Rees, The Meaning of Parachoregema

7/27/2019 Rees, The Meaning of Parachoregema

1/15

The Meaning of ParachoregemaAuthor(s): Kelley ReesSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1907), pp. 387-400Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/262331 .

Accessed: 07/10/2013 12:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 157.92.4.12 on Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:00:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/262331?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/262331?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMABY KELLEY REES

Despite the common assumption that dramatic poets at Athenswere limited uniformly to three actors for the production of plays,it has been frequently observed that many of the extant dramasrequire a fourth. The Choephori demands an extra actor for thepart of Pylades,l the Rhesus for Paris. "Extra" actors are alsonecessary for the rOles of Molossus in the Andromache andEumelus in the Alcestis. In the plays of Aristophanes extraperformers are required for Pseudartabas, Herald, and Nicarchusin the Acharnians, Triballus in the Birds, Lampito in the Lysi-strata, the two daughters of Trygaeus in the Peace, Prytanis andHeraldess in the Thesmophoriaztsae, and for Pluto and Plathanein the Frogs. In addition to these, many other characters arefound in the plays which are not specifically provided for eitherby the choregus or by the state, if we assume that the formerfurnished only the regular chorus and the latter only three actors:for example, the companions of Hippolytus (Hipp. 61-120), thechorus of boys in the Wasps (248-316), the Propompi in theEumenides (1010-47), the chorus of shepherds in the Alex-ander of Euripides (cf. schol. Eur. Hlipp. 58), and mute char-acters.2 All these and other' characters of a similar nature

1The scholiast ad vs. 889 avoids the difficulty by assuming that the same actorplayed the part both of the evangelus and of Pylades: geTeTKe66aoTca& O' 18eYYeXos dHvXd8qv l'vag ''t Vywot. So Mfiller Eumenides, p. 130, and Tucker Choephori, p. 5.But five verses (886-91) would not allow the necessary time for exit and change ofdress. This is the prevailing view, I think, and is supported by Muller Bithunenalt.,p. 175; Richter Vertheil. d. Roll., pp. 39 ff.; Lachmann De mensura, pp. 21if.; andby Schneider Att. Theaterw., p. 137. 0. F. Hermann De distrib., adn. 48, holds thatsuch a lightning change would not be impossible, but thinks that the employment ofan "extra " would be the easier and more natural plan.2 (1) Those who appear as body-guards or attendants, 8opvu pi,arac; (2) "1mutes"like Hermes in the Eumenides, Bia in the Prometheus, and Pylades in severalplays, cf. Hermann De distrib., p. 24; (3) persons that took the place, as is generallysupposed, of regular characters when the actors of such characters were temporarilyrequired for other speaking parts, e. g. Ismene in Oed. Col. 1096-1555; (4) and finally,crowds of people such as the suppliants in Oedipus Rex or the Areopagites in theEumenides.

3Of. Muller Biuhnenalt., pp. 175-80, and Haigh Attic Theatre2,pp. 264-68.[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY II, October,19071387

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

388 KELLEYREESoverstep the three-actor limit. A discrepancy, therefore, existsbetween the actual demands of the plays and the assumed limita-tion of actors. How is the conflict to be explained?When confronted by such a dilemma students of the dramausually take refuge in the convenient term "parachoregema,"which is defined by Haigh, for example, as including "all extraperformers as distinct from actors and chorus. This word obvi-ously means something which is supplied by the choregus in addi-tion to his ordinary expenditure."' The fact that a Greek namecan be applied to the phenomenon has here, as in so many othercases, served to shield the explanation from the close scrutiny towhich it should have been subjected; for the word 7rapaXop77'ycq7tais a late and rare term, the sphere of its application is uncertain,and there is no a priori reason why we should suppose, if itsmeaning were perfectly clear, that it is correctly applied to theprovision made in the fifth century B. c. for actors beyond three,or for such secondary choruses or supernumeraries as the poetmight, in writing his play, find it convenient to employ. Thisword occurs but five times: in the scholia ad Prom. 12, Eum. 573,Pax 114, Ran. 205, and in Pollux iv. 109; while the verb 7rapa-XOPr7etvoccurs but once, in Athenaeus iv. 140e. Let us firstexamine these passages.

