The “doubling” of parts, or the allotment to an actor of more characters than one in the same representation, was an early necessity of theatrical management.  The old dramatists delighted in a long catalogue of dramatis personae.  There are some fifty “speaking parts” in Shakespeare’s “Henry V.,” for instance; and although it was usual to press even the money-takers into the service of the stage to figure as supernumerary players, there was still a necessity for the regular members of the troupe to undertake dual duties.  Certain curious stage directions cited by Mr. Payne Collier from the old extemporal play of “Tamar Cam,” mentioned in Henslowe’s “Diary” under the date of October, 1602, afford evidence of an early system of doubling.  In the concluding scene of the play four-and-twenty persons are required to represent the nations conquered by the hero—­Tartars, Bactrians, Cattaians, Pigmies, Cannibals, &c., and to cross the stage in procession in the presence of the leading characters.  The names of these performers are supplied, and it is apparent that Messrs. George, Thomas Morbeck, Parsons, W. Parr, and other members of the company, were present early in the scene as nobles and soldiers in attendance upon the conqueror, and later—­sufficient time being allowed for them to change their costumes—­as representatives of “the people of Bohare, a Cattaian, two Bactrians,” &c.

In proportion as the actors were few, and the dramatis personae numerous, so the system of doubling, and even trebling parts, more and more prevailed.  Especially were the members of itinerant companies compelled to undertake increase of labour of this kind.  It was to their advantage that the troupe should be limited in number, so that the money accruing from their performances should not be divided into too many shares, and, as a consequence, each man’s profit reduced too considerably.  Further, it was always the strollers’ principle of action to stick at nothing:  to be deterred by no difficulties in regard to paucity of numbers, deficient histrionic gifts, inadequate wardrobes, or absent scenery.  They were always prepared to represent, somehow, any play that seemed to them to promise advantages to their treasury.  The labours of doubling fell chiefly on the minor players, for the leading tragedian was too frequently present on the scene as the hero of the night to be able to undertake other duties.  But if the player of Hamlet, for instance, was confined to that character, it was still competent for the representative of “the ghost of buried Denmark” to figure also as Laertes; or for Polonius, his death accomplished, to reappear in the guise of Osric or the First Gravedigger; to say nothing of such minor arrangements as were involved in entrusting the parts of the First Actor, Marcellus, and the Second Gravedigger to one actor.  Some care had to be exercised that the doubled characters did not clash, and were not required to be simultaneously present upon the scene.