrance of Theorus 134 are only 
 8 verses. Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, Herald {exit 1077); Dicaeopolis, Lamachus, 
 Messenger (enters 1084). Seven lines only (1077-84) would be allowed for the ^ 
 actor to retire and reappear in a different character. 
 
 Thesmophoriazusae. — In 871-927 Euripides, Kedestes, and Critylla are on 
 the scene. Euripides retires 927. Pryianis enters 829. For the parts of Euripi- 
 des and Prytanis, therefore, separate actors are necessary. 
 
 Frogs. — Dionysus, Xanthias, Heracles {exit 165); Dion5'sus, Xanthias, 
 Dead Man (enters 169). Only four verses intervene between the departure of 
 Heracles and the entrance of Dead Man. Dionysus, Xanthias, Dead Man {exit 
 177); Dionysus, Xanthias, Charon (enters 183). Only six verses intervene between 2^? 
 the exit of Dead Man and the entrance of Charon. 
 
 Ecclesiazusae. — 887-1044 Youth Maiden, Old Woman A {exit 1044); 1043-45 
 Youth, Maiden, 1049-65 Youth, Maiden, Old Woman B (enters 1049). Only 
 fiye verses intervene between the exit of Old Woman A and the entrance of Old H 
 Woman B. 
 
 Lysistrata. — In 829-44 Lysistrata, M5TThina, and Woman B are present on 
 the scene. Woman B and Myrrhina retire 844. Enter Cinesias 845. It would 
 thus be impossible for the impersonator either of Woman B or of Myrrhina to 
 assume the part of Cinesias. 
 
 Clouds. — Pheidippides departs 125. Strepsiades is alone 126-32. Pupil 
 appears on the scene 133. The seven intervening lines between the exit of Phei- 
 dippides 125 and the entrance of Pupil 133 give insufficient time for the actor who 
 plays the former to play the latter also. Three different actors, then, are desirable 
 for the parts of Strepsiades, Pheidippides, and Pupil. Pupil leaves the scene 
 at 220; Socrates comes on 221. One actor cannot take these two parts. Socrates 
 Pheidippides, and Strepsiades are together 868-88. For the part of the Pupil 
 therefore, the actor of neither Socrates, Pheidippides, nor Strepsiades is available. 
 
 Birds. — Peithetaerus, Euelpides, Servant of Epops {exit 84), Peithetaerus, 
 Euelpides, Epops (enters 92). There are 8 verses only (84-92) for the actor of 7/Sjf 
 Servant to reappear as Epops. Prometheus leaves the scene at 1552. After 
 the stasimon (1553-64) enter Neptune, Heracles, and Triballus. The execution 
 of this short ode would hardly give the actor of Prometheus sufficient time to ;' 
 retire, change dress, and reappear in the character of either Neptune, Heracles, 
 or Triballus. At 1694 exeunt Poseidon, Heracles, Peithetaerus, and Triballus. 3/ 
 After a short stasimon of twelve verses (1694-1705) the Messenger enters. It 
 would be extremely inconvenient for the impersonator of Poseidon, Heracles, ? 
 Peithetaerus, or of Triballus to assume the role of the Messenger. 
 
 Wasps. — Bdelycleon, Sosias, Xanthias {exit 141); Bdelycleon, Sosias, Philo- 
 cleon (enters 144). Xanthias leaves the scene after 141, for the words ^i^^' Mpei 
 could not have been addressed to him unless he was still present on the scene. 
 Philocleon is visible upon the top of the proscenium 144. I hold, therefore, 
 that it would have been impossible for the same actor to play the parts of Xanthias 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 53 
 
 and Philocleon without causing a pause in the action, which would be quite inap- 
 propriate in such an animated scene. 
 
 Bdelycleon, Philocleon, Bread-dealer (exit 141 2); Bdelycleon, Philocleon, r" 
 Citizen (enters 141 7). Only five verses are available for a change of costume. 
 
 E. Bad assignment of roles. — Great actors, like all great men, are also 
 persons of more than ordinary individuality. They cannot disguise 
 themselves completely, or even to a great degree, in an assumed character. 
 Their personality reveals itself in every movement. The question is some- 
 times raised whether any actor is an artist who cannot imitate a person- 
 ality unlike his ow^n. If the answer is "No," few of our great actors merit 
 the title to which they aspire. Edwin Booth and Edward A. Sothern are 
 the only great actors of the past in this country who could overlay their 
 individuality with more than a make-up. Forrest and Jefferson were 
 unvarying in all but externals. No matter how they looked or spoke, they 
 were always themselves. So the late Sir Henry Irving, Hackett, Mansfield, 
 Drew, Crane, Gillette, and the present Sothern. It is far from my purpose 
 to underestimate the mimetical side of acting or even deny that to lose 
 one's own personality in an assumed character may be the real goal of the 
 histrionic art as such. Versatility in an actor may be desirable, but it is 
 not necessary. The same end can be attained by a different method, 
 if the actor's individuality is carefully studied with reference to the role 
 to which he is assigned. My contention is that any actor is more likely to 
 score in a part when the disposition, temperament, and mannerism of the 
 artist are most similar to those of the character whom he is to interpret. 
 He must also look the part. No actor can overcome his own physical 
 peculiarities. He plays himself in other people's situations. "The fitting 
 of the actor to the part" is a principle observed in the minutest detail 
 under modern systems of stage management. ^ We have evidence for 
 believing that the principle is also a universal one. Sophocles, we are 
 informed on the authority of Ister (Vit. Soph., p. 128. 30 West.), created 
 characters suited to the personality and capacity of his actors, whom he 
 knew in advance. Plotinus^ tells us that it was the habit of the poet to ^<^<^H*^ 
 
 I A dipping from the dramatic section of one of our leading magazines will illus- 
 trate the point. "It may surprise those unfamiliar with the ways of managers to know 
 they are extremely particular about the personal appearance and characteristics of the 
 players. Applicants whose personality is unknown to the manager are required to set 
 forth their weight, height, coloring, and other details which are baldly entered in a 
 book kept for that purpose. It often happens that an individual's physical character- 
 istics go a long way toward making him score in a part. It was not Raymond Chase's 
 previous experience that gained him the opportunity to play Bub Hicks in the College 
 Widow, but the fact that he looked as if he might be Bub." 
 
 ' Enead. iii, p. 269: ^Kdffrcfi roi>j irpoa-qKovTas \6yovs; cf. Epictetus 23: abv yap 
 
54 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 assign "to each the appropriate part." It cannot be doubted, therefore, 
 that the adaptability of the actor to the role was also an important and 
 fundamental consideration with managers of the Greek stage in the assign- 
 ment of parts. Versatility was even rarer among actors of antiquity than 
 in modern times. ^ Actors in every age have won fame in a particular 
 role, or roles of a certain type. Nicostratus was best in messenger roles. ^ 
 Each actor played his special type of roles. Nicostratus may have been 
 incapable of interpreting the subtle and psychological character of Clytae- 
 mestra in the Agamemnon or of Oedipus the King, and yet have starred 
 in those beautiful messenger parts of Euripides where there is no subtlety 
 of character or psychology involved, but rhetoric and oratory. Aeschines 
 was exceptionally well suited to the role of king. His stature, finely reso- 
 nant voice, deep and voluminous, capable of wonderful modulation and 
 variety of inflection, made him particularly adapted to the epic dignity 
 and stateliness of kings. Thus he played the part of Creon in the Antigone, 
 Cresphontes and Oinomaus in the like-named plays of Euripides and 
 Sophocles (supra, p. 39, n. i). The physical beauty of Theodorus (Aesch. 
 ii. 52) and other qualifications made him most successful in female r61es. 
 He played Antigone (Dem. Fals. leg. 247), Hippodameia,^ Hecuba (Tro- 
 ades),^ and Merope.5 I do not recall an instance where he is said to have 
 played male characters. 
 
 tout' ^ffTi rh dodiv vwoKplvaixdai irp6(xu)irov /caXws, iKXi^acrOai 5' aiirb &Wov and Sim- 
 plicius on the passage (Schweighauser Epictet. IV, p. 206) : t6 iJiiv iK\^^a<r6ai tup 
 vwoKpiTwv 'iKa.(TTOv irpbs rb iiriT7)deiov irpdcrunrov iv t(^ dpdfjuxTi .... tov diddffKovTos t6 
 dpafid iffTip. Cf. also Teles in Stobaeus xxvii, p. 117; Alciphron Ep. 35 Schepers 
 [71], Synesias De provid., p. 106 a. 
 S f I Plato Rep. iii. 39^ a: oidi tol viroKpiral Kwp.({)8oh re /cat TpayifdoTs ol ai/roi — in 
 
 contrast to the practice of our modem actors. 
 
 2 Prov. Coisl. cited by Miiller BuhnenalL, p. 186, n. 2. Some of the messenger 
 parts in Euripides are extremely important. In the Bacchae and Phoenissae the mes- 
 senger r61es are among the most important of the plays; see Volker loc. cit., p. 184. 
 
 3 The part of Hippodameia is thought to be the leading part of the Oinomaus 
 (Stobaeus 27.6), and since Aeschines, who played the title role, was constantly associ- 
 ated with Theodorus, it is likely that the latter played the part of Hippodameia; cf. 
 Schafer. op. cit. I, 2, p. 248, n. i. 
 
 4 Plut. Pelopidas 29 tells the story of Alexander's being moved to tears at the 
 performance of Troades in which the leading character is Hecuba; but he does not 
 mention the name of the actor. Aelian 14. 40 relates the same story, adding that the 
 name of the actor was Theodorus. 
 
 5 Aelian says that Theodorus played the part of Aerope, the title-role of Euripdes' 
 Cretan Women; but Valckanaer Diatribe, p. 5, suggests Merope instead, the leading 
 character of the Cresphontes; see Schafer, p. 243, and Volker Diss. Hal. IV, pp. 192 ff. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 55 
 
 The most remarkable document that has come down to us from anti- 
 quity relative to the roles played by an actor and the character of his roles 
 is an inscription from about the middle of the third century which records 
 the victories won by a certain Tegeatan actor, the festival where the victory 
 was won, and the roles that he played.' From the inscription we learn 
 further that the actor was a pugilist, pefsumably of extraordinary size. 
 At the City Dionysia at Athens he won in the role of Orestes; at the Soteria 
 at Delphi and at Argos he played Heracles. As Herzog (p. 444) has 
 pointed out, all the_seven characters which this actor chose are heroes of (j'"^- 
 huge bodily size and strength, and demand the same type of acting. It 
 becomes ob\'ious, therefore, that only those plays were selected for our 
 boxer-actor which were pecuHarly adapted to display his physical prowess. 
 The record is extremely interesting and significant in showing to what a 
 remarkable degree of realism dramatic performances, in the Hellenistic 
 period at least, had come. Personal appearance and mental character- 
 istics seem to have been paramount in the selecting of an actor for a par- 
 ticular role. The actor had to fit the part. 
 
 In view of these considerations, I propose to point out the cases in the 
 plays where this important principle of the suitability of the actor to the 
 part is utterly disregarded in the conventional doubling of parts required 
 by the three-actor law. The bad combinations adduced are those which 
 are absolutely necessitated by the economy of the play if that law is applied, 
 unless otherwise stated. 
 
 I. Important male and female roles must be doubled. — It is extremely 
 desirable that the leading male and female characters in a play should be 
 impersonated by a different actor. ^ The actor of female roles should 
 be of small stature, fine voice, and should possess other qualifications 
 which would render the actor unfit for male roles. There were doubtless 
 
 1 Dittenberger Syl.'^, No. 700 Capps Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXXI (1900), p. 137. 
 Herzog Philol. LX (1901), pp. 400 ff., first discovered the clue to the peculiar choice 
 of roles. 
 