1. Pol. iv. 109: 657TE /uqv avrtL TETrapTOV V7rOKpLTOV8EOLLtva TwV XopEv7vELMrELVV 7V8,7rapaO-K7VLOV KlaXELTLaT -paya,U v 'Aya/ctvovt AIo-XVaXovEL

of Lerapros V7rOKpLT?s TtL 7rapa4O0Ey$aLTO TO1YOoZro XrapaXop1yra OvougETaLt Kacl7rEapaXOaLca/LOv avcdroj v MELVOVL Lo-fXAov.22. Schol. Pr om. 12: Ev7rapaXop-qyrqIwrL avrry EL&OXo7roLt7OdEoaBta.3. Schol. Eum. 573: ev 7rapaXop?1yt7IaTL avTw EtuYLVOF ApEovrayLrat uL)Sa-MOu &aXeOYEVOL.4. Schol. Pax 114: ra. rotai3ra rapaxopr7yr'wara KacLXO-Tv,ota vVv ra

>, ^ \ ^ \ , m \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~,2 w1 ,vraL&a rOLELKaXovrTa TOv rarcEpa JtTa rpOS OuoEV eL TovTOLs Xp?1oETaL.5. Schol. Ran. 209: =ZraKaMKrat -7rapaXopL ypara (Dind., 7rapayopr-jara MSS), 'reAtE7V)X p-wvTat EV Tw 0EaTrpwOLt arpaxot, ov E o xopos,&AA'

'Attic Theatre2, p. 265.2So the best MSS; other MSS omit after 7rp&6ygahe phrase cx iv 'A7ya.AIl. andread 'A^yapAfivov&or Me4Avovtt the end. The reading of the inferior MSS wasaccepted by Lachmann De mensura, p. 3, who was first to recognize dittography inthe best codices. Cf. Hermann Opusc.VII, p. 346,and Fritzsche Thesmophor., p. 251.Schultze De chori Graecorum tragici habitu externo, p. 24, retains the reading of thebest MSS. See Mu.llerBuhnenalt., p. 175, n. 1, for further discussion of the passage.



4/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 389-corw0/v utuOVvTRa TOVS8arTpdLXovS 0 8fe aX\fOO) XOPOSEK T)V CVO4OW, VYKpWVCYVV~T?qKEV.

The first passage may be simplified to a certain extent if weeliminate from the discussion the references to the Agamemnonor Memnon of Aeschylus. The Agamemnon presents no situa-tion where ?rapa-Kr?vtov as here described might be used. As tothe lost Memnon, we are quite ignorant of the situation referred to.If, however, we accept Lachmann's reading and omit s E'v'Aya-id,quvovt, substituting 'Aya4e'vovt for Me4Uvovt, e must (with C. F.Hermann') understand under the title Agamemnon the wholetriology and find in the passage a reference to the situation inChoeph. 889, where a fourth person is actually required for thepart of Pylades. This is a plausible conjecture, but if we adherestrictly to the MSS it must be affirmed that neither the Agamemn-non nor the Memnon seems to illustrate to us the use of ?rapao-Ktr-vtov or 7rapaXopqryy.uas defined in the passage.2 We are thusjustified in disregarding the references to these plays. The restof the passage yields an intelligible meaning, To begin with thelast clause, "if a fourth actor should speak anything (rt) in sup-plement (nrapad), this was called "parachoregema," i. e., a fourthspeaking3 actor was designated by the word parachoregema. Thedistinction drawn by Pollux between "parascenion" and "para-choregema" causes some difficulty. "Whenever," he adds, "itwas necessary for a chorus performer instead of a fourth actor tospeak in lyric, this was called 'parascenion,' 'Nebenscene."'Obviously such a case could happen only in the situation where

IDe distrib., p. 39; cf. Schneider Att. Theaterw., p. 136: " d. i. in den Choephoren,.da im Agamemnon nichts dergleichen gefunden wird, und der Name Agamemnonbisweilen fur die ganze Tetralogie gebraucht worden ist." Haigh, p. 264, n. 2, holdsthat "the reference cannot be to the speech of Pylades in the Choephori because theChoephori could not be called the Agamemnon."2 Verrall Class. Rev. IV (1890), pp. 3 ff., has evolved an ingenious theory. On theetrength of the Pollux passage he has added to the cast of characters in the Agamem-

non two new rOles, the Conspirator and Soldier. To the Conspirator are assignedvss. 1522,1523; to the Soldier 1650-53. These lines were originally in the text, butwere thrown out on the ground that they made no sense in the mouths of those char-acters to whom they were assigned. The verses are in codex Florentinus. The part,of the Conspirator fits Pollux' definition of "parascenion." Verrall thus brings theAgamemnon into accord with the statement of Pollux.S I. e., in dialogue, as contrasted with ei7reZvpv 8a.



