Reassessing the Use of Doubling in Marston's Antonio and Mellida
Jeffrey Kahan
vortiger@odyssee.net

Kahan, Jeffrey. "Reassessing the Use of Doubling in Marston's Antonio and Mellida." Early Modern Literary Studies 2.2 (1996): 4.1-12 <URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/02-2/kahamars.html>.

1. Scholars have long pointed out that doubling is a prime feature of Antonio and Mellida. The feature is even mentioned in the text. In the Induction to the play, the actor playing Alberto states that "The necessity of the play forceth me to act two parts: Andrugio the distressed Duke of Genoa, and Alberto a Venetian gentleman enamoured on the Lady Rossaline . . ." (Induction 21-24).[1] But recent scholars of the play are mistaken in believing that this isolated instance of doubling is proof of its widespread practice within the entire play. Moreover, the play's lack of doubling may yield valuable insights concerning Marston's company, the Paul's Children.
   
   
2. In a recent of the study of the Paul's Children, Reavley Gair points out that the Antonio and Mellida begins with eight boys discussing their parts. According to Gair, "They must double some parts" (Gair, Children of St. Paul's 119). Although Gair gives no minimum requirement for staging the play, his use of the plural pronoun indicates that he presumes that doubling within the play is pervasive. Building upon Gair's work, Richard Fotheringham concludes that the play can be staged with as few as 14 players, and offers what he believes is "proof" that the play is rife with doubling:

   In the Act II court scene nine of the fourteen characters present danced; at line 170 of Act V only twelve actors are present (Antonio and Andrugio are yet to enter) and only six characters dance (three masquers and three ladies). Nevertheless Duke Piero comments: "The roome's too scant: boyes, stand in there, close" (V, 1701); and three pages leave the stage. It is not surprising then to find that, as well as Antonio and Andrugio, three other entrances have to be made before the end of the play- those of the character Feliche and two coffin-bearers. Either Marston or the acting company included Duke Piero's request in order to make possible the performing of the play by a cast of fourteen. (Fotheringham 25)

   While Fotheringham does present some interesting ideas concerning scenes Marston might have written for the expressed purpose of giving Robert Coles (the actor playing Alberto/Andrugio) enough time to change costume, his theory that the actor playing Feliche must have played some other character is less defensible.[2]
   

3. I have tabulated each scene for doubling possibilities using only two, interlinking principles: (i) one actor must double the same part throughout; (ii) doubled characters cannot be on stage at the same time. Since an actor cannot be more than one character at a time, doubling is only possible among those characters who never meet.[3]
   
   
   

Chart 1. When, if at all, characters meet each other in Antonio and Mellida.

	A  n d r u g i o	A  n t o n i o	L  u c i o	P  i e r o	F  e l i c h e	B  a l u r d o	A  l b e r t o	C  a s t i l i o	F  o r b o s c o	C  a t z o	D  i l d o	G  a l e a t z o	M  a t z a g e n t e	M  e l l i d a	F  l a v i a	R  o s s a l i n e	P  a g e	A  t t e n d a n t 1	A  t t e n d a n t 2	B  o y	P  a i n t e r
Andrugio		4.1	3.1	5.2	5.2	5.2		5.2	5.2	5.2*	5.2*	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	3.1	5.2	5.2	5.2
Antonio	4.1		4.1	ln	ln	ln	ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Lucio	3.1	4.1		5.2	5.2	5.2		5.2	5.2	5.2*	5.2*	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	3.1	5.2	5.2	5.2
Piero	5.2	ln	5.2		ln	ln	ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Feliche	5.2	ln	5.2	ln		ln	ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2	5.1
Balurdo	5.2	ln	5.2	ln	ln		ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2	5.1
Alberto		ln		ln	ln	ln		1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		5.1
Castilio	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Forobosco	5.2	ln	5.2	ln	ln	ln	ln	1.1		1.1	1.1	ln	ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Catzo	5.2*	1.1	5.2*	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2*
Dildo	5.2*	1.1	5.2*	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2*	5.1
Galeatzo	5.2	ln	5.2	ln	ln	ln	ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1		ln	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Matzagente	5.2	ln	5.2	ln	ln	ln	ln	1.1	ln	1.1	1.1	ln		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Mellida	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Flavia	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Rossaline	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	1.1	5.2
Page	3.1	1.1	3.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	1.1	5.2
Attendant 1	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		1.1	5.2
Attendant 2	5.2	1.1	5.2	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1		5.2
Boy	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2		5.2	5.2	5.2*	5.2*	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2	5.2
Painter					5.1	5.1	5.1				5.1

* I believe Catzo and Dildo meet Lucio at 5.2. See main body for argument.