 2 Women did not appear upon the English stage prior to the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century. The custom was for boys to play these roles. The famous Elizabethan 
 actor, Charles Hart, began his career as a boy by playing female characters. Edward 
 Kynaston, another actor of this period, was successful only in female roles. He is 
 said to have worn the petticoat with remarkable grace and elegance. Kynaston was so 
 beautiful in his youth that ladies of quality often prided themselves in taking him for 
 drives in Hyde Park. His beauty suffered no decay even to his last appearance. It 
 is said that from his early and constant impersonation of female characters, he contracted 
 some unpleasant tones in speaking; cf. Gait Lives of Players. There can be little 
 doubt, I think, that the Greeks also, in seeking out actors for female roles, demanded 
 that they should possess qualities peculiarly fitted to such roles. 
 
56 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 in antiquity many actors who were celebrated for their female r61es ; I 
 am inclined to the view that these actors were largely, if not exclusively, 
 used for such roles. Our evidence, however, is not conclusive on this 
 point. Our chief argument is the fitness of things. 
 
 Agamemnon. — Cassandra and Aegisthus . would have to be doubled.' The 
 part of Orestes must be added if we include the other plays of the trilogy. 
 
 Prometheus. — Hephaestus, Oceanus, and lo fall to the same actor.* 
 
 Trachiniae. — Heracles and Deianeira. This combination is objectionable 
 in every way. The characters of the persons as drawn in the play are quite 
 antithetical. Deianeira is a person of deep feeling, calm and resolute. Heracles 
 on the contrary, is very emotional, gives vent to his passion in unrestrained out- 
 bursts of lamentation. Besides, an actor of very large proportions would be 
 desirable for the part, as Heracles is traditionally large and strong. Such an 
 actor would ill fit the part of Deianeira. 
 
 Ajax. — The same actor plays the following characters in the order in which 
 I have arranged them: Odysseus 1-133; Tecmessa 201-595, 787-812, 891-973; 
 Menelaus 1047-1160; Odysseus 1318-1401.3 
 
 Electra. — Orestes and Clytaemestra: Orestes 1-85; Clytaemestra 516-803; 
 Orestes 1097-1375; Orestes 1424-1507. 
 
 Alcestis.'^ — Death and Alcestis, Pheres and Heracles: Death 28-76; Heracles 
 476-550; Alcestis 244-391; Pheres 675-740; Heracles 773-860; Alcestis (mute) 
 1008-1163. We need merely to call attention to the incongruous combination 
 of the parts of Heracles and Alcestis. The part of Pheres adds another unsuit- 
 able role. 
 
 Hippolytus. — Phaedra and Theseus: The actor is present in the part of 
 Phaedras in 198-361, 373-524, 565-609, 668-731; the same actor comes on as 
 Theseus in 790-1 loi, 1 160-1267. 
 
 1 So Richter, p. 36; Wecklein Oresteia, p. 28; O. Miiller Eumenides, p. no. Another 
 possibility is to give Aegisthus to Actor III, who already plays Guard, Herald, and 
 Agamemnon. This would overload the third actor (supra, p. 49). 
 
 2 This is probably the best arrangement, though Cratus might be substituted for 
 Hephaestus, and Oceanus assigned to the third actor. In any case the doubling of 
 Hephaestus (Cratus) and lo is most unsuitable. I assume, of course, that an actor 
 was used for Prometheus. The lay-figure theory has little in its favor, in my opinion, 
 and much against it. The grotesque effect of such a device v^^ould be intolerable, 
 whereas, on the other hand, an opportunity is offered for splendid effect. 
 
 3 It is impossible to settle upon any definite distribution. Robert Hermes XXXI, 
 p. 539, makes six different distributions, but does not exhaust the possibilities. In any 
 possible management of these actors, however, the part of Tecmessa must be doubled 
 with one of the important male characters. I have accepted the distribution of Her- 
 mann and Richter as being the least objectionable. 
 
 4 So Hermann ; Richter assigns Pheres' part to the third actor. 
 
 s The part of the Nurse might be substituted for that of Phaedra, but the com- 
 bination would be subject to the same criticism. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 57 
 
 Iphigeneia at Aulis. — Menelaus and Clytaemestra: Menelaus 304-542; 
 Cl)^aemestra 607-1035; 1097-1629. 
 
 Orestes. — Electra and Menelaus: Electra 1-315; Menelaus 356-716; Electra 
 844-1352; Menelaus 1554-1693. The interlaced order in which the characters 
 appear upon the scene would make it exceedingly hard for the actor, to conceal 
 his own identity. 
 
 Heraclidae.—Copreus 55-283; Macaria 474-601; Alcmena 646-1055. 
 
 Heracles.'— Meg&ra. 60-347; Lyssa 843-74; Theseus 1163-1428. 
 
 Bacchae. —Fentheus 215-518, 642-846, 912-76; Agave 1168-1392. 
 
 Phoenissae.— Antigone 88-201; Polyneices 357-637; Menoeceus 834-1018; 
 Antigone 1265-83, 1485-1763. Another actor plays locasta 1-87, 301-637; 
 Creon 697-783, 834-985; locasta 1072-1283; Creon 1310-1682. 
 
 2. Parts of messengers, guards, and servants are combined with those of 
 princesses and other female roles of delicate and refined type. Necessarily 
 a different style of acting is demanded for such widely different types of 
 characters. Actors of different external and physical characteristics would 
 also be required to impersonate them. 
 
 Antigone. — Ismene 1-99; Guard 223-331, 384-640; Ismene 531-81. The 
 Guard is represented in the play as a humorous and boorish person, and is abso- 
 lutely unfit to take on also the role of Ismene. One actor plays also the part 
 of Antigone 1-99, 384-581, 806-943; Messenger 1155-1256. 
 
 Iphigeneia at Aulis. — Messenger 414-41; Iphigeneia 631-690, 1211-1510; 
 Messenger 1532-1625. 
 
 Orestes. — Helena 71-125; Messenger 852-956; Phrygian Slave 1369-1536. 
 
 Electra (Eur.).— Peasant 1-81, 341-431; Old Man 487-698; Messenger 
 761-858; Clytaemestra 998-1146, 1165-67; Castor or Pollux 1238-1356. 
 
 Oedipus Rex. — locasta 634-862, 911-1072; Servant of Laius 1123-85. 
 
 3. Youth and old age are disregarded in the assignment of parts. The 
 roles are also very often of a different sex, which renders such combinations 
 even more inappropriate. 
 
 Electra (Sophocles). — Pedagogue 1-85; Chrysothemis 328-471; Pedagogue 
 660-803; Chrysothemis 871-1057; Pedagogue 1326-1375. It is beyond the 
 power of an ordinary actor to play successfully characters so widely different as 
 those of the girl Chrysothemis and the Old Pedagogue under any arrangement, 
 but the interlaced order of their appearance in this play adds materially to the 
 difficulty. 
 
 Antigone. — Antigone 1-99, 384-581, 806-942; Teiresias 988-1090; Messenger 
 1 155-1256. These characters are clearly unsuitable for one actor. The suc- 
 cessive order in which the characters appear would favor the doubling of parts of 
 like nature, but there is no similarity between the character of Antigone and 
 Teiresias. 
 
 I This seems to be the best arrangement; see Wilamowitz Heracles I*, pp. 151 ff. 
 
58 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 Bacchae. — The aged Cadmus 178-367; Attendant 434-50; Messenger 660- 
 774, 1024-1152; Cadmus 12 16-1392. 
 
 Andromache.^ — Hennione 147-273; Peleus 547-765; Hermione 825-1008; 
 Peleus 1047-1288; Richter adds the part of Female Servant 56-90. Peleus is 
 represented as a feeble, morose old man, Chrysothemis a girl of delicate nature. 
 The parts should not be doubled under any circumstances. 
 
 Iphigeneia at Aulis. — Old Man 1-163, 303-318; Messenger 414-39; Iphige- 
 neia 607-90; Old Man 855-895; Iphigeneia 1211-1510; Messenger 1532-1629. 
 Iphigeneia in this play is one of the most beautiful and refined characters in all 
 Greek literature. To combine the part with that of the Old Man and the Messen- 
 ger would be likely to produce a ludicrous effect. 
 
 Suppliants (Eur.).— Aethra, an old woman of excitable and nervous dis- 
 position, 1-41, 87-364; Herald 398-597 (Hermann, p. 51); Messenger 634-777; 
 Evadne 990-1071; Boy 1123-64; Athena 1183-1231. 
 
 4. Other unsuitable and miscellaneous roles must be doubled. 
 
 Ion. — Hermes 1-8 1 ; Xuthus 401-24, 517-675; Pedagogue 725-1047; Servant 
 1106-1228; Pythia 1320-68; Athena 1553-1619. 
 
 Hippolytus. — Servant 88-120; Nurse 176-361, 433-524, 565-731, 776-89; 
 Messenger 1 153-1264; Artemis 1283-1440. 
 
 Orestes. — Helena 71-125; Tyndareus 470-629; Pylades 729-806; Messenger 
 832-956; Pylades 1018-1245, 1347-49; Phrygian Slave 1369-1536; Apollo 
 1678-93. 
 
 Phoenissae. — Pedagogue 88-201; Eteocles 446-637, 690-783; Teiresias 834- 
 959; Messenger 1067-1263, 1335-1480; Oedipus 1539-1763. 
 
 Oedipus Rex. — Priest 1-150; Teiresias 300-462; locasta 634-862; Servant 
 of Laius 1123-85. 
 
 Acharnians.^ — One actor plays the parts of Persian Ambassador 65-125, 
 Theorus 134-66, Euripides 407-79, Lamachus 572-622, Megarian 729-835, 
 Boeotian 860-954, Farmer 1018-36, Lamachus 1072-1142, 1 190-1226. These 
 roles are obviously of two distinct types. The impersonator of Euripides or of 
 Lamachus must maintain a pseudo-seriousness and dignity throughout, while 
 the actor of the Megarian, Boeotian, and Farmer indulges in a witty and unre- 
 strained manner in the commonplace topics of their pursuits. They also have a 
 "broad Scotch" accent, and thus an actor clever at imitating the Doric dialect 
 would be necessary for the parts. 
 
 Frogs. — One actor plays Xanthias 1-664, 739-8o8; Aeschylus 840-1523. 
 A second actor plays Heracles 38-164, Charon 180-270, Janitor 465-78, Atten- 
 dant of Persephone 503-21, Boarding-house Keeper 548-78, Janitor 605-73, 
 738-813; Euripides 830-1456. No one would question, I think, the desirability 
 
 I Menelaiis might be assigned to this actor instead of Peleus, but the above com- 
 bination is the usual one. 
 
 * Of course this distribution does not take into account the parts of Pseudartabas, 
 Herald, and Nicarchus, for which neither of the three regular actors is available. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 59 
 
 of a different actor for the parts of Xanthias and Aeschylus. Both characters 
 are very important. Though Xanthias speaks but i6o verses, yet this by no 
 means represents the significance of his part. He is continually present upon 
 the scene up to 813, and when silent adds to the fun by his by-play. The part is 
 that of a slave full of fun and tricks who is constantly turning the tables on his 
 stupid master, Dionysus. The part of Aeschylus is quite different. The actor 
 must be capable of rendering effectively the high tragic style and must also possess 
 singing ability, since the part contains important lyrical elements. The actor 
 of Euripides also has an undesirable mixture of unsuitable roles, such as Janitor, 
 Heracles, Female Servant, etc. 
 
 Peace.'— Servant B 1-49; Hermes 180-233; Tumult 255-84; Hermes 362- 
 726; Heracles 1052-1115. The same actor must also play Crestmaker, Sword- 
 maker, Flutemaker, and Breastplatemaker. 
 
 Wasps.— Xa.nthias 1-137; Philocleon 144-97, 3i7-io°8, 1 122-1264, 1326- 
 1448, 1482-15 15. I have already pointed out the impossibihty of the same 
 actor's playing the parts of Xanthias and Philocleon owing to the lack of time 
 for a change of costume {supra, p. 52). But if we assume a pause in the action, 
 thus giving Xanthias' actor opportunity to change dress and come on as Philocleon, 
 the combination would not be appropriate. Philocleon is a person of most 
 individual type of character. He is represented as a bigoted devotee to that 
 malady most incident to his countrymen, viz., the litigious spirit. Xanthias is 
 the usual type of Aristophanic slave, witty and cajoling. 
 