5/15

390 KELLEY REESthree speaking actors are present on the scene at once and some-thing is to be sung behind the scene. The extant dramas offerno such case so far as is discoverable now, and if there really weresuch situations, a fourth performer would be necessary, so thatparascenion would be a special name for a parachoregema under aspecial condition. Both terms have the common characteristic ofbeing used of a fourth actor; 7rapaaKcr4vtoOv, chorus member as afourth actor sings; 7rapaXop74yyp1a,a fourth actor speaks. Everyfourth performer, whether employed for lyrical parts or otherwise,is a parachoregema, but is a parascenion only in the one case whenthe fourth person has to sing from the back-scene.'Pollux thus defines in terms reasonably clear the applicationof parachoregema, restricting it to a fourth actor. Schol. Pax(4 above) also employs the term to designate supernumeraryactors. But the word is given a wider application and is usedwith reference to mute characters in schol. Prom. 12 and in schol.Eum. 573,2 and to a supplementary chorus in schol. Ran. 2093(2, 3, and 5 above).We thus learn from Pollux and the scholiasts certain applica-tions of the term. The actual meaning of the word they do notdefine, nor do they state or imply that the choregus had anything

'Jebb Oed. Col., p. 8, n. 1, holds that there is no good reason or authority for7rapacOKhvPtv being used of a supernumerary actor; for according to the passage underdiscussion the term was used when a chorus member took the place of a fourth actor.However, if 7rapacXoph-yqua includes all extras (whether provided by the choregus orotherwise) the extra chorus member used for actor's parts would certainly be compre-hended by the term, though the latter had a more specific name in parascenion. Theexplanation offered by me is essentially the same as that proposed by Richter Verteil.d. Rollen, pp.20 ff., and by Beer Zahl d. Schausp., pp. 12 ff. Mutller Bihnenalt., p. 179,finds the peculiarity of parascenion to be in this, that the term includes everythingthat takes place "in den Seitenfltigeln" as distinguished from what goes on in theorchestra or "on the stage." For instance, the chorus of frogs would be a parascenion,in that they are not visible to the spectator.

2 The scholiast seems to lay special emphasis on the uqatwoD 8aXe-y6j,uevot, "sincethey do not speak," they ('Apeo7racyWTat) are ev 7rapaXopqryhuaILT. Apparently he hasin mind a period when all mutes were regarded as parachoregemata.3 It seems unnecessary to assume that this chorus involved an extra expense to thechoregus, since it is extremely probable that the same persons who appeared later asthe chorus of Mystae here sang the frog chorus. Schneider, p. 137, prefers to retainthe MS 7rapa-yop1,uara and translates, "'Nebenrufe," "unsichbare Stimmen." Din-dorf's einendation is now generally accepted. Assuming it to be correct, the conclu-sion, I think, is obvious that the scholiast regarded the frog chorus as constituting asupplementary chorus.



6/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 391to do with the matter. The current definition of the word isreally an interpretation of modern scholars, designed to explainand justify a preconceived notion that the poet could employ onlythree actors regularly. In the passages quoted there is no hint,except it be in the composition of the word itself, that the ancientslooked upon the parachoregema as an extra duty which devolvedupon the choregus. Pollux, who seems to have derived most ofhis information on scenic matters from Juba,' is often a veryunsafe guide for the student of the classical drama. His state-ments about matters theatrical are often applicable only to the,post-classical period. So too with the scholiasts to the dramaticpoets. Often uninformed as to the conditions of the fifth-centurytheater, they naturally are prone to interpret the classical dramasin terms strictly applicable only to their own day. We must,therefore, be on our guard against applying to the classical dramaat Athens a late term used first and only by the scholiasts and byPollux.

To summarize the preceding discussion: According to thedefinition of Pollux and schol. Pax 114 "parachoregema" meansa fourth actor; according to scholl. Prom. 12 and Eum. 573,mute characters may be designated by the same term, and by afurther extension (schol. Ran. 209) supplementary choruses areincluded. The meaning of the word is nowhere defined; only itsapplication is known. The word itself seems to be of late originand may have been used with reference to stage conditions in thepost-classical period.

What then is the meaning of 7rapaXop4yqinLa A correct inter-pretation of the simple word XopI7yrnlawill enable us to give aplausible answer to this question. It should first be observedthat Xop?/y?7,ua as never used in classical Greek nor is it everfound as a synonym of Xopqyta in its technical sense of "office ofchoregus," though etymologically it might have been so used.xop',yrn,a is a word of late development indicating the concretething resulting from the action of XoprIEtv in its derived meaning.Let us then trace briefly the development in meaning of XopqyEtP(Xopwyia), starting with the classical period.

1Rohde De Pollucis fontibus, pp. 36 ff.



