Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:29:51.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comic technique and the fourth actor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

C. W. Marshall
C. W. Marshall
Affiliation:
University of Victoria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A recent article on ‘The Number of Speaking Actors in Old Comedy’ by D. M. MacDowell has argued that to perform the plays of Aristophanes required the use of four, but never five, speaking actors.1 Systematically argued, MacDowell presents a cogent case against Henderson (xli–xliv), who has suggested that at times five actors were permitted. MacDowell also presents some very sensible observations on the nature of any prescription which might limit the number of actors. The final paragraphs, however, express considerable discomfort at the earliest work in the extant corpus: 'Akharnians, however, remains problematic, since it has two scenes which may be thought to require five actors' (MacDowell, 335). A tentative solution is offered by MacDowell, which is that 'these scenes were actually performed without a fifth actor, by making very quick changes in the scene with Amphitheos and the Envoy, and by using dolls for the Megarian's Daughters' (MacDowell, 335). Unspeaking performers for the Megarian's Daughters are more likely than dolls, since they must follow orders for movement (Akh. 732, 740–5). Apart from this, I have no doubt that this is indeed how Akharnians was performed, and an examination of the specific comic techniques employed by Aristophanes in the two problematic scenes in Akharnians demonstrates not only the comic desirability of their use, but their applicability to other plays by Aristophanes.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , May 1997 , pp. 77 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 MacDowell, D. M., CQ 44 (1994), 325–35, cited hereafter as MacDowell. I also use the following abbreviations: DFA = A. W. Pickard–Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens, second edition revised by J. Gould and D. M. Lewis (Oxford, 1968; reprinted with addenda, 1988). Henderson = J. Henderson, Aristophanes: Lysistrata (Oxford, 1987). Russo = C. F. Russo, Aristophanes: An Author for the Stage (London and New York, 1994), a translation of Aristofane autore di teatro (Florence, 1962; reprinted with addenda 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For the highly competitive Athenians, this seems the most plausible justification for the actor limit. I assume that a playwright violating the limit would be disqualified from the competition, though there is no indication that this ever happened.

3 Alkestis: Dale, A. M., Euripides: Alcestis (Oxford, 1954), p. xx; T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (London, 1967), p. 119; P. D. Arnott, Public and Performance in the Greek Theatre (London, 1989), p. 47. Suppliant Women: Webster, op. cit., p. 127.Google Scholar

4 Sommerstein, Alan H., Thesmophoriazusae (Warminster, 1994), p.164, following the Ravenna Scholiast Google Scholar

5 Walton, J. M., Greek Theatre Practice (Westport, CT and London, 1980), p. 141.Google Scholar

6 This can be seen on analogy with the practice of tragedy. An actor in a tragic tetralogy will not play the same role in all four plays. Because the judges (and, by extension, the audience) must be aware of role–sharing between plays, the same critical awareness must be present within a given play. Since identification of actors playing multiple roles is required in the less overtly metatheatrical genre of tragedy (and satyr play), extension to comedy does not pose any methodological difficulties.

7 If there was a curtain of sorts along the eisodoi (C. W. Dearden, The Stage of Aristophanes [London 1976], pp. 32–7), there are additional possibilities for physical humour as the actor changes mask and costume.

8 Marshall, C. W., The rule of three actors in practice, Text and Presentation 15 (1994), 53–61, discusses the backstage movements and changes expected of actors in fifth–century tragedy, including lightning changes at p. 55. For lightning changes in New Comedy, cf. W. G. Arnott, 'Gorgias' Exit at Menander, Dyskolos 381–92', ZPE 76 (1989), 3–5.Google Scholar

9 Good efforts have been made to suggest that Greek New Comedy only used three actors. For the Dyskolos, see G. P. Goold, 'First Thoughts on the Dyscolus\ Phoenix 13 (1959), 139–60, esp. pp. 144–50; Griffith, J. G., The Distribution of Parts in Menander's Dyskolos, CQ 10 (1960), 113–17;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHandley, E. W, The Dyskolos of Menander (Cambridge, MA, 1965), pp. 25–30; and the important discussion of F. H. Sandbach, 'Menander and the Three–Actor Rule', in J. Bingen et al. (edd.) Le Monde Grec: Hommages a Claire Preaux (Brussels, 1978), 197–204. Undue caution is urged by N. C. Hourmouziades, 'Menander's Actors', GRBS 14 (1973), 179–88.Google Scholar

10 MacDowell's passages are as follows: Akharnians 43–175, 824–8, Knights 234, 1203–5, 1254–6, Clouds 886–1104, 1493–1509, Wasps 230–414, 1412–16, Peace 1264–7, Birds 84–92, 837–47, 1565–1693, Lysistrate 77–92, 128–36, 424–49, 727–61, Thesmophoriazousai 457–8, 929–46, Frogs 164–80, 549–78, 830–1481, Ekklesiazousai 1111–12, Wealth 624–6.