 Lysislrata.'' — Calonice 1-253; Proboulus 387-613; Cinesias 845-1012; Young 
 Woman A 728-80; Athenian A 1058-1189, 1216-41. Another actor plays 
 Myrrhina 69-253, Old Woman A 439-613, Young Woman B 735-80, 
 Spartan Herald 980-1013, Spartan 1076-1188, 1242-132 1. Cinesias, Proboulus, 
 and Calonice are individual enough to require each a separate actor. The 
 combination has also the objection of forcing the same actor to play male and 
 female roles. The same principle is violated by combining Myrrhina with the 
 two Spartans, the Herald and Ambassador. The marked Doric dialect spoken by 
 the two Spartans would require an actor who could render that dialect with facility. 
 
 Thesmophoriazusae. 3— Euripides 1-279; Micca 295-764; Euripides 871- 
 927, 1055-1132, 1 160-1209. The order of appearance also militates against 
 
 1 The large number of "makers" at the end of this play were doubtless phiyed 
 by supernumeraries, since their parts are of little importance. 
 
 2 This distribution leaves out of account characters for which a fourth actor is 
 necessary, viz., Lampito 77-246; Old Woman B 431-613; Young Woman C 742-80. 
 
 3 Observe that Aristophanes, wishing to parody the tragic art in its impersona- 
 tion of women, chooses for the woman's role in this play a person totally unfit in every 
 physical quality for the artistic representation of female roles — the hairy, old, rough- 
 voiced Kedestes. But at the same time this is a parody given out as a "last resort," 
 for the ideal person for the role is the smooth-shaven, dainty, poetical, effeminate 
 Agathon. 
 
6o RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 the combination. To a second actor fall the parts of Servant of Agathon 39-70, 
 Agathon 101-265, Cleisthenes 574-654, Critylla 758-935, Scythian 1001-1225. 
 This is one case where, as it seems to me, male and female roles may be combined, 
 if ever. Agathon is called 190 ywaiKbcpuvos and Cleisthenes ijl proverbially 
 effeminate. The part of the Scythian, however, is inappropriate, and would 
 fall flat vmless taken by an actor capable of rendering the broken Greek of the 
 Scythian. 
 
 Ecclesiazusae. — Praxagora 1-284; Chremes 372-477; Praxagora 504-724; 
 Man A 730-871 ; Old Woman A 877-1044; Servant of Praxagora 1112-43. Another 
 actor plays Woman A 36-284, Blepyrus 311-477, 520-727, Man B 746-876, 
 Maid 884-1044, Old Woman C 1065-1111, Master 1130-50. Thus the leading 
 actor must play two important female roles and two important male roles; the 
 second actor, two male and two female roles besides two other minor roles. 
 
 F. It assumes that the state set a limit to its own expenditures or to the 
 demands which could he made upon the choregus. — All students -who are 
 familiar with the traditions of the Greek stage have been impressed, I dare 
 say, with the unnatural situations occasioned by the three-actor convention, 
 but no one has justified this convention either on the basis of philosophic 
 speculation or by setting forth material causes out of which alone it could 
 have sprung. Since the aesthetic rule which limited the number of actors 
 who could be present upon the scene had no connection with a limitation 
 of the number of actors employed, practical considerations must have been 
 the cause of the latter, if there was such a limitation. 
 
 Bergk Litt. Gesch. Ill, p. 83, attributed the limitation to the lack of 
 good actors in general and especially to the lack of efficient actors for secon- 
 dary roles, but without good reason. Every period of exceptional activity 
 in play-writing is accompanied by a corresponding interest in the art of 
 acting. They are mutually dependent the one upon the other. During the 
 earlier part of Aeschylus' career the number of professional actors was 
 probably small, since the profession was still in its infancy; but in this 
 period the pubUc taste would have been satisfied with amateurs.^ The 
 standard was not high. However, the art of acting kept stride with the 
 development of the drama, so that toward the middle of the fifth century 
 
 ' The earliest stages of dramatic development in England during the fourteenth 
 and fifteenth centuries furnishes an interesting parallel. At this period dramatic 
 exhibitions were confined almost exclusively to certain local festivals. Such celebra- 
 tions demanded hundreds of performers, but the public taste was quite satisfied with 
 amateurs. The lack of actors has never restricted a poet. In primitive stages of the 
 drama primitive acting has sufficed, but when it has reached a high state of development 
 professional actors have been abundant. In the latter half of the sixteenth century, 
 there were about 200 professional actors in London; cf. Collier History of Dramatic 
 Poetry III, pp. 84 ff. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 6l 
 
 the poets no longer found it necessary to act their own plays. The first 
 actors' contest was instituted in 449 b. c. This was probably an official 
 recognition of the high state of excellence to which the actors' profession 
 had attained. The effect of the recognition upon the profession in general 
 was far-reaching. The number of young men of talent who entered it 
 must have greatly increased. The competing actor was raised to a position 
 of importance and honor in the eyes of the public second only to the poet 
 himself. In the fourth century many of the most distinguished men of 
 state were actors by profession. The exalted position of the prominent actors 
 was in itself a guarantee that many would be drawn into the profession. 
 
 Unhappily no statement in ancient literature concerning the number 
 of actors in Athens at any period has come down to us, but evidence from 
 other sources is not entirely lacking. The great catalogue of victors IG. 
 II 977, will enable us to generalize somewhat on the subject. This docu- 
 ment in eight sections gave for each festival separately the names of the 
 victorious poets, tragic and comic, and of the victorious protagonists, tragic 
 and comic. The names are entered in the order of first victories. Of the 
 section devoted to the Lenaean tragic actors we have in fragg. r s tuvw 
 (Wilh. Urk., p. 145) the major part of four continuous columns. The 
 tragic actors' contest at the Lenaea was established at the time of the intro- 
 duction of tragedy into the Lenaea, ca. 432 b. c, as Reisch Zeitschr. /. 
 ost. Gymn. (1907), p. 308, has shown. Between Chaerestratus, the first 
 name, and Thettalus, whose first City Victory was won in 347, are 29 actors, 
 covering 85 years, or a new actor on the average to a little less than three 
 years. The Ust of tragic poets victorious at the Dionysia (fragg. a b, p. loi, 
 Wilh.) shows, on the other hand, only 25 new poets between Aeschylus 
 485 and Astydamas 372, a period of 113 years, that is, an average of a new 
 poet in 4^ years. From these observations we may safely draw the con- 
 clusion that the supply of protagonists at Athens during the period under 
 consideration was at least as large as the supply of good poets, in all 
 probabiHty even larger. We know that a host of theatres arose in and 
 about Athens in the fourth century. As the actor became relatively more 
 important than the poet the profession became one of absorbing interest. 
 
 A further examination of the victors' lists reveals the fact that the 
 average number of victories won by the poets is considerably larger 
 than the average won by the actors. At the City Dionysia Sophocles is 
 credited with 18 victories, Astydamas with 8, Theodectis with 7, Anaxan- 
 drides with 7, Cratinus with 6; at the Lenaea Euboulus is credited with 
 6 victories and Antiphanes with 8. But no actor is credited with more 
 than 6 victories. Hipparchus leads with 6 victories at the Lenaea, but the 
 
62 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 average is about 2 ; few won as many as 4. Even the famous actors Theo- 
 dorus and Thettalus are credited at the Lenaea with 4 and 2 victories 
 respectively. The conclusion is obvious that the number of "first-class" 
 actors exceeded that of the poets, and since a poet would employ only one 
 protagonist, there must have been a surplus of the latter. Since the begin- 
 ning of the actors' contest, therefore, there was always an abundance of 
 leading actors, i. e., protagonists. 
 
 Obviously the number of first-class actors was proportionately small as 
 compared with actors of a lower grade. Relatively few in any profession 
 attain fair success. Second- and third-rate actors, capable of imperson- 
 ating secondary and minor characters, were abundant. Even great and 
 famous actors, of course, began by appearing in minor characters. All 
 actors must serve an apprenticeship. When we consider the large number 
 of young apprentices in the profession, and the number of actors of 
 second and third grade, it seems absurd and unreasonable to suppose 
 that roles had to be doubled owing to the lack of proficient actors for 
 minor parts. Those who find in the lack of efficient secondary actors a 
 cause for the limitation are not consistent; for even in plays where a 
 fourth performer is necessary, the part is assigned by them to a chorus 
 member, presumably devoid of histrionic ability, rather than to a utility actor. 
 
 Schneider Alt. Theaterw., p. 136, followed by Richter loc. cit., p. 18, 
 and by Miiller Biihnenalt., p. 177, holds that the restriction of three actors 
 to each poet was due to the effort on the part of the state to be neutral in 
 its relations to all the poets, to give no poet an unequal advantage over 
 his competitors. Such a limitation, it seems to me, would have had a 
 tendency to favor certain poets in that it would have militated against 
 certain aspects of the genius of other poets. If strictly impartial the state 
 would have allowed the individual genius of each poet to have full play. 
 Sophocles employs three actors to good effect, but Euripides' genius delights 
 in the two-actor dialogue. A two-actor limitation would thus be preju- 
 dicial to Sophocles. The desires of single poets, furthermore, varied with 
 individual plays and the subject-matter of each. Sophocles probably found 
 three actors adequate for the Philoctetes with its cast of only five char- 
 acters, but for Oedipus Rex or Oedipus Coloneus, with a cast of nine 
 and eight characters respectively, three actors would have been quite 
 inadequate. Likewise, the requirements for the Orestes with a cast of 
 ten persons are far greater than for the Ion or Medea. The cost' of pro- 
 
 ^ Cf. Arist. Eg. 537 ff. : 5s (Kparij?) dirb fffiiKpds 5aTrdvr]s vpicis apKTrl^wv diriirefxwei', 
 dirb Kpa/x^ordrov ffrd/xaros fjidrruv da-TeLOTdrai ivivoias. The poet seems to state a 
 fact, and the impUcation seems to be that Crates' plays cost less for production than 
 those of his contemporary poets of comedy. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 63 
 
 duction varied with individual plays. If the state dealt impartially with 
 the poets and encouraged their art intelligently, it either set no limit at all 
 to the number of actors that the poet could employ, or set the limit as high 
 as five or six. 
 
 The only conceivable reason why the state should have limited the 
 number of actors to three, rather than, e. g., to six, if such a number were 
 desirable, would be to curtail expenses. The small number of actors 
 available for each poet, therefore, could only have been a matter of public 
 economy. 
 
 The solution of the question depends upon two things: (i) the economic 
 conditions of the Athenian state during the period when the drama was 
 under the direct supervision of the state; (2) the provision made by the 
 state for the maintenance of dramatic performances. 
 
 The wealth' and prosperity of the Athenian state during the fifth and 
 fourth centuries need no comment. Barring the period of the Peiopon- 
 nesian War, there is no evidence that the state in the fifth century ever 
 found it necessary to reduce appropriations for dramatic exhibitions. In 
 this period, to be sure, we know of two measures which indicate the pinch 
 of poverty, (i) the number of comedies was reduced from 5 to 3 from 
 ca. 431-425 until some time before 388 {supra, p. 21, n. 2), and 
 (2) the synchoregia was resorted to for the Dionysia in 406-5. ^ During 
 the fourth century the treasury was full to overflowing. 3 Athens was 
 the richest city of the ancient world. That the state was fijiancially 
 able to promote any enterprise for the people is patent to all. We know 
 further that the surplus moneys of the treasury were spent upon the festi- 
 vals of Dionysus even to the exclusion of other things. Demosthenes 
 {Phil. i. 35) deprecates the fact that the Athenians spend more money upon 
 their theatre than for an army or navy. 4 The people used their state 
 treasury as a pleasure fund. 
 
