most essential qualities." (Hist, of Gr. Lit. pp. 304, 305.) By the addition of this third actor, the chief person of the drama was brought under two conflicting influences, by the force of which both sides of his character are at once displayed; as in the scene where Antigone has to contend at the same time with the weakness of Ismene and the tyranny of Creon. Even those scenes in which only two actors appear are made more significant by their relation to the parts of the drama in which the action combines all three, and conversely; thus, the scene of the Antigone just referred to derives its force in a great measure from the preceding separate conflicts between Antigone and Ismene, and Antigone and Creon; while the meaning of those two scenes is only brought out fully when they are viewed in their relation to the third. Aeschylus adopted the third actor in his later plays; and indeed it may be laid down, as a general rule, and one which must have contributed greatly to the rapid progress of the art, that every improvement, made by either of the great rival dramatists of the age, was of necessity adopted by the others. In the time of Sophocles and Euripides, the number of three actors was hardly ever exceeded. "It was an object to turn the talents of the few eminent actors to the greatest possible account, and to prevent that injury to the general effect which the interposition of inferior actors, even in subordinate parts, must ever produce; and, in fact, so often nowadays does produce." (Müller, Hist. Lit. p. 304.) In only one play of Sophocles, and that not acted during his life, does the interposition of a fourth actor appear necessary, namely, in the Oedipus at Colonus; "unless we assume that the part of Theseus in this play was partly acted by the person who represented Antigone, and partly by the person who represented Ismene: it is, however, far more difficult for two actors to represent one part in the same tone and spirit, than for one actor to represent several parts with the appropriate modifications." (Müller, p. 305, note.) It would be travelling rather beyond the bounds of this article to describe the manner in which the persons of a Greek drama were distributed among the three actors, who, by changes of dresses and masks, sustained all the speaking characters of the play. This subject, though essential to a full comprehension of the works of Sophocles, belongs rather to the general history of the Greek drama: it is discussed very well by Müller, who gives a scheme of the distribution of the parts in the Oresteian trilogy of Aeschylus, and in the Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles (pp. 305—307). Mr. Donaldson also discusses at some length the distribution of the parts in the Antigone. (Introduction to the Antigone, § 4.)
Sophocles also introduced some very important modifications in the choral parts of the drama. According to Suidas (s. v.) he raised the number of the choreutae from twelve to fifteen; and, although there are some difficulties in the matter, the general fact is undoubted, that Sophocles fixed the number of choreutae at fifteen, the establishment of which, as a rule, would necessarily be accompanied with more definite arrangements than had previously been made respecting the evolutions of the Chorus. At the same time the choral odes, which in Aeschylus occupied a large space in the tragedy, and formed a sort of lyric exhibition of the subject interwoven with the dramatic representation, were very considerably curtailed, and their burden was less closely connected with the subject of the play; while the number of the epeisodia, or acts, into which they divided the drama, was increased, and the continuity of the action was made closer by the rareness of the absence of all the actors from the stage, whereas in the earlier tragedies the stage was often left vacant, while the Chorus was singing long lyric odes. The mode in which the Chorus is connected with the general subject and progress of the drama is also different. In Aeschylus the Chorus is a deeply interested party, often taking a decided and even vehement share in the action, and generally involved in the catastrophe; but the Chorus of Sophocles has more of the character of a spectator, moderator, and judge, comparatively impartial, but sympathising generally with the chief character of the play, while it explains and harmonizes, as far as possible, the feelings of all the actors. It is less mixed tip with the general action than in Aeschylus, but its connexion with each particular part is closer. The Chorus of Sophocles is cited by Aristotle as an example of his definition of the part to be taken by the Chorus:—καὶ τὸν χορὸν δὲ ἕνα δεῖ ὑπολαϐεῖν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν καὶ μόριον εἶναι τοῦ ὅλου καὶ συναγωνίζεσθαι, μὴ ὥσπερ Εὐριπίδης ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ Σοφοκλῆς (Poët. 18); where, however, the value of the passage, as a description of the choruses of Sophocles is somewhat diminished by the fact that he is comparing them, not with those of Aeschylus, but with those of Euripides, whose choral odes have generally very little to do with the business of the play.
By these changes Sophocles made the tragedy a drama in the proper sense of the word. The interest and progress of the piece centred almost entirely in the actions and speeches of the persons on the stage. A necessary consequence of this alteration, combined with the addition of the third actor, was a much more careful elaboration of the dialogue; and the care bestowed upon this part of the composition is one of the most striking features of the art of Sophocles, whether we regard the energy and point of the conversations which take place upon the stage, or the vivid pictures of actions occurring elsewhere, which are drawn in the speeches of the messengers.
It must not, however, be imagined for a moment that, in bestowing so much care upon the dialogue, and confining the choral parts within their proper limits, Sophocles was careless as to the mode in which he executed the latter. On the contrary, he appears as if determined to use his utmost efforts to compensate in the beauty of his odes for what he had taken away from their length. His early attainments in music,—the period in which his lot was cast, when the great cycle of lyric poetry had been completed, and he could take Simonides and Pindar as the starting points of his efforts,—the majestic choral poetry of his great predecessor and rival, Aeschylus, which he regarded rather as a standard to be surpassed than as a pattern to be imitated,—combined with his own genius and exquisite taste to give birth to those brief but perfect effusions of lyric poetry, the undisturbed enjoyment of which was reckoned by Aristophanes as among the choicest fruits of peace (Pax, 523).
Another alteration of the greatest consequence, which, though it was perhaps not originated by Sophocles, he was the first to convert into a general practice, was the abandonment of the trilo-