4. As Chart 1 (above) indicates, almost all the characters meet each other in 1.1. and 5.2. This, of course, affects the minimum cast required to stage the play. Taking the above-mentioned constraints into account, staging Antonio and Mellida requires 19 players, performing the parts of 21 individual characters, not 14 as Fotheringham calculated.
   
   
   

Chart 2. When characters enter and exit in 5.2.

Lines	0- 25	26- 50	51- 75	76- 100	101- 125	126- 150	151- 175	176- 200	201- 225	226- 250	251- 275	276- 300	301- 305
Andrugio							166--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Antonio									208--	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Lucio									208--	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Piero	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Feliche							157--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Balurdo	19--	-----	-->52	87--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Alberto
Castilio	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Forbosco	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Catzo (Page 1?)	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Dildo (Page 2?)	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Galeatzo				87--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Matzagente				87--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Mellida	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Flavia	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Rossaline	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Page		36--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Attendant 1									208--	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Attendant 2									208--	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Boy	0--	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	-----	----->305
Painter

5. Fotheringham's "proof" of Feliche's doubling in 5.2 collapses when the scene is studied in detail. As detailed in Chart 2, above, the scene begins with the entrance of Piero, Castilio, Forobosco, Mellida, Flavia, Rossaline, accompanied by two pages and a boy. At line 19, Balurdo enters, followed by yet another page at line 36. Balurdo exits at line 52, only to re-enter at line 87, accompanied by Galeatzo and Matzagente. It is then that Duke Piero comments: "The room's too scant; boys, stand in there, close" (5.2.88). Piero is saying that the room seems empty and he wants to fill it with bodies and activity. Piero's command is not, as Fotheringham suggests, that the pages leave, but that Balurdo, Galeatzo and Matzagente should stay. The three pages and boy, in fact, exit only at the end of the scene. At 5.2.88, there are 13 actors on stage. As the scene progresses, no characters exit. In fact, even more characters come on stage. Feliche makes his entrance at line 157. This clearly demonstrates that Fotheringham is incorrect. Feliche cannot be doubled with the three pages or the boy, because at this point in the scene, he is on stage with them. And yet more characters follow him on stage. Andrugio enters at line 166 and he is followed by Lucio and Antonio in the coffin at line 208. At this point, at least 17 characters are on stage.[4]
   
   
6. The uncertainty concerning the maximum number of actors on stage at this point stems from the stage direction at 5.2.208, which in Q1 reads, "Enter a cofin" (V, 1882). H.H. Wood simply repeated Q's stage direction unamended (60). Nonetheless, most modern editors agree that Lucio enters with the coffin and have amended this stage direction accordingly. However, they disagree as to whether he is accompanied. If Lucio entered unattended, the coffin must have been on a carriage or cart of some sort, which would explain Piero's reference to "that mournful hearse" (5.2.210). G.K. Hunter's Regents edition and Reavley Gair's Revels edition both opt for this interpretation, minimally amending the stage direction to a workable "Enter [Lucio with] a coffin" (Regents edition, 5.2.172; Revels edition, 5.2.186). However, this use of the word "hearse," while familiar to modern readers, only came into existence in 1650. According to the O.E.D., Marston would have understood the word to refer to an elaborate iron framework on which burning tapers were placed -- in other words, a sort of funeral candelabra. The hearse could be carried or mounted on the coffin. I believe Lucio entered, carrying a hearse with burning tapers, followed by attendants carrying the coffin. This would certainly have provided a powerful dramatic effect. My opinion is generally shared by former editors. Bullen has the stage direction "Enter a funeral procession, followed by LUCIO" (5.1.287); the Cambridge editors have "Enter [LUCIO and Attendants with] a coffin" (5.2.208). But we are left with the same problem: how many attendants carried the coffin?
   
   
7. If attendants do accompany Lucio, they are probably only two in number. While it is always difficult to measure the number of boys and mutes, what we today would call extras, the requirement of a forth or fifth page would not serve the purposes of staging this scene, nor any other in the play. My theory is, to an extent, reinforced by David Bradley's recent survey of doubling upon the English stage during the period. He notes that in most plays of the period "plural calls in stage directions may be satisfied with the appearance of two actors" (18). As in 1.1, this would bring the minimum cast requirement up to nineteen, four more than Fotheringham deemed necessary.
   