 The state had neither desire nor motive to limit closely its expenditiures 
 for dramatic exhibitions; such evidence as we have indicates liberal, if 
 
 1 For the wealth of Athens, the source of her income during the fifth century, see 
 Xen. Pol. Ath. i and 2; Bockh Public Economy (Eng. trans.), pp. 632 ff. ; Grote V, 
 P-S4- 
 
 2 Capps Am. Jour. Phil. XXVIII (1907), p. 183. ' .. 1-^-^ r "' ' 
 
 3 Blass Die socialen Zilstande Athens im vierten Jahrhundert B. C. (Kiel, 1885). 
 
 4 Justinian 17.9 reflects the later tradition on the subject: in dies festos apparatus- 
 que ludorum reditus pubhcos effundunt et actoribus nobilissimis poetisque theatra 
 celebrant frequentius scaenam quam castra visentes, versificatoresque meliores duces 
 laudantes. 
 
64 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 not extravagant, provision for them. We have no evidence for definitely 
 determining the question whether actors were paid directly from the state 
 treasury or by the choregus. The former seems the more probable. 
 Doubtless many actors of private fortunes played without remuneration 
 from any source.^ If the choregus were appointed by the state to defray 
 the expenses of the entire production, it is not likely that he received an 
 injunction forbidding him to spend more than a certain amount. The 
 archon seems to have been empowered to compel the choregus to come up 
 to a certain standard, but there was no limit to the amount that choregi 
 might spend, and we often hear of their spending unnecessarily large sums. 
 It was the policy of the state, therefore, to make adequate provision 
 for dramatic performances, either directly from the treasury or indirectly 
 by appointing as choregi rich citizens who were financially able to meet in 
 a liberal manner all the expenses of the production. 
 
 V. THE EXISTENCE OF A PRACTICAL THREE-ACTOR RULE IN THE 
 PERIOD OF THE GUILDS 
 
 Under the choregic system at Athens considerations of economy played 
 a very insignificant role; they did not serve to place a restriction upon 
 the elaboration and effectiveness with which plays were brought out. 
 General financial depression, such as existed during the Peloponnesian 
 War, led, it is true, to measures of economy in the production of tragedies 
 and comedies. But, as we have seen, such measures seem to have effected <^l 
 only the number of plays produced, not the manner of their production. 
 The brief resort to the synchoregia at the City Dionysia, whereby two 
 citizens instead of one shared the expense of fitting out a chorus,^ evinces 
 the desire of the state to maintain even in a period of financial stress a 
 high quality of dramatic representation, but without putting an excessive 
 burden upon a single individual. 
 
 The restriction of dramatic exhibitions at Athens to certain fixed 
 seasons left to professional actors the greater portion of the year free, thus 
 making it possible for them to practice their art in other places. They 
 naturally took advantage of this opportunity to supplement the honorarium 
 received for their services in state festivals. Hence there were organized 
 in the city under the management of certain leading actors dramatic com- 
 
 1 Such is the assumption of Wolf Proleg. ad Dem. Leptin., p. 93, n. 69. 
 
 2 The fact should be emphasized that in this manner expense was saved to the 
 state and to the choregi. The drama was sustained "unharmed." Aristophanes 
 expresses the situation well in Ran. 406 ff.: wo-re . . . . a,^7)tJ.iovs iral^tiv re Kal 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 65 
 
 panics which toured Attica and Greece in general. Such companies were 
 not subsidized by the state' but were paid by separate communities. For 
 the members of these voluntary associations of actors, the business was of 
 the nature of a private venture, their financial success depending upon 
 the number and lucrativeness of the engagements which they were able 
 to arrange. The custom extended far back into the fourth century and 
 also into the fifth. Plato Legg. viii. 817 c refers to traveling troupes which, 
 in his own time, erected their booths in the market-places of cities and gave 
 dramatic performances. Simylus and Socrates, the "Ranters" (Dem. 
 De cor. 262), hire Aeschines and make trips about Attica. Aristotle 
 {Probl. XXX. 10) makes the query why is it that the actors of wandering 
 companies lead such dissolute lives. The remains of the theatre at 
 Thoricus show evidence of fifth-century construction, and the theatre at 
 Eretria also belongs to the fifth century. By the middle of the fourth 
 century all the demes of Attica had their annual dramatic spectacles, 
 and theatres were being erected in all parts of Greece.^ From these facts 
 it may be inferred that by the early part of the fourth century the custom 
 was well established for companies to be formed at Athens for the purpose 
 of providing the Dionysia in the demes of Attica, district fairs, and small 
 towns throughout Greece with presentations of the great masterpieces of 
 Athenian poets. 3 The companies plied the acting profession as a trade, 
 a convenient and easy way of earning a livelihood. The motive for dra- 
 matic production in the hands of the traveling companies was to make 
 money." The conditions under which plays were presented by them were 
 such as would necessarily tend to make performances less elaborate. The 
 country communities could usually not afford an extensive or elaborate 
 dramatic performance. While the composition of a troupe depended in 
 a meas\ire upon the taste and wealth of individual communities, yet it is 
 
 ' There is one exceprion to this: the festival at Peiraeus was an event of unusual 
 importance, and Athens contributed to the expenses and supplied many victims for 
 sacrifice; see Haigh op. cit., p. 44 and n. i. 
 
 2 Cf. Dorpfeld-Reisch Gr. Theat., pp. 109, 113, 141, and Haigh, p. 44. ■2i<^/ 
 
 3 The best class of actors, of course, performed in the established theatres and at 
 the most importan' festivals, while actors who played probably only insignificant roles 
 at the city festivals started on foot, giving performances wherever they could. 
 
 4 We must not forget, however, that the motives which led the various communities 
 to give dramatic exhibitions at their festivals were quite the same as at Athens, and 
 their motive was not to make money. They doubtless made their spectacles as grand 
 and splendid as they could afford, but, while Athens had the money and pride to make 
 plays ideally perfect in their presentation, the Attic towns had to economize. 
 
66 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 probable that in most cases they put up with performances such as the 
 manager chose to give them.^ 
 
 In estimating the great changes wrought by the wandering troupes in 
 dramatic production, three important factors must be taken into account: 
 (i) the personal gain of the actor-manager; (2) the extra expense, which is 
 a necessary concomitant of a traveling troupe; (3) the non-critical, crude 
 provincial audience.^ How would such conditions be likely to affect 
 dramatic presentation ? 
 
 The chorus was greatly reduced. The expense and inconvenience of 
 traveling would naturally tend to reduce the chorus of fifteen or twenty- 
 four members to a smaller number. The full tragic or comic chorus would 
 entail a greater outlay of money than the provincial community could 
 bear, besides taxing the capacity of the ordinary theatre. Seven comic 
 choreutae are recorded in each of the four Soteric hsts at Delphi^ (middle 
 of the third century). The choreutae entered in these inscriptions must 
 have had an organic connection with the actors in the production of the 
 comedies, and cannot have been merely dancers of interludes to fill up 
 pauses in the action, or anything of that kind.'^ The number of the chorus 
 may have varied with the importance of the festival, or may have been 
 dispensed with entirely at the somewhat extemporaneous performances 
 
 1 Of course if a festival specified a large number of actors and elaborate scenery, 
 etc., the manager would gladly furnish these. This would be a matter of mutual agree- 
 ment. The manager would be concerned only with his profits, not the number of 
 actors. He would add any number to his troupe but raise the price proportionately. 
 However, it is likely that a manager in the early part of the fourth century did as he 
 pleased, since dramatic performances in the provinces were new, and the audiences 
 were easily satisfied. 
 
 2 The country audiences doubtless endured poor acting, the mutilation of texts, 
 crude scenery, etc., that would have been intolerable to the Athenian spectator. 
 
 3 In a catalogue of the second half of the second century (Baunack SGDI. II, 
 No. 2569), four comic choreutae only are recorded. 
 
 4 The assimiption that the choreutae in these records were not acting choruses 
 was due to the false conception that the chorus in comedy practically disappeared early 
 in the fourth century. The chorus remained in comedy into the third century. For 
 tragedy there is no evidence that the chorus was ever given up. Cf. Capps Atn. Jour. 
 Arch. X (1895), p. 287; in Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. XXXI (1900), p. 133, he calls 
 attention to another significant fact which is strong evidence that the connection of the 
 choreutae with the comic actors was organic, viz., the absence of didascali after the 
 lists of comic choreutae. The didascalus of the actors seems to have been in charge of 
 the chorus also. So Dracon, who figures in the accounts of the Delian Upoiroiolj 
 was in charge of a chorus as well as actors; see A. Korte Neue Jahrb. V (1900), p. 84; 
 Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa Encyc, s. v. "Chor," is of the opinion that the connection 
 between the chorus and actors was not close. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 67 
 
 in the market-places of cities. The locality where the festival was held 
 may have supplied mutes' to fill in, thus raising the chorus to its normal 
 size. 
 
 The traveling troupes also doubtless dispensed largely with scenery 
 and stage apparatus and with all unnecessary persons. The small number 
 of characters that appear together in Greek plays gave the economical 
 manager an excellent opportunity to reduce his company to a very small 
 figure. The largest number of persons that engage in the dialogue at one 
 time would determine the number of actors in a company. The text was 
 made to conform to the convenience of the troupe, or to the caprice of the 
 managing actor. The famous actor Theodorus is said to have altered 
 the text of a play in order to come on in the first scene. =* The law of 
 Lycurgus, whereby only approved state copies were allowed to be per- 
 formed, shows the practice of actors at this period of distorting tragic 
 texts. This very law was aimed more especially at the heads of troupes, 
 who must have taken great liberties with the texts in presenting plays. 
 The Athenian audience would not have tolerated the mutilation of texts 
 by actors, nor was it necessary to resort to such a device at the city festivals. 
 The custom of presenting a play with three actors began with performances 
 by traveling companies outside of Athens and was a natural outgrowth 
 of the economic plan upon which such companies were conducted. 
 
 Organized guilds of technitae were formed relatively late. Poland^ 
 has pointed out that neither Aristotle nor Demosthenes speaks of the guilds 
 by their ofl&cial title 01 -jrepl rbv ^lowaov rex^'iTai. Furthermore, since 
 Aristotle^* speaks of the wandering actors in a contemptuous manner, 
 it is extremely probable that they did not have the official standing which 
 we know they possessed in the latter part of the fourth century. There 
 may have been an organization of some kind at an earlier date, but it 
 did not receive the sanction of the state. The most important guild in 
 Greece was located at Athens. s At Thebes was also an independent 
 
 I Cf. Menander frag. 165 (Kock CAF. Ill, p. 48). 
 
 ' Aristotle Pol. 1336 b 28; cf. also Schafer loc. cit., p. 242. 
 
 3 De col. arti}. Dionys. (1895), P- 9- The guilds have been treated also by Ziebarth 
 Gr. Vereinwesen, Lpz., 1896; Muller Buhnenalt. (1886), pp. 362 ff., Reisch De tnus. 
 certam. (Wien, 1885)., p. 72; Sauppe Com. de col. art. seen. Alt., Gott. 1876; Friedlander 
 De artij. Dionys., Konigsberg, 1874; Luders Dionys. Kiinstler, Berl., 1873; Foucart 
 De col. seen. arti}. apud Gr., Paris, 1873. 
 