7/15

392 KELLEY REESIn the classical period Xopqy(a meant "the office of the chore-gus," "the expense of the office;" %Xop?yEdv,to be leader of the

chorus," "to defray the expense of the chorus." In the Oratorsthere is a tendency to employ the words in a metaphorical senseas early as Antiphon.' In two passages in Deniosthenes theoriginal force of the words is no longer felt: xi. 6 (in Ep7ist.Phil.): /ao-tXea T7(0) 11p6TOJV XP?X1O?aTa XopYVyZV poTpe'vif0ovTat,and in a law quoted xviii. 106: a E7ro eKOt Icact 7reVTET7 VE9rErrap'Kovra, ew' itOV Ij xOp?7y( pp.'VOVS'. In Aristotle Xop,-vyetvmeans "to furnish" or "to supply" in several passages:Eth. Nic. li01a 15 (i. 10. 15): Ical Tons' 6K7T6qayyaOotiS1Kctavu9KceXopyy7/.Levov; ibid., 1179a 11 (x. 8. 11), and 1099a 34(i. 9. 15). Xopytà-= "that which is provided," "means,"4"resources;" in a wider sense "anything which the state requiresto be furnished:"2 Pol. 1332a 1 (iv [vii]. 13. 2): &ETat ylap IcatXopyt [aS TtroSV To v KacoS; see also Pol. 1325 b 37 (iv [vii]. 4.4. 1) and Eth. Nic. 1178 a 2 (x. 8. 4). In Pol. 1326 a 6 thepopulation is regarded as an important part of the state's assets(7oXtTCtKr1s Xopq?y[tas). In late Greek these words mean regularly"to furnish" and "that which is furnished or supplied." Sincethe fact is familiar to all, a few examples will suffice: Plut. Motral.956d: v a7roTv v7rVpo [Cx/eXEta] Xopr)rytTa C6Tat Kat i\Xis; Polyb.iii. 68. 8: ToTov Ke,XTWV 7rXr}Os ..a. . &tXcos kE\V E%XOP77rEtOo-TpaTo7rEOVTots' E7tTr78iOt9; Diod. xx. 37. 2: XOpq7'/ELV0OtvxPW aTa; schol. Nub. 807: aVT\tTOVTOtLU/ò'0OTt UCOOVgO-ot OP7?1YELvOvsvav OAEXy;schol. Ach. 348: opos xop?rKc e'xovwoXX wvVXWV;Dittenberger Syl.2, 552. 723 (latter half of the second century,B. C.): Xopqyraat TO 7ytVo/ÈVOV&a7ravq7.a.From these examples it becomes clear that XopqyEtv meant inlate writers, when the choregic system no longer existed, regularly"to supply or furnish;" that the derived meaning, though commonenough in the fourth century, probably then was felt to be a figura-tive use of the word. XopIyq,ua came in when the figurative mean-ing was practically the only one, except in antiquarian references to

lAntiphon Chor. 13; Aeschines Ctesiph. 240: Kat Ta?s 78o&va?s acavrol XOp77ycEs.2 See note in Susemehl-Hicks Politics, 1225a 14, and 1331b 41.3 See also Syl. 418. 77, where the word has the same meaning.'



8/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 393the ancient custom. This is confirmed by the fact noted above thatXop'7,#qwadoes not occur in Greek literature in the technical senseof "choregia." The first and only appearance of the simple uncom-pounded form of the word, so far as I have been able to discover,is in Plut. Otho 9.' Here Xop'pyqwua,"the thing provided," be-comes "the means for providing something." EwtXop77yqyua2ccursbut once, in Athenaeus iv. 140c: a\XX'E7raLKAa ev "eyETat TaVTa,o'zrra lov e7rXopc7 ypaTa ToV TETa-y/.evoV otsOtU'tsaq tkXov, i. e., thatis called w7r-a!K`ovwhich is, as it were, "an additional supply" (cf.Liddell and Scott). Thus xOp7yyFLa in the form JmXopq77777aand the simple word in Plutarch means merely "the thing fur-nished or supplied."3 Formed from XopqyEt'vat a late period, itcould not have had any other meaning. Xopqyt(ahad already beeninstituted for the technical sense and continued to be so usedwherever the ancient custom was referred to, and was never con-fused even in antiquarian notices with Iop 'n,ua,which was alwaysrestricted to a non-technical sense. Even assuming that xop7yrnuacame in earlier than our evidence would indicate, it is highlyimprobable that the two words were ever used currently side byside to designate the choregic system, since the distinction wasfelt so strongly at a late period. wapaXopnyrn,ua would signifyaccordingly "that which is furnished in supplement," an extra oradditional furnishing."The verb 7rapaXopPyELv'ears out the correctness of this inter-pretation. 7rapa signifying "additional" or "extra" is not uncomn-1 06irtXXtc XacAap'ytas Kal otvoXuwylas h TpUVbiS Kal a?KoXao-tas dOOW' T)J i))egoplacXopkPy1I.ua 7rOp6egue'ovs.20ther compound forms do not occur, excepting those cases with 7rapa-alreadymentioned.