   
8. The part of Lucio, a minor part, also allows for a great deal of doubling possibilities. There are 234 lines between the Painter's departure in 5.1 and Lucio's entry at 5.2.208. This leaves more than enough time for a leisurely costume change. If one follows Q and all subsequent editions, Lucio can also be doubled with Dildo or Catzo, two other pages who usually appear together. Neither page ever meets Lucio. But here I think we may be misled yet again by Q's vague stage directions.
   
   
9. Mapping out the entrances and exits, it strikes me as odd that Dildo and Catzo do not appear in 5.2, the scene in which the play's business is resolved. Instead, accompanying the major characters, we have directions for a "two Pages" (5.2.0). There are six good reasons to suppose that these two pages are Dildo and Catzo: (i) Dildo and Castilio are pages. The stage direction may simply refer to their function, rather than name; (ii) Dildo and Catzo are the only major characters not on stage. There is no thematic reason why the play would demand two nameless pages, rather than these often-seen characters; (iii) it makes good sense for both Dildo and Catzo to be on stage here, as their masters, Balurdo and Castilio, are also on stage for this penultimate scene; (iv) the fact that these two pages sing in 5.2 may be additional proof that they are, in fact, Dildo and Catzo. They would be ideally suited for these roles as the audience would have been aware of their singing talents, having heard them sing together at 2.1.61; (v) if the actors who sang these two songs stayed in character as Dildo and Catzo, the cast would save a costume change. Having two actors change costumes to come on as nameless pages serves no artistic purpose but does cause extra backstage business. I see no reason why Marston would want to create this extra business; (vi) hitherto, the play has only required one nameless page. Why should the last scene require three? This, however, may well be my own aesthetics forcing the issue.
   
   
10. While Chart 1 demonstrates that all the play's major characters did not double, it does allow for the likely possibility of two more minor doublings. For example, it is possible that the part of Painter was doubled, but with what other role? The character is on stage with Alberto, Balurdo, Feliche and Dildo. While this precludes doubling with these four characters, the text allows for the possibility of doubling the Painter any of the remaining 16 characters. Likewise, a character, called only "Page" in the text, enters at 5.2.36. The actor playing this role may well have been doubled as an attendant at different parts of the play.
    
    
11. While this new study of doubling in the play invalidates previous studies, the play's present unpopularity means it is unlikely we shall ever fully understand how doubling, or the lack of it, affects the play's tempo, structure, character development and visual appeal. Nonetheless, this study does raise some interesting speculations on the play's construction. Elizabethan playwrights were well-adapt at creating plots that allowed a limited cast to play a myriad of roles. For example, The Battle of Alcazar has 76 characters but requires only 30 players (Bradley 231).[5] While the acting ensemble for Antonio and Mellida had 19 players, Martson was content to create a play concentrating on a relatively small number of characters. The result is a play that has very few possibilities for doubling. Bradley, in his study of the plays of the period, concluded that in some instances playwrights wrote plays with specific casts in mind (20). Marston's play was indeed written especially for the Paul's Children and their theatre (Gair, "Introduction" 25). The play is full is self-conscious references to the company, playhouse and presentation (Gair, Children of St. Paul's 118-27). The newly reformed Paul's Children may have been limited by the theatrical experience of the cast.[6] It is possible that some players had had no previous theatrical experience at all. Players for the children's companies were selected for their singing, not acting (Gurr 51). Even the most theatrically experienced boy player would have had little doubling experience, for the practice of boys doubling roles was apparently fading and by 1600 had all but disappeared in adult companies (Bradley 44). It may have been illogical to ask inexperienced players to double roles.
    
    
12. By the same token, older, experienced players may have been given more stage time, though not necessarily leading roles. The few facts available concerning Robert Coles, who doubled as Andrugio and Alberto, seem to fit this pattern. In 1598, he was originally recruited as a chorister (Gair, Children of St. Paul's 199, n.24). Though only in his teens, he was too old for a main role, as his voice had begun to break (Gair, Children of St. Paul's 131-2). Nonetheless, as one of the older boys in the company, he may well have had a steadying influence upon his younger, less experienced colleagues. Robert Coles may well have doubled out of "necessity" but it was a necessity which may have been brought about by his company's inexperience, not finances.

