PA 3829 D5 1905 MAIN UC-NRLF B M D33 fl^D Zbc THn(v>erslti2 of Cbfcaflo FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER ES I THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS A DISSERTATION [;UBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (department of THE GREEK LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE) FRANK W. DIGNAN ;;v^ CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1905 Zbc Tanlverelts of Cbfcago FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS 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 the greek LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE) BY FRANK VV. DIGNAN CHICAGO THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 1905 CoPYItlGHT, 1905 Bv THE University of Chicago IN MEMORIAM CAROLI FRATRIS 159791 MA I ''^ I wish to acknowledge my deep indebtedness to Professor Paul Shorey and to the other members of the Greek Faculty of the University; and in a very special manner to Professor Edward Capps, without whose constant assistance this study would never have seen the light. THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS The famous scene in the Frogs of Aristophanes, in which ^Eschylus and Euripides ridicule each other's methods, has been made the subject of many dissertations ; but one point — really the central point in the new poet's arraignment of the old — has not yet been investigated with the care which it seems to deserve, ^schylus is charged in general with bombast and in particular with aiming at the statuesque effect of a silent actor. Achilles and Niobe, says Euripides, sit silent through a large part of the play, in order to give an exaggerated effect to their words when they do speak, and these cases are taken as typical of ^schylus's method as con- trasted with that of Euripides. Such a charge seems reasonable enough at first sight in view of iEschylus's elevated and somewhat pompous tone, and accordingly the critics, ancient and modern, have accepted the allega- tion as substantially true. It seems time, however, now that our understanding of the material conditions and the course of development of early tragedy has been greatly enlarged, to reconsider the matter. May it not be that the fault in ^schylus's technique, if it really exists, is due to material limitations and to the restraints of tradition ? This is the question which I shall attempt to answer in the following study. The material at hand is, of course, far from complete, but some Hght should be thrown on the matter by the consideration of the evidence as to the lost plays referred to by Aristophanes, by the examination of the plays still extant, and by a com- parison wath the work of Sophocles and Euripides. It will be well to have before us the text of the passage in the Frogs: EY. TovTov oik Trpwr' iXey^w, oj? ^v dXa^cbv Koi cfiivai, OLOievTa<;. irpuiTUTTa fjikv yap eva tlv' av KaOlatv iyKa\viJ/as, A^^tXAea tlv' rj Nto/^T^v, to TrpoauiiTOV ov)(l SeiKvvs, Trp6' icrdi. AI. KafJLavTio boKw. tl Bk ravr' eSpacr' 6 Sctva; EY. vtt' dXa^ovEtas, Tv' 6 6€arr]<; TrpoaBoKiov Kadfjro, Q20 OTTod' 17 Nto/3r; Tt (fiOey^eTai • to Spa/xa 8' ak Sirjet. AI. w Trafj.iTOvrjpoevaKi^oprjV vir' avTov. Tt' (TKopOLva Koi Svapx<; €;(Oi'Ta kui Ade^ovs, SetV arra poppopwTrd, dyvwra Tois 6€wp.ivoL<;. A little further on (948 ff.) Euripides contrasts his own method with this: EY. tTreir' ciTro roJi' irpwTwv i-jriLv oi'Skv TraprjK av dpyov, dAA' lAcyev 17 yvi*?; Tt /iot ;(0j SoGAo; ouSei' t;ttov, 950 X*^ he.(JTT6T7i6€yytTat.' An additional ■ Cf. schol. ad Kan. 048: dpy6f uxrirfp ttjv yii^rjv Kal Tdv 'Ax'XX^a iTrolrjaas » Thr scnUncc is incomplete, as Beigk saw, Ilcrmcs, X\'III (1S83), p. 483, and the la( una is doubtless to be filled by reference to the Vita ^T\i)v iv apxa^i 6\lya irpbi 'EpfjLTJv ifioipaiay-, so Weeklein, .^sclt. Fab., p. 537. THE IDLE ACTOR IN .^SCHYLUS 9 note is found in the Venetus: "AAXws. eiko? t6v iv toTs ^pvilv 'AxtXAca r] "EktOjoos XvrpOL^ • rj tov iv MvpfJuBocnv, os P-^XP'- '''p'-^v rfp-tpixiv ovSev 6iyy€Tai.i Again, in the Vita Aeschyli: ware 8ia to irXtovd^iLv tw /3dpei Twv TTpoarwTTcav Kw/xwSetTai Trapa. 'ApLcrTO(f>dvov<; {'Api(TTO(f>dveL conj. Bcrgk). iv p.€V yap rrj 'Sto/Sr] <( , Nto^Sv; Bothe)' ews Tpirr^s y]jxipa<;'i inLKaO-qfJiivr] TiS Td(f>(o tS)v TraiSwv oiSev (jyOeyyerai, iTriKeaaXvpLfJiivr] • €v re toTs Ekto^os XvTpoi<; 'A;)((.AAevs o/xotws iyK€KaXvp.iJitvo<; ov ' iKavov Kara (T^^/xa rj TrevOov; r/ OavfiacTfXOv rj Ttvos inpoiov TrdOov; • koI eoiKcv rj TpaywSt'a evrev^ev Xa^ovcra to. TotavTa (T0L^e(T6aL. See also 0(^ //. 