3According to Stratton University of Chicago Studies, II, pp. 115-243,nouns endingin -/a or -a,ua derived from verbs commonly denote the result of the action of thoseverbs. Thus Xop-rryeZ to furnish," Xophy-njua,he concrete result, "the thing furnished."4Athen. iv. 140e; hv eis 7& 7Cv &v8C6pv8trtca KOjU[/OVO-, aK6VO7rOLtcTat K TL'VW tCjwVcpto7u'vwv, 7rapaXopyoOvros abr&iraoSS t8lrTats 6vbsnTv eViropo6vrw, v 60 5re 8 Kat 7rXet6vWv.According to Sophocles' Lexicon 7rapaXop-rye?reans in this passage, "to furnish overand above," "to furnish in addition." Such must be the sense of 7rapdhere, thoughthe whole word in the sense of 7rapgXew would give an intelligible meaning. The pas-sage would mean then: "the men had flesh of certain animals in addition to a faresuch as was given to the boys at the Phiditia." Jebb Oed. Col., p. 8, n. 1 says: "rapa-Xoph-y-qua (from the verb 7rapaXop-qy?.V)meant simply something furnished in supple-ment to the ordinary duties of the choragus," correctly interpreting the force of thepreposition at least.



9/15

394 KELLEY REESmon, as the following examples will show: Aristoph. Eccles. 226,7rapo#&ovoD^v,to buy a dainty in addition to a regular fare" (Aesch.Aga. 1447, 7rapo#a'wvja, "a dainty"); Vesp. 1228; 7rapa7roXete/3ocoFlevos, "you will perish incidentally, etc;" also 481 7rapEqu-,/aXcEv "to throw in, slip in parenthetically;"'1 Aristotle De part.anim. 662 a 9 (3. 1. 7); avayKcatov rapct-eXE9a To v'pov 6ar TppoO';Lucian De hist. scr. 9: E -rTopa, cE V aXXwq To\TEp7rVoV7rapE,.ropevoratro, i. e., "if history should give delight besidesinstruction" (Xpr)ft,ov); Ety. Mag. 172. 3 'rapaXv,aa "an addi-tional pouring in;" Bekker's Anecdota 59. 31, 7rapaao'4naTja "anadditional invention;" Hesychius s. e't'Xtov,rapacqepva "that which abride brings over and above her contracted dowry." 7rdcpEpyoV,7rapEvfrqflc, and 7rcapE7rdpEvpa (quoted by C. F. Hermann Dedistrib., adn. 52 after Wyttenbach ad Plut. Moral. 151 e) revealthe same force of the preposition.2The usual interpretation is untenable because certain functionsare involved which either do not belong to the choregus, or whichconstitute a regular part of the "choregia." But first let us statebriefly the current theory. Assuming that Xopqyta includes theordinary and legal duties of the choregus, such as providing thechorus, mutes,3 victims for sacrifice,4 7rapaXop'yrn.ia "that whichis furnished in supplement by the choregus" would embrace allthose provisions made by the choregus over and above his pre-scribed duties, "alles was uaber die gewohnliche gesetzliche Leist-ungen des Choregen hinausgeht, also jede aussergew6hnlicheLeistung des Choregen."5 Thus a fourth actor would be a "para-

I So Theophrastus Char. vii (of the loquacious man) Kai KaT& T63v TX-qOtv ye &dca800yo1'vos Kar-qyoptav 7rapejcaXeZlv throw in some abuse of the masses too in the courseof his narrative " (Jebb). 7rape/,4oX ' was a " parenthesis " (Walz Rhet. viii. 483, 576).See Starkie's Wasps ad vs. 481.

2 Other examples of this use of 7rapd are found in Soph. Trach. 537, Aristoph. Ran.1116; Poll. iv. 109 7rapacuOeyZcaToto speak in supplement;" Plut. Agis 16; CollitzSammlung d. griech. Dialect. Inschr. 4254; BrMalAegypt. Urkunden aus den Konig.Mus. zu Berlin 246. 10 and 340. 24.3Plut. Phoc. 19: o /dv Tprpa-yy8s eltevaL ptbAeXV3wzcLaoaos vrp6a7rov, ?'T6LKat KEKOO/'?-Aevas 7roXX&s roXvTeXis67ra8ois rbv Xopv76v, K. T. N. But see below, p. 395.4Aristoph. Pax 140: XoVrw rb rp63arovr X4 opt"y a>erat. For a detailed discus-sion of the duties of the choregus see Muller, pp. 177, 330-34, and Haigh, pp. 86, 87.6Beer Zahl d. Schausp., p. 12. The same interpretation is offered by Sommerbrodt

Scaenica, p. 172; 0. Muller Rhein. Mus. V (1837), p. 342; C. F. Hermann De distrib.,p. 39; Richter Vertheil. d. Rollen, p. 18; Schneider Att. Theaterw., p. 136; Muller



10/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 395choregema," an extra provision of the choreguis. Mutes also,according to the application of the term scholl. Prom. 12 and Eum.573, and side-choruses schol. Ran. 209, would be "parachorege-mata" in that they overstep the ordinary and legal duty of thechoregus. Are these applications of the word consistent with ourknowledge, drawn from other sources, of what constitutes the legaland regular duty of the choregus?