 ^ Rhet. 1405 a 23 (iii. 2); cf. Luders, p. 59. 
 
 s ol^v ' Ad-fivaii Tex^lrai, CIA. II 551. This is the oldest datable document 
 relative to any organization of technitae. It refers to the latter part of the fourth cen- 
 tury, and was inscribed after 279 b. c; cf. Pomtow Fleckeis. Jahrb. 149 (1894), 
 
68 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 synod. ^ In addition to the two guilds just mentioned there was in the main- 
 land of Greece the large corporation of technitae,^ which was composed 
 of branch guilds in Thebes {CIG. 2485), Opus {SGDI. II 1502), Chalcis 
 {BCH. XVI, pp. 92 ff.), and Argos (Le Bas Argolide 116 a). Guilds 
 of technitae were not confined to the Greek continent. The synod at Teos 
 was one of the most important, and the one about which we are best 
 informed (CIG. 3067-71). Likewise at Ptolemais (BCH. IX, p. 133) 
 and at Cyprus (CIG. 2619, 2620) were flourishing guilds. In all parts of 
 the Greek-speaking world were to be found organized guilds of technitae. 
 All musical and dramatic entertainment passed exclusively into their 
 control.3 
 
 The customs and practices which characterized the early unorganized 
 traveling companies were transferred to the guilds. The work of the 
 former individual manager passed over to the ofl&cers of the union. The 
 guilds negotiated through its representatives with cities for dramatic 
 exhibitions. Originally, economy was the prime motive which led the 
 wandering troupes to reduce their number to three actors, but in the 
 course of a century or so their practices had estabUshed a fixed norm. 
 The people had come to look upon three actors as adequate to present a 
 play, as constituting the normal dramatic troupe. At least, the guild at 
 
 p. 500. Sauppe, p. 5, saw in the diaaos rCiv Movcrdv of Sophocles the prototype of the 
 technitae organization, but Poland's investigation (p. 9) shows that Olaffos is restricted 
 in use to organizations for the worship of gods, and is never used for secular organiza- 
 tions such as bands of technitae. 
 
 1 rb KOivhv Tuv irepl rbv Ai6vvffov TexfirSiv t6 iv Gi^/Sats, CIG. 2484, 2413, 2414. 
 Poland, pp. 8 ff., endeavored to prove by the uses of Koivbv and o-i/yoSos that ciivoboi 
 was used only of a branch organization, while Koivbv was a term by which a " Verband" 
 or a union of many aivoboi was designated. Accordingly in Greece there existed 
 but one Koivbv which embraced both Athens and Thebes, in addition to the larger 
 Isthmian -Nemean corporation. The same situation obtained in Asia Minor and Egypt, 
 where one Koivbv embraced all the civoboi of those countries. His arguments are 
 refuted by Ziebarth, p. 79, who shows that no such distinction is observed in the use 
 of these terms. 
 
 2 Whose official title was rb KOivbv ruv irepl rbv Aibvvcrov Texft-Tdv i^ 'ladfj-ov k. 
 Neix4as. 
 
 3 The main motive that prompted actors to unite in a close organization was to 
 promote their own material welfare and the interests of individual members. It 
 has also been suggested that the purpose was to better the condition of poor traveling 
 companies that wandered about, or perhaps the habit of making expeditions over 
 Greece had had a pernicious effect upon actors and the status of the drama so that the 
 state became instrumental in their formation for the purpose of restoring the drama 
 to its sacred position and for the purpose of getting better actors for her festivals. 
 Cf. Liiders, p. 63; Muller Buhnenalt., p. 393. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 69 
 
 Athens in the early part of the third century regarded three as the regular 
 number for a dramatic company. For this we have positive evidence 
 in Delphic inscriptions which give the names of the performers at the 
 Soteria for four years, about the middle of the third century B. c. The 
 participants in these exhibitions were furnished by the Athenian guild of 
 artists,' 
 
 It has been shown by Capps that the names of many of the par- 
 ticipants in the Soteria are in the contemporary agonistic Hsts found at 
 Delos, and that the names of a number of comic actors who participated 
 in the Soteria or in the Delian Apollonia are also found in the section of 
 the Athenian Victors'-lists devoted to comic actors (IG. II 977). The 
 Athenian list gives only the victorious protagonists. A tabulation of 
 the facts regarding the comic actors who appear in the Soteric lists 
 and a comparison of their names with those found in the Delian and 
 Athenian inscriptions lead to the inevitable conclusion that the DeUan 
 lists also give only the protagonists (leaders of separate comic troupes), 
 but all of them, not the victors alone, while the Delphic lists give 
 all the persons in each troupe, not the protagonists alone. Now since 
 the comic and tragic companies in the Soteric inscriptions all consist of 
 three performers who are classed as kw/xwBol and rpaywSoL, with a trainer 
 and flute-player for each company, we have in this one instance documen- 
 tary evidence that in the period of the artists' guilds, outside of Athens at 
 least, three actors and their assistants constituted the normal dramatic 
 company. 2 But the guild was prepared to furnish more actors if neces- 
 sary; the tragic troupe belonging to the Ptolemais guild consisted of one 
 Tpayu)86<; and four crwaycovtcrTac, Ditt. Orient. Gr. Insc, No. 51. 
 
 The literary evidence for a three-actor law for this period may be 
 disposed of briefly. It should be observed at this point that nowhere is 
 it explicitly stated that three actors were used to perform a play. How- 
 ever, there are several passages in late writers which indicate that, in the 
 writer's time, or conceivably, in the writer's opinion, even in the classical 
 period, the usual number of actors employed in the production of a play was 
 three. These passages may be classified as follows: (i) Actors are spoken 
 of as appearing in more than one role in the same play. It is not implied, 
 however, that three actors carried all the roles, but only that doubling of 
 
 ' Sauppe Com. de collegiis seen., p. 10. I use the text of Baunack SGDI. II 
 2563-66, with the improvements suggested by Capps Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXXI 
 (1900), pp. 124 ff. 
 
 2 The details of this matter the writer expects to give later in an article, "The 
 Number of the Dramatic Company in the Period of the Technitae." 
 
70 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 roles was practiced.^ (2) The invention of the term "parachoregema" in 
 appHcation to an "extra," i. e., a fourth speaking actor, is based upon the 
 idea of an "extra expense." If more than three actors were employed no 
 such extra expense would be involved by the use of a fourth speaking person 
 on the scene. The use of the term therefore imphes, for the period in which 
 it occurs, the usual limitation to three of the number of actors employed." 
 (3) In a few passages the classification of actors into three classes implies a 
 limitation of their number in a performance. 3 That such dramatic com- 
 panies of three belong to the period of the actors' guilds, or are traveling 
 troupes under the management of the rex gregis or protagonist, is evidenced, 
 not only by the uniformly late date of the notices themselves, but also by 
 incidental allusions in these notices that admit of no other explanation. 
 
 I Lucian Necyom. 16: the actor who has been playing the role of a king li.er'' 
 6\lyov oIk4t7]s wporfkdev, virb tov woiriToO K€Ke\eviJ.4vos- Aristides I, p. 351 Dind. : (rrpa- 
 TiuiTTjs iJ.eTe<TKeija<XTai 6s dprlajs Tjv yeutpyds. Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 899: /xeTeffKevaffTai 
 6 i^dyyeXos els Ilv\ddr}i', Hva p.7] 5' \iyoxnv. Schol. Eur. Phoen. 93 states that Antigone 
 does not appear with the Paedagogue at 88, because time must be given for the pro- 
 tagonist (who as locasta has spoken the prologue, exit 87) to reappear as Antigone 
 (enter ca. 100). But only two persons are present in this scene. The scholiast 
 evidently feels that the leading actor should carry the part of both Antigone and 
 locasta. This may have been the practice in his day. Schol. Soph. O. T. 147 
 explains the exit of the Priest at this point: besides having finished his business, he 
 must leave virkp tov xwpai' elcoi eript^ viroKpir^. But in the following scene only two 
 are present; the actor of the Priest would not be needed until 316. 
 
 »It occurs, of a fourth speaking actor, only three times: Poll. iv. 109, el di 
 rirapTos viroKpiTr]s ■n-apa.<pdiy^aiTo,To\JTo irapaxop'ltyqix.aL dvoixd^erai; schol. Aesch. Prow. 
 12 Bia is called a "parachoregema," and in schol. Aristoph. Pax. 114 the children of 
 Trygaeus. In the other two occurrences of the word it is used for non-speaking 
 supernumeraries (Areopagites) or supplementary choEUS (Frogs). That irapaxoprjyTitxa 
 is derived from xop'77"'' in its derived non-technical sense of "spend" and was 
 applied to the presentation of plays in the commercial period of the guilds, I have 
 tried to show in Classical Philology II, pp. 387 flf. The extensive use of the term is 
 modern. 
 
 3 The three actors according to schol. Dem. De pace 58. 6 (above, p. 34, n. 3) 
 were, in classical times, viroKpiT-fis, SevrepayuviaTi^s, and TpLTayajPKXT-j^s; later on 
 rpayifiSds or /cw/x(f)S6s replaced vrroKpiT'fis as the designation of the protagonist. This 
 seems to be the gist of the meaning of the corrupt passage; the first statement, as we 
 have seen, does not hold good for the classical period. Pollux iv. 124 (above, p. 32, 
 n. 3) assigns the three doors of the scena to the protagonist, deuteragonist, and t6 
 eireX^ffTarov irpdffuirov; but the third phrase, and the fact that the role of king, who 
 used the central door, was often not borne by the leading actor, suggests that he had 
 in mind the significance of the doors in relation to characters — as indeed Vitruvius 
 v. 6. 3 makes clear. Plotinus iii. 2 (above, p. 32, n. 4) also seems to refer to the 
 limited number three, and this may be true also of other references which have been 
 given on pp. 32 ff., passim. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 7I 
 
 Plutarch Mor. 816 / (above, p. 32, n. i) speaks of the humble bearing on 
 the stage of a famous protagonist, a Theodorus or a Polus, toward the cheap 
 "hireling "who carried the third role, if the latter happened to play the king.* 
 So Pollux iv. 124 (above, p. 32, n. 3) speaks of the "cheapest" role after 
 referring to protagonist and deuteragonist. We are at once struck by the 
 resemblance of the custom here referred to, of the protagonist hiring his 
 troupe, to that to which Demosthenes alludes when he refers to the traveling 
 company of which Aeschines was a member. The organization under 
 which the dramas were brought out at Athens in the fifth and fourth centu- 
 ries, the provision made for supplying the needs of the poet-manager, were 
 of an entirely different nature. Sophocles and Euripides did not write their 
 plays with reference to the purely economic or commercial conditions under 
 which plays were represented by the privately managed traveling troupes 
 or the troupes sent out on the road by the guilds. Later writers knew at 
 first hand only these later conditions, and were acquainted with the earlier 
 conditions only through antiquarian studies. 
 
 Scholars have employed documents of the technitae period, particu- 
 larly the Soteric inscriptions, as evidence for similar conditions at Athens 
 in the classical period; they have used the technitae rule of three, a non- 
 Athenian institution, to prove an Athenian institution; they have applied 
 statements of late writers to Athenian practices of the fifth century; 
 they have made no distinction between the different circumstances under 
 which in various localities plays were brought out in these different periods. 
 But w'e are not justified in transferring to the early Athenian drama the 
 practices of actors' guilds, which grew up under wholly different conditions. 
 This would be as unreasonable and as unscientific as not to distinguish 
 between the performances of the early Elizabethan Interludes by strolling 
 companies and those of the fully developed drama of Shakespeare and his 
 contemporaries in London theatres. The different conditions under which 
 plays of this period (i 550-1650) were produced are clearly reflected in the 
 dramas themselves. A brief consideration of the dramatic productions of 
 the Elizabethan period will enable one to appreciate more fully the enor- 
 mous effect that different economic conditions must have had upon dramatic 
 production in antiquity. 
 
 Fortunately we have accurate data* on the production of the Elizabethan 
 
 1 We think of the parasite in Alciphron Ep. iii. 35 who was hired by Lexiphanes 
 to play the part of servant in his troupe; only Lexiphanes is represented as the poet 
 and not as the protagonist. 
 
 2 The main source of my information has been the plays of the period. I have 
 also foimd very serviceable Chambers Mediaeval Stage, Vol. II, and especially Collier 
 History of English Poetry, Vol. III. 
 