1343. 59 ff- In modern times the matter has received little attention from scholars. Among the editors of Aristophanes, Bekker (1829), in commenting on the passage, discusses the place of aTrdTrj in the drama and remarks that Euripides has done the very thing that he blames ^schylus for doing, citing a few instances; Dindorf (1837) has a brief and commonplace note; Fritzsche (1845) discusses at some length the cases referred to by Aristoph- anes, but does not generalize; Kock (1876) quotes the passages from the grammarians, but adds nothing of importance; Blaydes (1889) besides the usual comments has a suggestion that the early prominence of the chorus had something to do with the matter; Van Leeuwen (1896) gives notes on the plays referred to and on Phrynichus, intimating that the silent actor was a natural consequence of the one-actor stage in the development of tragedy; but he does not consider the matter in general. The historians of Greek Hterature have nothing bearing on the point beyond a few words of comment on particular instances when very strik- 3 Hermann {Opusc, III, p. 42): "haec postrema aut hominis sunt indocti, qui quae de Niobe legisset ad Myrmidones transtulit, aut corrupta aliquot verborum omissione." Wecklein, loc. cit., gives the more sweeping opinion: "futilia sunt quae de Achille in Mvrmidonibus velato et taciturno et de legatis ad eum missis scholia recentiora habent," citing the Venetus note ad Ran. 911, and the second note ad Prom., quoted above. 4 The correction rplrov /xipovs, proposed by Victorius, is possibly right, though it was rejected by Hermann. Wecklein adopts it in his recension of the Vita, I, p. 467 of his edition of ^schylus (1885). lO THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS ing. The same is true, in general, of writers on Greek tragedy. Hermann, in restoring the lost dramas, considers the instances mentioned (Opuscula, Vol. Ill, pp. 37 ff., and Vol. V, pp. 136 fif.); Haigh (Tragic Drama of the Greeks, p. 35) discusses the striking instance in the Suppliants, but does not generalize. The only writer who has even so much as made a collection of notable instances in the extant plays of .-Eschylus is Paul Girard (" L'expression des masques dans les drames d'Eschyle," Revue des eludes grecques, VIII (1895), pp. 118 ff., and pp. 102 ff. of the reprint), and he does it only incidentally to illustrate his remark: "Jamais ils [les poetes] n'ont recule devant les scenes de silence, et Eschyle, en particulier, semble les avoir multipliees de parti pris dans son theatre." He assumes in each case a deUberate use for artistic effect: "Ainsi, le mutisme, un mutisme pathetique, a bien 6t6, comme le lui reproche Euripidedans les Grenouilles, un de sesproced^s" (ibid., p. 109). We must now consider more carefully the accusation of Aristophanes and see what can be made out of the examples mentioned by him. The reference to Phrynichus in vs. 910 is important. s Aristophanes hints that the early history of the drama is in a measure responsible. The dramas of Phrynichus were of the older type, in which the choral element was much more important. Accustomed to this, the audience would be less impatient if an actor in /Eschylus's plays were silent. This, at least, is the meaning of Aristophanes. ^ As to the cases of Achilles and Niobe, not much is now to be had in the way of definite information. ^ The grammarians quoted above seem, in general, to know the plays, Ijut we cannot be certain of this. Nothing is known of the history of these pieces in later antiquity, except that the Myrmidons survived till the time of Accius, who made an imitation of it, probably in the latter part of the second century B. C* 5 Aristophanes nfers to Phrynichus as old-fashioned and as a favorite of the older ,\thenians of his time in Vesp. 220: fiivvpl^oyres m^Xtj ipxaia fie\iffidu>yo(l>pvyi- Xi)paTa (of the dicasts), and 269: x/jwtoj ijfiuv rjytiT' Slv ^Suv i>pvvlxov (of Phiiocleon). Aristophanes clearly approved of him; cf. Av. 750; Thesm. 164. ^ Merry, whom Blaydes quotes apparently with approval, writes this remarkable note: "After being accustomed to the usage of Phrynichus, the audience /f// they were being defrauded by the introduction of a mute person, instead of the actor who supplied the gist of the play, and the inspiration of the chorus." He misses the point entirely. /Eschylus was able to impose upon his audi.