Unfortunately our evidence on the responsibility of the chore-gus in matters of detail is fragmentary and not absolutely con-clusive. It is certain, however, that the choregus had to provideand maintain the chorus at his own expense. It is but reasonableto suppose that he was also legally bound to provide everythingin the nature of a chorus or side-chorus.1 No extra duty of thechoregus prescribed by law could be properly called a parachore-gema which, assuming it existed in the classical period, couldhave been applied only to a voluntary duty, since "choregia"included all of his legal duties. It seems to me improbable thatthe provision of any extra necessary for the presentation of a playshould have been left to the will or generosity of a choregus.2

It is implied in the passage of Plutarch quoted3 above that thechoregus was responsible for the provision of mutes. How far weare justified in accepting his anecdote as evidence for the Athenianpractice of the fourth century it is difficult to say, for Plutarchcares little for historical accuracy in matters of antiquity whentelling a story.4 However, if the choregus did furnish the mutes,Biuhnenalt., p. 179. Weismann Scenische Anweisungen (Prog. Bamberg, 1895), p. 32,has a different explanation of " parachoregema" which is substantially as follows:When the poet presented his play to the archon he had to specify what extra servicesof the choregus the play required, if the usual three actors were insufficient. The spe-cification of such a demand would naturally be indicated best in the text at the pointwhere the extra person was needed. The later grammarians were the first to designatethese notices previously placed on the margin of the text by earlier grammarians as"parachoregemata," thinking more of the position where they found the notices (7rapcl"on the side ") than with any intention of implying that they were extras furnished bythe choregus. Weismann's theory is not received favorably by Holzinger, Bursian'sJahresb. CXVI (1903), pp. 276, 277.l So Bockh Staatshaushalt P1,pp. 601 if.

2Cf. Muller BIIhnenalt., p. 177: "So waren diese fuir derartige ausserordentlicheErfordnisse lediglich auf die Guiteder Choregen angewiesen."3Phoc. 19, quoted p. 394, n. 3.4 Flickinger Plutarch as a Source of Information on the Greek Theater, Chicago,1904.



11/15

396 KELLEY REESI cannot but think that he was compelled to do so by the archon.In no sense of the word can they be said to constitute an irregular,occasional duty ("aussergewohnliche Leistung"). They are essen-tial to a full and complete production of almost every extant tragedyor comedy,' and this very fact would remove them from the cate-gory of "extras." Is it reasonable to suppose, considering theimportant role that mutes take in the presentation of the dramas,that their provision was left wholly undetermined? Would notthe fact that all the plays require such persons for one purposeor another make it imperative that someone should be legallyforced to provide them? Muiller (Biihnenalt., p. 179) correctlyobserves that mutes do not belong "zu den Parachoregemen, son-dern zu den ordentlichen Leistungen der Choregen," but failsapparently to see that this is inconsistent with the scholiasts'application of the word to Bia in the Prometheus and to the Areo-pagites in the Eumenides. The conclusion seems obvious that"parachoregema" had no application to mutes in dramatic pro-ductions of the classical period at Athens, when mute charactersformed just as much a regular duty of the choregus as the fur-nishing of the chorus, but that at a later period, under a differentsystem and under different conditions, to which the scholiastsevidently refer, a mute was regularly a "parachoregema," an extra.

What about the provision of "extra" actors? I might add atthis point that I have endeavored to prove in a study which issoon to appear2 that the so-called rule of three actors had no exist-ence in the classical period, but rests upon a misinterpretation ofthe lexicographers and of Aristotle, and upon a false deductionfrom the terminology of the period of the guilds; that there wasnever a fixed limit to the number of actors that might be assignedto the poets, but that it was rather the policy of the state to pro-vide all the actors necessary for a creditable presentation of plays.

1Koob De mutis quae vocantur personis in Graecorum tragoediis, Ealle, 1882. InSophocles and Euripides mutes average one or two to each play. In Aristophanes itis impossible to say just how many supernumeraries there are. Such plays as Thesmo-phoriazusae, Lysistrata, and Acharnians probably required dozens. Cf. White " The'Stage' in Aristophanes," Harvard Studies II (1891), pp. 188-92.2 The Rule of Three Actors in the Classical GreekDrama, University of ChicagoPress, 1907.