72 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 Strolling companies and the economic conditions under which they con- 
 ducted their trade. According to the custom of the time noblemen' had 
 their own players as retainers. Under this arrangement the actors received 
 a certain fee annually, but, when not needed at court, were permitted to 
 take the road. They thus traveled on foot from village to village, from 
 country-seat to country-seat, receiving uncertain rewards for their exhi- 
 bitions. The income from performances outside of the metropolis was very 
 meager. Henslowe^ stipulates with his "hirelings" that should the com- 
 pany go into the country they should play at half price. The same motive 
 that led to the reduction of wages of individual actors also led to the division 
 of the companies when tours were made into the provinces. This conclu- 
 sion is based on the fact that the average troupe of the noblemen was com- 
 posed of ten or twelve persons, while the normal traveling troupe was four 
 or five. 
 
 The new conditions under which plays were given reacted upon the 
 structure of the drama. The long cyclical Miracles, which demanded a 
 very large number of performers, were gradually supplanted by the Inter- 
 lude. The Interlude dealt ordinarily with short episodes, required a 
 comparatively small cast, and was far more practical and easy of representa- 
 tion. It was written especially to meet the demands of the small troupe, 
 since economy in traveling and the inconvenience of crowding the hall or 
 private house both operated to put a limit to the number of performers. 
 Four mens and a boy constituted the normal traveling troupe. A very 
 considerable number of the extant Interludes contain lists of dramatis 
 personae accompanied by an indication as to how, by the doubling of 
 roles, the cast may be brought within reasonable compass. This method 
 began with the Craxton^ play of the Sacrament, which has twelve parts, 
 but "IX may play it at ease." Bales Three Laws claims to require five 
 actors, and the Lusty Juventus^ only four. Scores of the early Elizabethan 
 
 1 See Collier loc. ciL, p. 440. 
 
 2 Cf. Collier, pp. 85 and 438. The diary of Philip Henslowe begins ca. 1570 
 and is one of the most important sources for the stage of this period. 
 
 3 Cf. Sir Thomas Moore: A Morality (Shakespeare Society, p. 56). A player 
 enters to make a bargain with Moore to furnish a performance for his guests. Moore: 
 "How manie are ye?" i. e., in your troupe. Player: "Foure men and a boy, Sir." 
 Moore: "But one boy? Then, I see there 's but few women in the play." Player: 
 "Three, my Lord, Dame Science, Lady Vanitie, and Wisdom she herself." Moore: 
 " And one boy play them all ? bi'r lady, hee's loden." 
 
 4 Manly Pre-Shakespearean Drama I, p. 276. 
 s Dodsley's Old Eng. Plays (Hazlitt, Vol. II) 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 73 
 
 Interludes have similar indications, as, for instance. New Custom^ (iS73)> 
 "eleven parts divided for foure actors;" Trial oj Treasure (1567), the 
 roles arranged for five actors, i. e., four men and a boy; Like Will to Like 
 (Hazlitt, Vol. Ill) has the same arrangement; Life and Repentaunce oj 
 Mary Magdalene (1566) has fourteen characters, but "Foure may easily 
 play this Interlude."^ Many of the Moralities were also contrived for 
 six actors: Wit and Wisdom (1579), a cast of nineteen characters; The 
 Story of King Daryiis (Brandl Quellen des weltlichen Dramas, p. 358), 
 twenty characters, "syxe persons may easily play it;" History oj Horestes, 
 twenty-four persons "divided for vi to playe;" The Conflict oj Con- 
 science (1581), "the actors' names, divided into six parts most convenient 
 for such as be disposed either to shew this comedie in private houses or 
 otherwise." The comedy Miscedorus (1598), fifteen characters, "eight 
 persons may easily play it;" The Fayre Mayde oj Exchange, twenty-two 
 roles, "eleaven may easily acte this comedy;" Camhises (Manly, p. 16), 
 thirty-seven characters arranged for eight actors. 
 
 These examples suffice to show the situation. It was expensive as well 
 as inconvenient for a large troupe of actors to travel. The country audience 
 was small and poor, and there was no public hall or private house suitable 
 for large companies. Thus it became necessary to reduce each company 
 to the smallest possible number. This necessity gave rise to the Interlude, 
 which was written and contrived to meet the economic conditions and 
 convenience of the traveling companies. The reduction of performers 
 and consequently the doubling of parts was the direct and necessary 
 result of the material conditions under which the companies plied their 
 profession. 
 
 The formula on the title-page of many of the plays, "foure or syxe may 
 or can play it," was of course a direct appeal to managers of strolling com- 
 panies, but it also impUes that a larger number of actors would be desirable. 
 In fact, we know that in many London and court performances of Inter- 
 ludes the doubhng of roles was rare. In the court performance Lyly's 
 Campaspe^ (1584) the companies were united, thus avoiding the doubling 
 of parts. When economy was not an important item and other practical 
 matters did not interfere, parts were never doubled. 
 
 The custom of combining parts for one actor ceased almost entirely 
 
 1 Dodsley's Old Eng. Plays (Hazlitt, Vol. III). 
 
 2 Edited by Carpenter (Chicago, 1903), who says in his Introduction: "'Foure' 
 is probably a misprint for 'five,' since in vss. 423-812, 1629-1867 five speaking char- 
 acters are on the scene at once." 
 
 3 Gayley Representative Eng. Comedies. 
 
74 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 with Shakespeare and his contemporaries. In a preliminary page of the 
 great First Folio of Shakespeare's plays are enumerated the names of the 
 actors that composed his company. Including himself there are twenty- 
 six men. This would, of course, make the practice unnecessary to any 
 great extent. Besides the actors in his regular company, Shakespeare 
 doubtless had a very large number of apprentices and supernumeraries 
 who could be called upon for minor roles. 
 
 Shakespeare's activity was confined almost exclusively to the metropo- 
 lis; here his actors lived; and, as is true of all local and stock companies, 
 the expense and inconvenience of traveling was not a consideration. Suc- 
 cess in financing his company and the large patronage of the city put 
 Shakespeare's company upon an economical basis totally different from 
 that of traveling companies. 
 
 The same principle may be illustrated in the modern stage conditions 
 of England and America. Practically no theatre in either of these countries 
 is worked today on any but the capitalist principle. The theatrical man- 
 ager's first and last aim is naturally to secure the highest possible remunera- 
 tion for his invested capital. He has no objection to the artistic drama, 
 provided he can draw substantial profit from it, but his object is to benefit 
 his purse. The pleasure that carries farthest and brings to him the largest 
 paying audience is his ideal stock-in-trade. The practical manager, in 
 seeking pecuniary profit from his ventures, naturally strives to get plays 
 that may be economically staged; he employs good or bad actors in pro- 
 portion as it will increase or diminish the sale of tickets. He must conduct 
 his business on a sound financial basis. Thus when the company leaves 
 the large city for an extended tour over the states, to avoid the heavy 
 financial risks involved in the transportation of a large troupe, the size 
 of the original comany is usually greatly reduced ; all extras and unneces- 
 saries are left behind; the scenery is not so elaborate; rarely is a play so 
 well staged in the town or small city as in the larger city. The manager 
 dispenses with everything that does not materially affect the production of 
 his play. Compare our theatre, financed by money-getting individuals, 
 with the great theatres of Europe. The Comedie Franfais was established 
 by a king; the Paris opera runs behind every year, notwithstanding the 
 large annual subsidy from the state ; the theatres of Austria and Germany 
 were founded and are protected by royal favor. At least two dozen thea- 
 tres in the German Empire are endowed by the Emperor. Smaller princes 
 help ; public taxes are used for the drama. What has been the result ? 
 The facts speak for themselves. A comparison of the drama of England 
 and America with that of Europe shows the pernicious effect of a com- 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 75 
 
 mercialized stage. When and where has the acted drama ever reached its 
 height without some non-commercial backing ? 
 
 In modern times and in the Elizabethan period economy and con- 
 venience have determined the manner of dramatic production. What 
 happens in one age may happen in any other under like conditions. The 
 practices of the strolling companies of the Elizabethan period bears a 
 striking resemblance to the wandering troupes of Greece in so far as our 
 knowledge of these troupes extends ; the fully developed drama at London 
 to the Athenian drama of the classical period, to the advantage of the 
 latter. The parallel proves nothing, but is interesting as showing that the 
 laws of economy in similar situations produce like results in all ages. 
 
 VI. A REDISTRIBUTION OF THE ROLES IN SELECTED PLAYS 
 
 It was my original plan that the constructive part of this treatise should 
 be a redistribution of the roles in all the plays in accordance with principles 
 suggested in Section IV. Obviously such an undertaking would be futile 
 and worthless so far as it should propose to represent with any degree of 
 exactness what actually took place in the classical period at Athens. Only 
 the professional Greek stage-manager, thoroughly conversant with the 
 personality and capacity of his actors, would be competent to arrange 
 the staging of each individual play. The versatility of individual actors 
 would determine in some cases the doubling of parts, and many other 
 considerations would have to be taken into account in specific cases. 
 Each manager would distribute the parts in individual cases according to 
 the material at his disposal. Even expert managers might not agree on 
 certain details. However, it has seemed advisable to make a division 
 of roles in a few plays as a means of illustrating certain principles which I 
 follow, and which I am convinced are of universal application in the 
 grouping of characters to be assigned to one actor. In the absence of 
 positive evidence from antiquity there is perhaps no better method of 
 ascertaining the probable practice of the Greeks in this regard than to 
 refer to the practice of modern managers. In the ordinary modern play, 
 as produced in the best theatres, there is practically no doubling of parts. 
 It is not uncommon, however, in Shakespearean performances for one 
 actor to impersonate more than one character.* The same actor fre- 
 quently plays Polonius and first Grave-digger in Hamlet. The two 
 
 I Sometimes in Macbeth Duncan and the Physician are combined. Everything 
 would favor such a doubhng. Duncan is murdered early in the play; the Physician 
 comes on only once at the end of the play, in a night scene, and speaks but a few words. 
 
^6 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 characters are so admirably adapted to the same type of an actor that a 
 performer for each part is quite unnecessary and would be an economic 
 waste. I recall several recent productions of Shakespeare by the Ben 
 Greet players of London. His company of twenty-seven actors would 
 present Henry II, which has a cast of some forty characters. Mr. Greet 
 managed his company strictly on a money-making basis, and was not 
 disposed to employ an extra actor if one actor could play more than one 
 role well. An actor would frequently carry some three or four parts, but 
 minor parts such as messengers, forresters, and other insignificant roles. 
 Characters that appeared but once, whose presence upon the stage was 
 farthest apart, and those whose makeup and costumes were quite different, 
 were combined that the spectator might not detect that the same one was 
 impersonating two or more different characters. This is a most important 
 consideration. In serious drama the audience must not be conscious that 
 one actor is playing two parts, for this destroys the illusion and thus 
 detracts from the effect. It cannot be avoided, however, if an actor is on 
 the stage very much. Hence the important parts of a play are never 
 doubled, nor those characters of marked personalities, or of peculiar 
 physical characteristics. 
 
 To what extent the custom of combining parts prevailed at Athens in 
 the classical period cannot be determined. But it is quite unnecessary 
 in many plays to assume a separate actor for each part, and in some cases 
 it would seem to be sheer economic waste, for unimportant characters may 
 frequently be doubled without causing offense to the audience, or even 
 in such a manner as to escape notice. On the other hand, it is reasonably 
 certain that there were scores of second-grade actors and apprentices in 
 the profession at Athens who were available for minor roles. All actors 
 begin by playing minor parts, and doubtless as apprentices they regarded 
 it as a special favor and a distinction to play a part at the Great Festival. 
 In view of this, it seems unlikely that the habit of doubling parts existed 
 to any great extent, if at all. 
 