-nces, Euripides charges, because thiy were yMpoi, accustomed to nothing better by the leading tragic poets of the day. 7 See Hermann, Opusc, HI, pp. 37 ff., and V, pp. 136 t7.; Welcker, Die griechi- schen Tragddien, I, pp. 33 f. 8 See Ribb6"Dic Perscr des Aischylos," Hermes, XXXII (1897), pp. 382-9S. THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS 1 7 beginning and middle of the play as having the same scene. On her first departure to procure the libations, the queen says: ij$opd, TO p-'J/TC Ac'cui /liT/r' ipoiTTJcrai Tzadrj.'^ During the second stasimon, also, she is present and takes no part, but here a special device does away with the awkwardness: she pours the libations, and the ode is an invocation to the dead. This is the first of several cases in which an actor, present during an ode, is given some employment which prevents his being altogether idle. It is of course possible that in other cases, where no occupation is indicated in the te.xt, the actor could invent "busine.ss," as on the modem stage; for example, Danaus in the Siipplinnts, in the first two periods of silence, may have occupied himself in intent and anxious watching seaward from the steps of the altar. But the simplicity and dignity of an .^schylean tragedy must have made this of little practical use. 3° On the first appearance of Darius we have another case similar to that at the arrival of the messenger. Darius calls upon the chorus to explain why he is summoned ; they are too full of awe to reply, and he turns to Atossa. The first appeal is evidently in deference to the old convention, and the later change to Al^.ssa shows the poet's growing feeling for dialogue between actors. Atossa is thus neglected for twenty-three lines (681-703), though she is nearer the tomb than the chorus and Darius sees her almost at the start (684). 3' Again, after a dialogue with the queen, Darius turns to the chorus, and Atossa is idle for forty-five lines (787-831). This alternation is an attempt to keep all three in play, and it is certainly an improvement on the total neglect of Danaus in the chief scene of the Suppliants. But it is very far from being a sustained conversation among the three. 3» '9 MasquiTay, Theorie des jormes lyriques de la tragedie grecque, pp. 135 f., com- ments on the dramatic cfTcct, but docs not analyze the cause. So Girard, he. cit., p. iiq: "Atossa reste silencieuse, comme ecras^e sous le poids du malhcur." Prickard (note on 290) explains as due to the queen's dignity. 30 The actors of the time, it must be remembered, were little advanced beyond the stage of amateurs, and could not bo expected to furnish much by-play. Acting was not definitely recognized as a profession until the establishment by the state of the tragic actors' contest at the Dionysia in the year 450. 49. See CIA, II, 971, as reconstructed by Capps, Introduction of Comedy into the City Dionysia. And on the exact dale of the first actors' contest see ibid., p. 22, note 62. 31 Jurenka, lac. cit., p. 213, suggests that Darius does not at first see Atossa, because she stands so close to the tomb as to be really beneath him. It is difficult to imagine the poet composing the scene with such considerations in mind. J' It has often been noticed as strange that Atossa is not present in the l.isl scene, and variously explained (see Maurice Croiset, loc. cit., and Wilamowitz, /';> Pcrser THE IDLE ACTOR IN .ESCHYLUS 1 9 In the Septem play, although the setting is as primitive as ever, a number of circumstances make the management of the actors easier, and there is but one case of the idle actor. In the matter of the setting, it is interesting to observe hov^^ strong was the influence of convention. Accus- tomed to an altar as the sole or most important piece of scenery, the poet manages to introduce one here and to make it the resort of suppliants, though such a scene is not essential to the story. There is no evidence for other scenery, for Trvpyots aTreiXet roto-Se (549) and similar references to the fortifications may easily have been uttered without such being in sight. As in the Suppliants, there are images of the gods (94 ff ., 185, 21 1 f., 219 f., 265), and the chorus of maidens flee to them for protection (96 ff.) and are sent back to the orchestra for a stasimon (265 f.). There is no clear indication that an actor mounts the altar steps, but Eteocles's speech to the army (1-38) may have been delivered from that elevation. What is of chief importance here is that there is certainly no palace background. 