Notes

1. All citations, unless otherwise stated, are from The Selected Plays of John Marston (1986). My control text for this study was The History of Antonio and Mellida; The First Part (1602). I checked the text against the following: The Works of John Marston (1887); The Plays of John Marston (1934); Antonio and Mellida (1965); Antonio and Mellida (1991). I am grateful to Head Librarian Susan Brock and Assistant Librarian Kate Welch of The Shakespeare Institute for access to The Malone Society Reprint of the 1602 quarto.
2. Robert Coles, along with another actor, John Norwood, are cited in Q's stage directions at IV, 1288. Gair identified Robert Coles as the actor playing Andrugio/Alberto (Children of St. Paul's 199, n.24). Gair later modified his statement from a certainty to a likelihood. See his Revels edition, 4.1.28.In.
3. As simple and as straight forward as these rules seem, they can be misleading. For instance, Bradley's study points that actors were sometimes forced into interchanging or "dodging" roles. But even he notes that dodging was an abnormal stage practice (42,57). I am grateful to an anonymous EMLS reader for this and subsequent references to Bradley's text.
Bradley's exception stems from cast limitations. Character "dodging" can also stem from conceptual doubling. In the 1990 RSC Comedy of Errors, Desmond Barritt played both Antiphuluses. Only in the last scene was another actor needed. Thus the fact that two characters are on at the same time in the last scene does not necessarily mean that they are played by two actors throughout. But this doubling of twins depends upon the recognizability of the actor as identical in both parts. The technical possibility of this doubling does not mean it was carried out in the play's original staging. While some scholars may see a logic in having one actor play both twins, no part in Antonio and Mellida overtly requires such conceptual doubling.
4. A cast of nineteen actors is well within the accepted limits: David Bevington calculated that an average company in the 1580s and 1590s consisted of 21.5 players (105); Giorgio Melchiori calculated the average Elizabethan company had a maximum total of 18 players (786); William Ringler, Jr., mapping all of Shakespeare's plays written up to 1599, concluded that a company of no more than 16 players were required (110-134). It should be noted that these critics differentiate between actors, apprentices and boys. I am merely interested in the overall number. I am defining a player, or actor as a person who assumes a role when on stage.
5. Bradley's calculation updates Greg's calculation of 26 players (Greg 69-84). Bradley argues that Greg's logic was circular. Nonetheless, Bradley does not dispute that doubling occurred in the play.
6. The company may have been reformed as early as 1597. Nonetheless, Marston's play may have marked the company's commercial debut and was therefore of considerable significance (Gurr 51).

Works Cited

• Bevington, David. From Mankind to Marlowe: Growth of Structure in the Popular Drama of the Tudor Period. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1962.
• Bradley, David. From Text to Performance in the Elizabethan Theatre: Preparing the Play for the Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
• Fotheringham, Richard. "The Doubling of Roles on the Jacobean Stage." Theatre Research International 10 (1985): 18-33.
• Gair, W. Reavley. "Introduction." 1-51 in John Marston. Antonio and Mellida. [The Revels Plays.] Manchester: Manchester UP; New York: John Hopkins P, 1991.
• -----. The Children of St. Paul's: The Story of a Theatre Company, 1553-1608. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982.
• Greg, W.W. Two Elizabethan Stage Abridgements: The Battle of Alcazar and Orlando. [Malone Society Extra Volume.] Oxford: Oxford UP, 1922.
• Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearean Stage 1574-1642. [Third Edition.] Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
• Marston, John. Antonio and Mellida. Ed. G.K. Hunter. [Regents Renaissance Drama.] Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1965.
• -----. Antonio and Mellida. Ed. W. Reavley Gair. [The Revels Plays.] Manchester: Manchester UP; New York: John Hopkins P, 1991.
• -----. Antonio and Mellida & Antonio's Revenge. Ed. W.W. Greg. [The Malone Society Reprints.] London: Oxford UP, 1922.
• -----. The Plays of John Marston. Ed. H. Harvey Wood. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1934.
• -----. The Selected Plays of John Marston. Ed. MacDonald Jackson and Michael Neill. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986.
• -----. The Works of John Marston. Ed. H.H. Bullen. [Vol.1.] London: John C.Nimmo, 1887.
• Melchiori, Giorgio. "Peter, Balthasar, and Shakespeare's Art of Doubling." The Modern Language Review 78 (1983): 777-792.
• Ringler, William, Jr. "The Number of Actors in Shakespeare's Early Plays." 110-34 in The Seventeenth Century Stage. Ed. G.E. Bentley. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1968.
• Skiles, Howard. "Attendant and Others in Shakespeare's Margins; Doubling in the Two Texts of King Lear." Theatre Survey 32 (November 1991): 187-213.

---

Responses to this piece intended for the Readers' Forum may be sent to the editor at EMLS@UAlberta.ca.

© 1996-, R.G. Siemens (Editor, EMLS).
(RGS; updated Sept. 15, 1998)