11 N. Dunbar, Aristophanes: Birds (Oxford, 1995), p. 15, lists the Triballian as a Trapaxopr/yrjiia (= 'extra expense'? cf. Kelley Rees, 'The Meaning of Parachoregema', CP 2 [1907], 387–400) but still a speaking part. MacDowell's objection holds. A possibility perhaps not considered by MacDowell is that the regulation which set the limit on speaking performers may have stipulated that the State would pay only for three actors, and anything extra would be the responsibility of the choregos (however, see next note). Were this the case, more necessary violation of the three actor limit might be expected.

12 To demonstrate that all actors were paid by the State goes beyond the scope of this paper. It is known that the didaskalos was paid by the State, and that the choregos paid the Chorus, as well as all production costs. I assume that at least the lead actor, which is to say the one that was competing for the prize, was paid by the State on analogy with the didaskalos. Whether the other actors were paid by the State, by the lead actor, or by the choregos cannot be determined on the available evidence; cf. DFA, pp. 90, 93–5.

13 I find Russo more persuasive on Thesmophoriazousai than J. A. Dane, 'Aristophanic Parody: Thesmophoriazusae and the Three–Actor Rule', 77 36 (1986), 75–84. Nevertheless, alternatives exist.Google Scholar

14 MacDowell (329–30) recognizes this, and provides a fuller discussion in Douglas MacDowell, M., Aristophanes and Athens (Oxford, 1995), pp. 134–44.Google Scholar

15 For such combinations in Aristophanes, cf. Knights 139, 1218, 1257, Wasps 1504, Peace 41, Birds90, 150, 1015,1224. Gommeand, A. W.Sandbach, F. H., Menander A Commentary (Oxford, 1973), pp. 304?–5, discuss Epitrepontes 219, and J. R. Porter, Studies in Euripides' Orestes (Leiden, 1994), p. 342, notes Orestes 1345.Google Scholar

16 Sommerstein, A. H., Aristophanes: Knights (Warminster, 1981), pp. 122–3.Google Scholar

17 Berlin 1697, dating to a 550. A. Pickard–Cambridge, Dithyramb, Tragedy and Comedy2, rev. T. B. L. Webster (Oxford, 1962), fig. 23; Bieber, M., The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre2 (Princeton, 1961), fig. 126.Google Scholar

18 Dover, K. J., Aristophanes: Frogs (Oxford, 1993), p. 295, 373–6; D. M. MacDowell, 'Aristophanes, Frogs 1407–67', CQ 9 (1959), 261–8, at pp. 261–2; Russo 198–202 (cf. also C. F. Russo, Storia delle Rane di Aristofane [Padova, 1961], and 'The revision of Aristophanes' Frogs', G&R 13 [1966], 1–13). Corruption is also suggested by, e.g., F. Salviat, 'La deuxieme representation des Grenouilles: la faute d' Adeimantos, Cleophon et le deuil de l'hirondelle', in R. Etienne et al. (edd.), Architecture et Poesie dans le monde grec: Hommage a Georges Roux (CMO 19 Arch 10; Lyon and Paris, 1989), 171–83.Google Scholar

19 Other differences between the festivals are attested: for example, at the Lenaia, 'aliens might sing in the choruses and resident aliens could be choregoi' (DFA, p. 41.)

20 Of the fragments of Old Comedy, none can be shown to require more than three speaking j actors in a given episode. Eupolis' Demoi has been reconstructed to require various numbers of actors, but not even the lengthy fr. 99 needs more than three. If the play contains a necromancy instead o f a katabasis, as I. C. Storey believes, then the leaders from the past who are summoned need not all appear at once, and more than one could be played by the same actor. Leaders could return in pairs, only one o f whom would speak (fr. 104). There need be only three speaking characters on stage at a time: Pyronides, a companion (perhaps), and the speaking leader. Later in the play, the actors can give voice to the other leaders: it is known that Aristeides (fr. 105), Miltiades (fr. 106), and Perikles (fr. 110) all speak at some point in the play. Similarly, Eupolis' Marikas fr. 192 seems to require only three: Marikas, a SeoTrorqs, and another.

21 I wish to thank the anonymous referee and Ian C. Storey. This discussion has benefited from their comments. This paper was prepared at the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, DC, as part o f the 1995 Summer Scholars Program.