33 The setting is thus identical with that in the Suppliants, but the nature of the plot gives several advantages for the management of the actors. In the first place, the chorus here is not the virtual protagonist. Its con- nection with the story is loose — so much so that the poet has great difficulty in keeping it occupied. This difficulty appears in the first episode (181- 286), where the only material at hand for the scene is the impatience of Eteocles at the outcry of the girls, and in the long scene between Eteocles and the messenger, in which their part is merely a few words of comment after the sending of each champion. With a chorus so reduced in impor- tance it was of course easier to keep the actors employed. A second advantage lies in the fact that there is but one important character, Eteocles. He can speak to the soldiers, to the chorus, or to the messenger, without danger of being left idle through the participation of other persons. Nor is the minor personage, the messenger, liable to be thus neglected, for messengers regularly depart unnoticed when their message is delivered. A third advantage arises directly from the situation. The scene is the citadel of a besieged city, and the characters are warriors engaged in the des Aischylos, pp. 386 f. and note); but the chief reason (that she would have dis- turbed the balance of one to one) has scarcely been noticed. ^Eschylus was doubtless influenced here by the traditions of the one-actor period, and particularly by the Phcenissa of Phrynichus. 33 See Todt, loc. cit., pp. 518 ff.; Capps, loc. cit., p. 37; Bodensteincr, loc. cit., pp. 649 f.; Bethe, op. cit., p. 94; Dorpfeld-Reisch, op. cit., pp. 197 f. For the old theory of a palace background see Schonborn, op. cit., pp. 125 ff. 20 THE IDLE ACTOR IN .ESCHYLUS defense. In such circumstances, exits and entrances are almost as easily motived as if a building stood in the background. In one case, however, Eteocles is left idle — namely, during the parodos. He has dismissed the soldiers, the messenger has made his report and gone, and Eteocles is praying to the gods, when the chorus rush in. They are full of terror at the prospect of an attack on the city, and their lamentations constitute the parodos — a passage of a hundred Hnes. Eteocles is silent and unnoticed throughout. It has been assumed by several editors 34 that he withdraws without remark just before the ode and returns at the close. If this were so, the case would be unique in the earUer plays. Nowhere else in the plays before the introduction of a back-scene does an important character, or indeed any character, depart and return again without a motive. Let us see what evidence there is for this case. The messenger has urged Eteocles to appoint defenders for the gates as soon as possible (57 f.), and if he goes at this point, it must be for that purpose. But it appears after the ode and his long argument with the chorus that he has not yet accompUshed the task, for he says (282 ff.) eyo) 8' iirdpxov<:35 .... rd^o} fioXwv. The errand is thus used as a pre- te.xt for removing him for the first stasimon. If /Eschylus had meant that the task was begun on the former occasion and interrupted, this would have been indicated here. We have, then, one period of idleness for the protagonist, and this due to the lack of a pretext for removing him. Later he goes to appoint the champions, and again to the battle; more than this the poet could not do without inventing a pretext for his departure that would have been more awkward than his presence without occupation. ^^ 34 As Palcy, Vcrrall, Flagg. Girard docs not notice this instance in the Septem. 35 Canter's conjecture for iir^ Avdpas. 