12/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 397Assuming that this conclusion will be found to be essentially

correct, it follows of course that the state' furnished freely afourth, fifth, or sixth actor, or such other persons as were needed.This would have been more natural and a far simpler methodthan that of the current theory, that the state furnished some ofthe actors while the choregus furnished others. Either the statefurnished all the actors, or the choregus furinished all.

Assuming for the momelnt that there was a division of responsi-bility in the matter of actors, that the state furnished only thethree and the choregus the rest, I find it difficult to see just whythe choregus should voluntarily take a special interest in actors.His duty was primarily with the chorus, for which he not seldommade liberal provision. Liberality in this case occasions no sur-prise when we remember the rivalry between competing choregi andthe special distinction that attended a successful choregus. Manyinstances are recorded where choregi lavished money upon theirchoruses through eagerness for victory.2 No such motive orincentive existed with reference to "extra"' actors. Choregi as arule could not be relied upon to furnish more of them than thelaw required. Some were parsimonious and shirked even theirprescribed function, as may be inferred from the fact that thearchon was empowered to compel them to perform their legal

1 I follow the opinion of the majority that the state, not the choregus, furnishedand paid the actors. The fact that the state assigned actors direct to the poet, not to thechoregus, is thought to imply that actors were paid from the state treasury. Cf. Mfil-ler Buhnenalt., p. 336: "mit der Ausstattung der Schauspieler dagegen scheint derChorege nichts zu thun gehabt zu haben." So Wilamowitz Hermes XXI (1886), p. 613.Wolf Proleg. ad Dem. Le.pt.,p. 91, favors the other view: nihil enim dubitandum, quinejusdem, qui choris scaenicis sumptum suggeret commissio totius esset. One of thestrongest reasons, as it seems to me, for the view that the state paid the actors is thatthe treasury was full of money to be devoted to the festivals, while the expense of thechoregus for the equipment of the chorus alone was very great and it is hardly to beexpected that he should be forced to bear the extra expense. Cf. Bo5ckhop. cit. I2,pp. 600 if. For the production of old plays the state seems to have defrayed theexpenses, not the choregus. Cf. IG. II. 97lg, new frag. 339B. C. (City festival): 7racxazoo

pdpla 7rpcJToV 7rape&SaaLav 01 KWJLCfSot. The plural shows that some other provisionthan the appointment of the usual choregi was made for old plays. See also 1G.II. 971d, Wilhelm Dram. Urk., pp. 23, 27.2Antiphanes (Athen. 103e) speaks of a choregus ruining himself by dressinghis chorus in gold. Dem. Meid. 61, choregi spent all their money on such competi-tions; cf. also Meid. 16. Of course dramatic choregi also would have the sameincentive for liberality as those for dithyrambic choruses.



13/15

398 KELLEY REESduties.' The episode mentioned by Plutarch2 (Phoc. 19) showsthat the attitude of some choregi was to do as little as possible.The inclination on the part of a few choregi to be remiss wouldmake it both advisable and necessary that the duties of the cho-regus should be specified in minute detail by law, or, what amountsto the same thing, by the archon in charge. Otherwise misunder-standings would be sure to arise. Suppose the choregus for aplay similar to the Acharnians, which requires at least threeextra performers, should refuse to defray the expense of providingthese extras, who could force him to do so, to whom would he beresponsible, since the provision of extras was outside the sphereof his regular and legal responsibility? The probabilities are:(1) that all actors were furnished by the state; (2) that, in case"extra" actors were provided by the choregus, it would have beenprescribed by law, i. e., would be included under the term"choregia."In view of the different applications of "parachoregema,"to (1) extra actors, (2) mutes, (3) side-choruses, the word couldnot have meant in the classical period an extra provision of thechoregus in excess of his legal duty.3 The results of our investi-gation up to this point have shown us: (1) that 7rapaXopqiyrn,cza

1Xen. Hiero ix. 4. On the choregia in general see Reisch's valuable article in thePauly-Wissowa Encyclop&die.

2 Whether the story is historically correct or not does not matter, as far as theattitude (not the duties) of the choregus is concerned. The very mention of theaffair indicates that such a case was likely to arise. Cf. Plut. Dem. 29: MM6KLypdP'raiywvz1eoO0at r3 'ApXit TpcLayCj81avJ'7rOKpLv6.eJvOs, E6bh7Lp0VP U Kai KaTrXWJvTa Oedrpov

