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.(.vovv 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.la>' ^o\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 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 Aio/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 ' 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. 'Is 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)Tay 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 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$r]s Pou-\2$ : 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.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 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 "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 ^