36 The latter part of the play is probably a later addition. It is so inappropriate to the end of a trilogy that Welcker and K. O. Miiller (before the finding of the didas- calia) maintained that this could not have been the final play of a scries. The scene is doubtless an imitation of Sophocles, with whose play in mind the spectators could complete the story for themselves. Weil uses the long silence of the sisters as an argument against authenticity; but we must acknowledge, with Girard, that this objection has little weight in an early play of /Eschylus. See Bergk, Griechische Littcriilurgrsfhichte, III, pp. 303 f. ; Weil, "Traces de remaniement dans Eschyle," Revue dts eludes grecquts, I (188S), pp. 17 fT.; Wilamowitz, " Die Biihne des .Aischylos," Hermes, XXI (1886), p. 606, note 3. The authenticity of the passage is defended by Richter, op. cil., pp. 41 fT., and accepted by Girard, loc. cit. (last article), p. 120. The latest discus-sion of the question is by Wilamowitz, "Drei Schlussscenen griechischer Dramen," SitzungsbericlUe d. k. preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschajtcn, philos-hist. Klasse, XXI (1903), pp. 1-15. He cuts out vss. 861-73 ^"*i 1005 -end, and gives the inter- vening ode to the chorus. His argumentation seems to me conclusive. THE IDLE ACTOR IN .ESCHYLUS 21 Until something like agreement is reached as to the history of the text of the Protnethetis, any consideration of it from a technical standpoint must be purely tentative. The arguments for a revision, while not conclu- sive, have made it necessary to regard that as a distinct possibility. 3? And even if we have the play in its original form, there is still the uncertainty of date. The combination of early and late traits is at first disconcerting, but a careful weighing of the evidence on both sides certainly gives the impression that in the more essential matters the play belongs to ^schylus's earlier style. That so exalted a theme is combined wdth so rambhng a style, so episodical a plot, and so much geographical digression, surely shows the poet of the Septem rather than the poet of the Oresteia. The late characteristics must then be explained away or attributed to revision. The third actor, if employed at all, appears in only one scene, and may be regarded as an experiment which foreshadowed the later usage. As to the monodies by an actor, we have not sufficient evidence to assert that ^schylus might not have introduced them on occasion, even at an early period. The brevity of the choral parts may be due simply to the unimportance of the chorus and the supreme interest of the central figure. 38 The same factors may have influenced the metrical construction of these parts, for the consciousness that he was abbreviating them would naturally lead the poet to disregard many conventions. As to the elaborate machinery, there is not a passage in which its use can be absolutely proved from the text, unless it be the closing scene — and here the revision theory is most tempting. Why should Prometheus sink into the earth, w^hen he is required to be still bound to the rock at the beginning of the next piece ? On the other hand, Dorpfeld's researches in the theater of Dionysus have shown how easily the disappearance of Prometheus with the chorus might have been managed by taking advantage of the elevation of the rear part 37 Westphal, Prolegomena zu Aischylos, pp. 6 and 8; Rossbach-Westphal, Metrik der Griechen, II, p. :!^lviii; Bethe, op. cit., chap. ix. Both Westphal and Bethe lay- stress on the actor-monody, not found elsewhere in ^schylus, and Bethe argues alsO' from inconsistencies in the plot, metrical peculiarities, the use of machinery, and the nature of the conclusion. He seems to me to exaggerate all these difficulties, and especially to forget that the few plays which we have from this period furnish a totally inadequate basis for such generalizing. See also (on plot) KoUsch, "Der Prometheus des Aeschylus," etc., reviewed by Oberdick, Jenaer Litteraturzeitiing, 1876, No. 27, pp. 428 f.; (on metre) Wecklein's Introduction (pp. 25 fl. of English edition); Kramer, Pro?netheum vinctum esse jahulam correctam, pp. 34 ff., 39; Heidler, De compositione metrica Promethei fabiUae Aeschyleae cap. iv; Oberdick, Wochenschrift fiir klassische Philologie, V (1888), cols. i3iof. ; Masqueray, op. cit., pp. 34 if., 165, 270 f. Weil (loc. cit., pp. 21 ff.) thinks the e\'idence insufficient. 38 C}. Masqueray, op. cit., p. 79. 