'V6et.j 7rapaO-KeVXS Kal XoP7yt a S KpaTeLoOcaL.3The current interpretation involves another difficulty. The question arises: Bywhat persons were the so-called parachoregemata-rOles played? Lachmann De men-sura held that such parts were carried by members of the acting chorus, but this viewwas held up to ridicule by Richter op. cit., pp. 20 ff., who would assign them to bona-fide professional actors provided by the choregus. K. 0. Muiller Litt. Geschich. II,pp. 146 ff., followed by C. F. Hermann Berliner Jahrbiucher (1843), Nos. 49-55 was of theopinion that these parts were taken by iiberz6hlige choreuten which were left after thetwelve or fifteen had been taken from the fifty, the regular number supposed to be in

the hire of each choregus. On this assumption Hermann denied the application of"parachoregema " to tragedy on the ground that persons furnished from extra chorusmembers already at the disposal of the choregus could not have been an extra expense.Beer op. cit., p. 15, discards the view that they came from Ueberschiisseas proposed byMuillerand Hermann; for no one holds that a comic chorus ever exceeded twenty-four,the regular acting chorus, and yet in comedy "parachoregemata " are far more numer-ous than in tragedy. Beer finds Lachmann's theory also untenable, for it takes the



14/15

THE MEANING OF PARACHOREGEMA 399was never used so far as is discoverable in a technical sense withreference either to the choregus or to his office. The truth of thisis confirmed by the fact that 7rapaXop 'yqa is applied by the scho-liasts to certain functions which in the classical period belongedto the regular prescribed duties of the choregus ("choregia");(2) that 7rapaxop?'ryq,/ias a word of late origin, derived fromXoPqyetv in its non-technical derived meaning of "to furnish orsupply," and was thus applicable to stage conditions in the post-classical period.If we have arrived at the true meaning of the word and haverightly determined the period of its origin and use, we must nextconsider in what way it came to be applied to the production ofplays as indicated by Pollux and the scholiasts.

The number of actors that constituted a regular dramatic com-pany in the period of the TEXVLTal was three. These guilds(ovvoot T&i0V 7rEp' Tov At`'vv0ov TEXvtTiv), composed of musicalperformers as well as actors, were established in many cities in allparts of the Greek world. The most important guild on the main-land of Greece possessed headquarters at Athens (IG. II 551. 26:

T'ot )v 'AOi7vos 'TEXWv`atq), while outside of Greece proper themost significant was probably located at Teos in Asia Minor(WIG. 3067: TOv KOtvaV V 7TEpl TrOVao'vvoov w7r'IcOv(asKa"EXX7-O?ro'vTov). The different guilds of technitae had practically com-plete control of all dramatic exhibitions throughout the Greek-speaking world during the period when their order was recognizedand sanctioned by the states. Thus it devolved upon them to fur-nish the performers for festivals, cities, and private celebrationsthat required dramatic or musical exhibitions. The Soteric gamesat Delphi, as well as the Delian contests, were supplied by the Athe-extra actor from the acting chorus; but he thinks that the choregus always had in hisemployment a few extra chorus performers capable of acting. This does not over-come Hermann's objection that all persons already at the choregus' disposal involveno extra expense, and therefore could not be called "parachoregemata." Beer'sassignment of actor's parts to chorus members is remarkable in view of the contentionof Bergk and others that poets were allowed only three actors owing to the lack ofcompetent actors for minor rOles. Besides the Pollux passage seems to imply that achoreutes was used for a fourth actor only when there were lyrical parts. It seemsprobable then that the choregus had to hire extra actors of professional standing, andthe very fact that professionals were used indicates that the state supplied them, ifthe state provided actors at all.



15/15

400 KELLEY REESnian guild, as the names of performers contained in the recordsof these contests show.' The same guild no doubt sent troupesto all parts of Greece to fulfil contracts, and the synod of Teossent out companies to the remotest cities of Asia Minor and toGreece. Owing to the commercial and economic basis uponwhich the guilds were managed, as well as the matter of conven-ience, there grew up the custom of restricting the number of actorsin a traveling company to three, the fewest possible number withwhich a play might be produced. It is to be regretted that thedocuments which might have contained the contracts made by theguilds with the festivals or cities for dramatic exhibitions are notpreserved. However, it is but reasonable to suppose that when aguild entered into negotiation with the manager of a festival fordramatic contests, everything, especially "extras," were specifiedin the contract. To use a hypothetical case, the synod at Athensagrees to furnish (xopqyEcv) the people of Megalopolis with theusual troupe of three actors, a flute player (avX?p49s), and possiblya chorus for a certain specified sum, but if the people desire afourth actor (as would be necessary for the Oedipus Coloneus),or a certain number of mutes (as for the Orestes), or a supple-mentary chorus, the guild will supply these extras (7rapaXopqr'ellv)for a certain additional sum. 77apaXopn7n/jia was thus "an addi-tional supplying," "an extra expense," and was applied to "extra"actors, supplementary choruses, and to all extras that might bedesired in addition to the regular traveling troupe.ADELPHI COLLEGE, BROOKLYN

I Capps Trans. Am. Phil. Ass. XXXI (1900), p. 119.

Documents

Rees, The Meaning of Parachoregema