 In the plays chosen for illustration, I proceed on the assumption that 
 a manager would use at least a sufficient number of actors to produce his 
 play in a creditable fashion, but that he might desire to double roles where 
 the effect would not be bad. Accordingly, only such roles are grouped as 
 seem peculiarly adapted to one actor. The following principles are thus 
 observed, with a degree of flexibility to suit individual cases: 
 
 1. The combination of male and female roles is to be avoided. 
 
 2. Only characters of Hke age should be grouped; at least it is important 
 to avoid doubling extremes in age. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 77 
 
 3. Important characters in a play require separate actors for each. 
 
 4. Other characters whose personaHties are not too keenly deUneated 
 may be doubled under the following conditions : (a) if the order of appear- 
 ance of the characters is supplementary; (b) if these characters are not of 
 too miscellaneous a nature; (r) if their appearances upon the scene are 
 far apart; (d) if, finally, the doubling would escape the attention of the 
 audience. 
 
 ELECTRA OF SOPHOCLES 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 1 Electra 86-1384; 1395-1507 Total w. 644 
 
 2 \ Orestes 1-85; 1098-1375; 142 1-1440; 1465-1507 ( Total vv 260 
 } Clytaemestra 516-803 \ ' ^ 
 
 iChrysothemis 328-471; 871-1057 ) 
 
 Paedagogus 1-85; 660-803; 1325-1375 [ Total vv. 341 
 
 Aegisthus 144-15 10 ) 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR FOUR ACTORS 
 
 I Electra Total w. 644 
 
 Hclf;rhersfTota,w..6, 
 3 Orestes Total w. 159 
 
 J Paedagogus f Total w. 184 
 ^ I Aegisthus \ ^ 
 
 The division among four actors is by no means perfect, but it avoids the 
 doubling of male and female roles. I am not sure that a manager would not 
 have used even a fifth actor in this play. Certainly Clytaemustra and Chryso- 
 themis would require separate actors under any modern system of stage manage- 
 ment. The bold, resolute queen, and the wavering, amenable girl are quite 
 diff^erent in character. The order of their appearance upon the scene would also 
 favor the employment of another actor: Chrysothemis 328-471; Clytaemestra 
 516-803; Chrysothemis 871-1057. The impersonator of the aged Paedagogus 
 could easily play the unimportant part of Aegisthus. The doubling of Chryso- 
 themis' part and that of the aged Paedagogus would be intolerable. The 
 employment of a fourth actor, then, would be necessary, a fifth desirable. 
 
 OEDIPUS TYRANNUS 
 
 DISTRIBUTION' FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 I Oedipus Total vv. 646 
 
 1 Priest 1-57 \ 
 
 Teiresias 300-462 j ^^ 
 
 locasta 634-862; 911-1072 t 
 
 Servant of Laius 1 123-1 185 / 
 
 I My distribution is the same as that of Hermann, Richtcr, and Lachmann except 
 that they assigned to the second actor also the part of the Exangelus. 
 
78 
 
 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 ( Creon 87-150; 513-677; 1422-1523 
 
 3 < Messenger 924-1085; 1110-1185 
 
 ( Exangelus 1225-1296 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR FIVE ACTORS 
 
 Total vv. 260 
 
 Oedipus 
 locasta 
 Creon 
 Teiresias 
 Priest 
 
 Servant of Laius 
 S Messenger 
 ^ I Exangelus 
 
 Total w. 646 
 Total w. 122 
 Total w. 133 
 
 Total w. 146 
 
 Total vv. 127 
 
 The combination of locasta's role with that of the Priest, Servant of Laius, 
 or Exangelus, is obviously inappropriate. A separate actor is desirable for the 
 part, and, indeed, an actor of considerable psychological insight is necessary to 
 interpret it. About the other characters I am not so sure. The Priest might be 
 combined with Teiresias to which may also be joined the Old Servant who appears 
 at the end of the play. The three characters are, to be sure, quite different, 
 especially does the Old Servant require a dififerent style of play, but the part is 
 not long. Old age is common to all, and one voice with slight variation would 
 fit. The Priest and Teiresias are admirably suited to the same actor so far as 
 doubling is ever desirable. An actor of ordinary versatility could also, I think, 
 play the Old Shepherd successfully. The parts are supplementary. Priest (1-157); 
 Teiresias (300-462); Servant (1123-1185). The Messenger and Exangelus are 
 of the same type and may be doubled. 
 
 Every character in the Oedipus is, in my judgment, marked by a distinct 
 individuality, and the ideal distribution would be an actor for every part. In 
 this case a satisfactory assignment of the parts would require a minute analysis 
 of each character with reference to the physical qualities and mental disposition 
 best adapted to interpret that part. 
 
 OEDIPUS COLONEUS 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 Oedipus 1-1555 ) 
 
 Messenger 15 80- 16 70 > Total vv. 704 
 
 Theseus 1 751-1779 ) 
 
 Antigone 1-504; 720-846; 1099-1555; 1670-1779 ( „ , 
 
 Theseus 887-1043 \ ^otal w. 247 
 
 ' Stranger 36-80 
 
 jlsmene 324-59°; lOQ^-iSSS; 1670-1779 
 
 j Theseus 551-667; 1099-1210; 1500-1555 / Total w. 419. 
 
 ' Creon 728-1043 
 
 'Polyneices 1254-1446 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 79 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SIX ACTORS 
 
 1 Oedipus Total w. 600 
 
 2 Theseus Total w. 200 
 
 3 Antigone Total vv. 169 
 
 4 Ismene Total w. 69 
 
 s]?r°" I Total vv. 178 
 
 '^ I Messenger ) ' 
 
 ^Istl^l^ir 5To.a,w..54 
 
 Thus a three-actor distribution necessitates the division of Theseus' role 
 {supra, p. 45). Wecklein' increases the difficulty by splitting Ismene's part 
 also. TeufFel Rhein. Mus. N. F. IX, p. 137, suggested that the supernumerary 
 that played the part of Ismene from 1076 to 1555 also represented her from 
 1670 to end, thus making it possible for the third actor to play the Messenger 
 and Theseus in the last scene. This would simplify the situation somewhat, but 
 does not avoid the introduction of a fourth actor. A "parachoregema" in such 
 a case is merely another name for a fourth actor. The distinction commonly 
 drawn between "hypocrites" and "parachoregema" is a modem invention due 
 to an assumed theory that only three "hypocritae" could be used in the presenta- 
 tion of a play. No such distinction existed in the classical period; "hypocrites" 
 was applicable to any performer that played a speaking part.^ 
 
 It seems quite unreasonable to suppose that the Oedipus Coloneus was 
 originally actually produced with three actors even if, by the exercise of ingenuity, 
 it was possible to do it. Such an artificial arrangement forces the leading actor, 
 who was presumably a man of marked personality, and who is continually upon 
 the scene to 1555, to retire at this point, change dress, and reappear at 1580 in 
 the character of the Messenger, i. e., within twenty-five verses. Soon after the 
 exit of the Messenger the same actor must come on as Theseus. The part would 
 evidently be overloaded, exceeding 700 verses, while the other actors have about 
 680 together. 
 
 The impersonator of Antigone 1-846, within forty verses appears in the part 
 of Theseus 887-1043, reappears as Antigone 1099-1779. Such a doubling is 
 especially inappropriate. 
 
 The third actor must play the following characters in the order indicated: 
 Stranger 36-80; Ismene 324-509; Theseus 551-667; Creon 728-1043; Theseus 
 
 1 Oed. Col., Einl., p. 8; he distributes the roles thus: I. Oedipus, Ismene 1670 
 to end. II. Stranger, Ismene to 507, Theseus except 887-1043, Creon, Polyneices, 
 Messenger. III. Antigone, Theseus 887-1043. IV. Ismene (mute) 1096-1555. 
 
 2 In modem times our term "actor" is not restricted to a speaking person; even 
 a mute may be called "actor." In the classical period at Athens this seems not to 
 have been the case; cf. Welcker Aeschylus Trilogie, p. 118: "Nur das Sprechen den 
 Schauspieler macht;" Hippocrates: wJ yap iKeivoi (mutes) cx^M* M^" fct^ ffroXrjv kuI 
 
 irpdffUTTOV VTTOKpiTOV iXOVfflV, OVK eiffl 8^ VirOKpLTaL. 
 
8o RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 1099-1210; Polyneices 1254-1446; Theseus 1500-55; Ismene 1670-1779. The 
 constant alternating between the part of Theseus, Ismene, and the other characters 
 makes a very undesirable combination for one actor. 
 
 Attention has been called in another place (supra, p. 46) to the objections 
 to the splitting of Theseus' part. To sum up: The over-burdening of the part 
 of the protagonist, the necessity of grouping unsuitable characters for each actor, 
 and the interlaced order in which these characters appear, the division of 
 Theseus' part, will convince the fair-minded person that three actors are quite 
 inadequate for even a poor production of the play. 
 
 In the six-actor distribution, I have doubled the parts whose appearance 
 upon the scene are farthest apart. The spectator would be less likely to detect 
 that the same actor was playing two or more roles. With five actors the manager 
 would probably double the parts of Theseus and Stranger for one actor, Creon, 
 Polyneices, and Messenger for another. An apprentice probably played Ismene. 
 
 IPHIGENEIA AT AULIS 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 ilphigeneia 607-690; 1211-1510 \ 
 
 Old Man 1-163; 303-318; 855-896 ^^^^j ^ 
 
 Messenger I 414-439 ( 
 
 Messenger II 1532-1613 / 
 
 2 5 Clytaemestra 607-750; 801-1035; 1098-1626 { ^^^^^j ^ g 
 
 ( Menelaus 303-542 \ 
 
 ( Agamemnon 1-163; 317-543; 607-750; ) 
 
 3 -j 1106-1275; 1621-1626 >• Total vv. 487 
 
 (Achilles 801-1035; 1345-1433 ) 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR FIVE ACTORS 
 
 1 Iphigeneia Total w. 222 
 
 2 Agamemnon Total w. 326 
 
 3 Clytaemestra Total w. 279. 
 ( Old Man ) 
 
 4 \ ist Messenger V Total w. 1 75 
 
 ( 2d Messenger 
 
 sjSi" S Total w.,_58 
 
 In the division for five actors several objectionable features of the three-actor 
 scheme are avoided, such as the forcing of one actor to play Old Man 1-63, then 
 Messenger I 414-39, Iphigeneia 607-90, Old Man again 855-96, Iphigeneia 
 1211-1510, and, finally. Messenger II 1532-1613. The constant change of an 
 actor from the Messenger and Old Man would be ridiculous, and no decent per- 
 formance of the play would tolerate such an ineptitude. Agamemnon's character 
 is revealed in subtle moods and situations which render the part difficult to inter- 
 pret. His desponding anxiety and wavering mind, the struggle between filial 
 affection and patriotism, the fear of a wife's anger and the army's, demand an 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 
 
 actor of versatility and psychological insight. The chivalrous and natural 
 part of Achilles would thus be ill-suited to the actor of Agamemnon, especially 
 since the roles are interlaced thus: Agamemnon 607-750; Achilles 801-1035; 
 Agamemnon 1106-1275; Achilles 1345-1433; Agamemnon 1621-26. One 
 actor may play Menelaus and Achilles since Menelaus appears only early in the 
 play. The attitude of Menelaus in the latter part of the scene when he offers his 
 hand in cordial spirit and refuses to be a party to the death of the maiden would 
 put the actor in the proper mood to come on as Achilles later in the play. 
 
 The Old Man and Messenger may be grouped, if necessary. The unsuitable 
 combination of roles in subordinate characters would not be so noticeable as in 
 the more prominent personages. 
 