22 THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS of the orchestra above the level of the ground in front of the temple of Dionysus. It has been well said that the distinct and reiterated descrip- tions of the chorus's wagon and Oceanus's steed as flying may be due to the fact that they \ov irirpai (748) may refer to the whole orchestra. THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS 23 inevitable that the poet should find a partial solution in the reduction of the part of the chorus, both as to the amount of lyric assigned to it and as to its participation in the dialogue. It has seemed worth while to show in some detail the care with which the actors are in general kept occupied, because in this way the pecuhar nature of the first scene is emphasized by contrast. In this scene of eighty- seven lines, during which Prometheus is nailed to the rock, he utters not a word; the conversation is between Hephaestus and Cratos. Was this done deliberately for artistic efifect, as is often said, or was it the result of practical limitations ? The question seems decided by the fact that neither in the scene itself nor in the monologue that follows is there any reference to this silence as a sign of Prometheus 's pride. To plan such an effect and carry it out without calling attention to it by expHcit mention might accord well enough with modern methods, but is absolutely un- yEschylean, not to say un- Greek. There will always be a certain number of critics who will regard it as profanation to seek practical reasons for things where artistic work is concerned. But it is plainly illogical to admit a practical cause in one case and deny it in another merely because the same phenomenon has now an artistic significance. If Danaus, Atossa, and Eteocles are left idle only when the poet could not keep them employed, why not Prometheus also? Just what the difficulty was in this case cannot be told with certainty until the vexed question is decided whether we have here two actors or three. If the former is true, and Prometheus is represented by a lay figure, the reason is not difficult to see. Cratos and Bia are needed to carry the figure in, and the part of Cratos is given to an actor that conver- sation may begin immediately on their appearance. Prometheus of course cannot speak until the scene is ended and the protagonist has taken up his position behind the figure. It is true that the lay-figure theory has been a favorite object of ridicule with the critics who pride themselves on taking a common-sense view of such questions; but the common-sense attitude is too apt to involve the ignoring of conditions. In the great theater of Dionysus a wooden Pro- metheus, nude, fettered, and of superhuman size, may well have been more impressive than a masked and padded actor in the same position. 4» 4' The lay-figure theory was first suggested by Welcker, Trilogie, p. 30, and has been approved by G. Hermann, Opusc, II, p. 146; K. F. Hermann, De distrib., pp. 623, o; Wieseler, Gott. prorect. Program, 1866, p. 5; A. Miiller, Philologus, XXIII (1866), pp. 5195., XXXV, p. 312; Philologischer Anzeiger, III, p. 319; Wecklein, 24 THE IDLE ACTOR IN iESCHYLUS On the other side it is urged (i) that the idea of a lay- figure was first suggested solely because the Prometheus was supposed to belong to the two-actor period, a thing which we have no right to assume; and (2) that the ancients nowhere mention the use of a lay-figure. But if, on the other hand, three actors were employed, the reason for Prometheus's silence is equally easy to detect. The third actor was an experiment, an innovation, and the convention of two-part dialogue could not be overcome. Three actors might appear at once, but a general con- versation among them was against all the traditions of the drama. The writer is inclined, however, to the view that a lay-figure was employed. In any event, the effect upon the audience was the same, and Prometheus must be reckoned as an idle actor in this scene. The Agamemnon and the two following plays are sharply distingmshed from the preceding four by the existence of a back-scene with doors. It is scarcely possible to overestimate the importance of such a change. A mere piece of scenery (altar, tomb, or rock) is of little assistance in the arranging of a plot. It serves to indicate the locality and add \-ividness to the action, but it gives little help in motiving the comings and goings of the characters. But when once the idea is grasped of making the action transpire before a palace, a temple, a tent, or even a cave, new possibilities are opened for the drama. The name (tktjvt^ is good evidence that this back-scene was not developed from the older setting, but from the dressing-booth. The altar or tomb can never have been called o-kt^vt;. That word suggests a real building, slight indeed, but meant as a cover or protection — meant to contain some- thing, and not as a bit of idle show. We are justified in assuming that this new structure on the edge of the orchestra was from the first a retiring- place for the actors — merely the dressing-booth in a new situation. 4^ The Studien zu Aischylos, pp. 31 S., and ed. of i8()6, Introduction, pp. 54 f.; O. Navarre, "De I'hypoth^sc d'un mannequin dans le Promethec enchaine d'Eschyle," Anrwles de la FacuUe des Leilres de Bordeaux, Revue des itudes anciennes, III (1901), 2. The view is rejected by Schoemann, Prometheus, p. 87; Soinmerbrodt, Scaenica, pp. 170 ff.; Girard, loc. cit., p. 123 (of last article), note 5; Croiset, Histoire de la liiteratur grccque III», p. 176; C. Fr. Muller, loc. cit.; Richtcr, op. cit., pp. 50 f.; Bcthc, op. cit., p. 180, note; Bodensteiner, loc. cit., p. 674. The arguments for the view are summed up as follows by Navarre: (i) absence of any sign of movement in Prometheus; (2) his silence under torture; (3) unnecessary brutality, the iron being driven through his l)ody; (4) probability that only two actors are used in the pilay; (5) arrangement of the scene, Cratos remaining behind as if to give the other actor time to take his place behind the figure. 4' Bethe believes that the earlier altar or tomb was likewise the dressing-lxwth. On this view the innovation would be merely a new use of the booth, not a changing of its position. See op. cit., p. iqo. THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^SCHYLUS 25 reason for the change, then, was not a desire for more elaborate scenery, for that would have led to a development of the older setting; it was the need of a more convenient place of withdrawal for the characters. That the device proved satisfactory is shown by the regularity with which it is henceforth employed. Wlien we reach the period of the New Comedy, we find that the ideal of harmony between the arrangements of the theater, on the one hand, and the requirements of the drama, on the other, is at last attained; characters make their exits freely and without motiving when their presence is no longer needed by the poet, as Leo has clearly shown in his Plautinische Forschnngen. The first ctkt/vt; was a simple, temporary structure of wood containing one or more doors, as the piece required. It probably extended on either side as far as the parodoi, so that actors could pass through or behind it unseen. The action was still in the orchestra. The actors changed their costumes in the building, and either entered directly through its doors or passed around to the side and came in through a parodos. They might also on occasion appear upon the roof. 43 The immense advantage of this new arrangement is at once evident. Any character supposed to hve in the building could now come and go with Uttle or no motive or remark. Not being imagined to have gone to a distance, he might reappear as quickly as desired. 44 A comparison of the management of Atossa in the Persians and Clyte- mestra in the Agamemnon will serve to show the difference. The circum- stances of the two plays are very similar; in each we have a queen, a chorus of elders, an absent king, a herald announcing his coming, and the king's appearance. In the older play the queen arrives on a chariot from her distant palace. She must be present through the scene with the herald, and hence the difficulty of arranging that scene. Twice she is explicitly sent off on clumsy pretexts, and finally she does not meet her son when he appears. Clytemestra, on the other hand, after her first scene with the chorus, withdraws without remark. During the herald-scene she is absent, except for a few moments in which she explains why she need not hear the mes- sage. When the king arrives, he is received by the chorus alone, and only then does the queen_ leave her palace to utter her greetings without inter- ference from them. 43 See Wilamowitz, "Die Biihne des Aischylos," Hermes, XXI, pp. 597 ff.; Bodensteiner, loc. cit., p. 645; Dorpfeld-Reisch, op. cit., pp. 199 ff., 370 ff., and Part V. 44 Dorpfeld-Reisch, op. cit., pp. 201, 371 f. 26 THE IDLE ACTOR IX -ESCHYLUS The conditions are thus greatly changed since the time of the Suppli- ants. When