 ORESTES 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 I Orestes' 1-806; 1018-1245, 1345-1347; 1506-1693 
 
 Electra 1-315; 844-1352 
 
 Menelaus 356-716; 1554-1693 
 
 SPylades 729-806; 1018-1245; 356-716; 1554-1693 
 
 Hermione 71-125; 1323-1352 
 
 Helena 71-125 
 
 ^ Tyndareus; 470-629 
 
 j Messenger 832-956 
 
 I Phrygian 1 389-1 536 
 
 \ Apollo 1625-1693 
 
 Total w. 452 
 [ Total w. 472 
 
 Total w. 537 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SEVEN ACTORS 
 
 Total w. 452 
 Total w. 324 
 Total w. 148 
 Total w. 112 
 Total w. 140 
 
 Orestes 
 
 Electra 
 
 Menelaus 
 
 Pylades 
 
 Phrygian 
 
 STyndaeus 
 Messenger 
 Apollo 
 S Helena 
 7 ] Hermione 
 
 y Total w. 234 
 [ Total w. 50 
 
 The economy of the play permits the doubling of the roles of Orestes and 
 Menelaus, but the combination is undesirable for many reasons: Orestes' part 
 is already heavy and the addition of the Messenger's roles would overload it. 
 There is the further objection offered by Richter (p. 50) that it is not permissible 
 for the protagonist to play intervening parts when his part extends to the end of 
 
 I Hermann (p. 54) adds Messenger to part of Orestes, transfers Menelaus to the 
 tritagonist. Richter has the same arrangement as offered in the table except that he 
 considers Pylades as the inseparable companion of Orestes, and so assumes a "para- 
 choregema" for the part. 
 
82 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 the play, as in this case, Orestes 1-806; Messenger 832-956; Orestes 1018 to 
 end. This pause should give the actor a few minutes of rest. The sudden shift 
 from Orestes to Messenger (806-32) increases the difl&culty. The spectator 
 could not fail to see Orestes in the roles of the Messenger. As indicated in the 
 three-actor distribution, one actor plays Electra and Menelaus. 
 
 Both parts are important and are so interwoven that the combination would 
 be very offensive; Electra 1-315; Menelaus 356-716; Electra 844-1352; Mene- 
 laus 1554-1693. Pylades and Menelaus might be grouped, but this would require 
 a "lightning change" of costume, i. e., during 716-25. The Phrygian demands 
 a separate actor. The part is meant to be humorous, and has many lyrical verses. 
 The part, therefore, bears a striking resemblance to the Fools of Shakespeare. 
 The peculiar characteristics of the Phrygian make doubling with other roles 
 impossible.' This has been observed by Richter (p. 61): "Die Rolle des Phryx 
 passt schlecht zu den iibrigen." Helena and Hermione are not very important 
 and may have been played by a young apprentice. 
 
 The part of the blustering Old Man would be ill-suited for combination with 
 other roles if he were upon the scene very much, but he appears only once (470- 
 629). The Messenger who is present 832-956 corresponds in age to Tyndareus. 
 Both parts demand spirited acting, the Messenger must give a vivid, spirited 
 narrative in declamatory style, while Tyndareus' wrath calls for a "ranting" 
 delivery. Hence an actor with little versatility could adapt his mood to both parts. 
 The same actor might impersonate Apollo (1675-1693). 
 
 PHOENISSAE 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS 
 
 \ Creon 697-783; 834-985; 1310-1682 ) ^^^^j ^ 
 
 I locasta 1-87; 301-637; 1072-1283 \ 
 
 ! Antigone 88-201; 1265-1283; 1485-1763 ) 
 
 Polyneices 261-637 r Total w. 394 
 
 Menoeceus 834-1018 ) 
 
 Paedagogus 88-201 \ 
 
 Eteocles 446-637; 690-783 / 
 
 Teiresias 834-959 > Total w. 645 
 
 Messenger 1067-1283, 1335-1480 \ 
 
 Oedipus 1539-1763 / 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SEVEN ACTORS 
 
 1 locasta Total w. 280 
 
 2 Messenger Total w. 298 
 
 3 Antigone Total w. 220 
 
 4 Creon Total w. 149 
 
 5 Eteocles Total w. 121 
 
 I The actors of Fools' parts in Shakespeare must be clever and in a manner versa- 
 tile, but I have never seen one that could interpret a serious part well. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 83 
 
 , j Polyneices ( T t 1 
 
 } Menoeceus ( ' ' 
 
 ( Paedagogus ) 
 
 7 •< Teiresias j- Total w. 226 
 
 ( Oedipus ) 
 
 A versatile actor might have played both Eteocles and Messenger, if a seventh 
 actor were not available. Obviously roles so widely different as those of Creon 
 and locasta should not be grouped. 
 
 ACHARNIANS 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR THREE ACTORS' 
 
 S Dicaeopolis 1-102; 237-625; 716-833; 864-970; 
 / 1003-1142; 1198-1231 
 
 (Persian Ambassador 65-125 
 
 Theorus 134-166 
 
 Euripides 407-479 
 
 ^ s Lamachus 572-622; 1072-1142; 1090-1226 
 
 I Megarian 729-835 
 
 I Boeotian 860-954 
 
 \ Farmer 1018-1036 
 
 Amphitheus 45-129; 176-203 
 Daughter of Dicaeopolis 245-46 
 
 Sycophant 818-827 
 
 Nicarchus 910-956 
 
 Servant of Euripides 395-402 
 
 Servant of Lamachus 959-965; 11 74-1189 
 
 Paran3TTiph 1048-105 7 
 
 Messenger 1085-1094 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SEVEN ACTORS 
 
 I Dicaeopolis 
 
 ! Amphitheus 
 Euripides 
 Lamachus 
 i Megarian 
 Boeotian 
 Farmer 
 Pseudartabas 
 ! Ambassador 
 Sycophant 
 Theorus 
 S Paranymph 
 ^ ] Messenger 
 
 ( Herald 
 6 -< Servant of Lamachus 
 ( Servant of Euripides 
 \ Daughter of Dicaeopolis 
 ' ] Nicarchus 
 
 I No three-actor distribution can include Herald 43-173; 1000-02; 1070-77; 
 Pseudartabas 100-104, and the two daughters of the Megarian. 
 
84 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 With less than five actors the Acharnians could not have been produced (supra, 
 p. 44). That it could be produced with five assumes that the Persian Ambas- 
 sador can retire, change dress, and reappear in the charcter of Theorus during 
 w. 129-34. It would not have been possible to efi'ect the change in so short a 
 time. Separate actors, therefore, are required for Dicaeopolis, Herald, Ambas- 
 sador, Pseudartabas, Amphitheus, and Theorus. No one of these actors would 
 be suitable for the part of the dwarf, Nicarchus, who is characterized 909 as 
 hikk6s 7a hcLkos oItos. The impersonator of this role must be of small stature. 
 Probably a boy was used, who would also fit the part of Dicaeopolis' daughter. 
 For the two daughters of the Megarian supernumeraries were used, or, as Beer 
 suggests, the same person that played Nicarchus and the daughter of Dicaeopolis. 
 These seven performers could render a creditable presentation of the play. 
 
 
 
 
 FROGS 
 
 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR FOUR ACTORS 
 
 
 I 
 
 Dionysus 
 
 
 3-673; 832-1481 
 
 
 2 " 
 
 1 Xanthias 
 
 
 1-664; 739-808 
 
 
 ! Aeschylus 
 
 
 840-1465; 1515-15: 
 
 23 
 
 
 1 Heracles 
 
 
 38-164 
 
 
 
 Charon 
 
 
 180-270 
 
 
 3< 
 
 , Janitor 
 f Euripides 
 
 
 465-478; 605-673; 
 830-1476 
 
 738-813, 
 
 
 \ Boarding-house 
 
 Keeper 548-78 
 
 
 
 f Dead Man 
 
 
 173-177 
 
 
 
 1 Attendant oi 
 
 f Persephone 503-521 
 
 
 4 < 
 
 1 Plathane 
 
 
 551-571 
 
 
 
 [ Pluto 
 
 
 1411-1480, 1500-15 
 
 127 
 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SIX ACTORS^ 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 Dionysus 
 \ Xanthias 
 ] Pluto 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Aeschylus 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Euripides 
 i Heracles 
 
 
 
 
 5- 
 
 I Charon 
 ( Janitor 
 i Dead Man 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 1 Attendant of Persephone 
 ( Boarding-house Keeper 
 
 
 LYSISTRATA 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR FOUR ACTORS 
 
 I Lysistrata 1-253; 431-613; 706-780; 829-64; 1106-1189; 
 
 1273 flf. 
 
 ' The part of Plathane could have been played by a supernumerary, or by anyone 
 of the actors who was not at the time engaged. 
 
IN CLASSICAL GREEK DRAMA 85 
 
 Calonice 6-253 
 
 Cinesias 845-1013 
 
 Old Woman A 439-613 
 
 Young Woman A 728-80 
 
 Athenian Ambassador A 1216-1241; 1086-1189 
 
 Myrrhina 69-253; 837-951 
 
 Proboulus 387-613 
 
 Young Woman B 735-780 
 
 Old Woman B 439-613 
 
 Athenian Ambassador B 1225-1322 
 
 fLampito 78-244 
 
 Spartan Herald 980-1013 
 
 Young Woman C 742-780 
 
 Spartan Ambassador 1074-1189; 1225-1322 
 
 Supernumerary, Old Woman C 447-449 
 
 DISTRIBUTION FOR SEVEN ACTORS 
 
 I Lysistrata 
 
 ! Calonice 
 Old Woman A 
 Young Woman A 
 ! Myrrhina 
 Old Woman B 
 Young Woman B 
 iLampito 
 Old Woman C 
 Young Woman C 
 \ Proboulus 
 5 I Ambassador B 
 \ Cinesias 
 / Ambassador A 
 j Spartan Herald 
 7 ) Ambassador 
 
 Four actors could present this play, but with such a distribution each actor 
 must carry important male and female roles. Two sets of actors would 
 therefore be desirable. With six actors, the manager would probably combine 
 Lampito, Spartan Herald, and the Spartan Ambassador, since it is not probable 
 that many of the actors could render the Spartan dialect effectively. The very 
 insignificant parts of Old Woman C and Young Woman C could be played by 
 supernumeraries, or by the actors of Cinesias and of the Proboulus. 
 
 Four actors could also play the Thesmophoriazusae under the following 
 arrangement: One actor plays the part of Kedestes; a second, Euripides 1-279, 
 871-927, 1056-1132, 1160-1209; Micca 295-764; a third, Agathon 95-265; 
 Anonymous Woman 295-764; Cleisthenes 574-654; Critylla 758-935; a fourth 
 plays Servant of Agathon 39-69; Prytanis 929-44; Heraldess 295-380; Scythian 
 (929-947) 1001-1225. The only serious objection to the four-actor distribution 
 is that one actor must play Euripides and Micca. A fifth would, therefore, 
 
86 RULE OF THREE ACTORS 
 
 be better. The Heraldess and Scythian are quite different but the doubling 
 parts is permissible since the Heraldess has a very insignificant part. Agathon 
 and Cleisthenes are represented as very effeminate and may be combined with 
 Critylla. 
 
 In conclusion the v^riter would express the hope that this essay may 
 do something tov^^ard discrediting a tradition which has not served to 
 enhance our pleasure in the great masterpieces of the Greek drama. The 
 three-actor law has furnished many scholars with intellectual amusement 
 in the game of combination and permutation allowed by the given scheme, 
 but their labors have not brought us nearer to a sympathetic appreciation 
 of the great characters portrayed in the plays. Such efforts stand rather 
 as a barrier to the full enjoyment of them. It is, indeed, a convincing 
 proof of the overwhelming power of Greek dramatic art that our pleasure 
 and interest in it grows in spite of such a convention as scholars have been 
 wont to assume. 
 
uriMP USE 
 
 RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 or to the 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 
 (510) 642-6753 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing books 
 
 to NRLF 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 days 
 
 prior to due date 
 
 .! 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 .^P 7 \m 
 
 L4 
 
 8'T2 8 5 
 
 -) 
 
GAYLAMOUNT 
 
 PAMPHLET BINDER 
 
 Manu/acluttd hv 
 GAYLORD BROS. Inc. 
 
 Syr 
 
 N. Y. 
 
 Slockton, Cellf. 
 
 \ -' 1" - 
 
 O ^