the poet now fails to keep his characters employed, the reason must generally be sought, not in the primitive theater, but in other condi- tions, often less tangible and less easy to trace. The movements of the queen are now so easily made that they are but vaguely indicated in the text, and at times it cannot be told with certainty whether she is present or not. The most puzzling case is in the parodos. The anapaestic portion of the ode concludes with an address to the queen: (TV Se, Ti'v8ap€a> dvyartp, /iacrt'Atta KXvTai/xrjcrTpa, Tt \pio^ ; TL viov ; k.t.K. (S3- 103). One naturally expects her to reply forthwith, but instead we have a hnric passage of 160 lines, after which she is again addressed and finally speaks. There is something grotesque in the picture of the queen standing idly by all this time, quite without reason, and the detailed description of the slaughter of Iphigenia is in singularly bad taste if the mother is present. It is more natural to suppose, either that she appears only for a moment (as in the herald-scene), or that she is not present at all until the end, the first address being merely an apostrophe made with lyric freedom. ^s There occurs in this play, however, the most famous case of the idle actor in .^schylus — the long silence of Cassandra. When Agamemnon makes his triumphal entry on the chariot, Cassandra as his captive naturally rides in another chariot following him. She is unnoticed, however, for 168 Hnes; then Agamemnon mentions her, but she is not addressed for 85 lines more; and then she is obstinately silent for another 37 lines. In all she is silent for 290 lines. In this long interval occur the greeting of the chorus, Agamemnon's speech, the scene with Clytemestra, and a stasimon. Much praise has been lavished upon this long silence, as increasing the effectiveness of the mystical prophecy which follows,-"^ but critics have uni- formly lost sight of the fact that the greater part of it was forced upon the poet by the conditions. Cassandra, if introduced at all, must enter in the train of the conqueror. She could not take part in the dialogue until the greetings were over and a stasimon had j)rcparcd the way for a new scene. The skill of the poet is shown, not in inventing the silence as a •♦■; The editors disagree. Werklein, Enger, Vcrrall, and Gilbert think the queen is nuTL-ly aj)ostro|)hi/.((i; Hermann says that she enters only for a moment; Klausen, Karsten, Peile, aniisc., II, pp. 319 IT. ; Nauck, Trui^. Cracc. Frog., /Esch., 44. THE IDLE ACTOR IN ^,SCHYLUS 29 to see that such a development of the drama was inevitable. The poet would be certain sooner or later to pass from mere allusions to whole scenes of practical political import. The significant thing for us in this change is its effect upon the technique. If, for example, the ancient authority of the court of the Areopagus is to be pictured in a trial-scene, evidently the con- ventional method of the drama must be modified. The set dialogues between two characters, or a character and the chorus, will not be sufficient for such a scene. A considerable number of persons must be present, and they cannot all be kept constantly in play. The attention will be fixed on the scene as a whole, rather than on individual characters. The poet will be forced into something very like a modern ensemble scene. This is what we actually find in the Eumenides. In the trial scene the old conventionalities are disregarded to an extent that would be surprising if the reason were not so plain. The drama here comes into close contact with contemporary life: set to imitate a scene in the court, it must adapt itself to the new conditions. 5^ Thus we find several noticeable periods of silence in various characters, for which the trial is mainly responsible. During the epiparodos (244-63) Orestes remains cHnging to the statue of Athene {cj. 258 f.). He keeps this position until the end of the trial, being silent during the first stasimon (307-96), a dialogue of 39 lines between Athene and the chorus (397-435), the second stasimon (490-565), ^3 the opening of the trial (566-84), and the greater part of the trial (614-743). As in the case of Cassandra in the Agamemnon, the silence is turned to account at one point. When his case is about to be decided, Orestes, after a silence of 130 lines, breaks out in the cry : w $oty8' "AttoAAov, ttw? dywv Kpi6rj