The Attic theatre

Masks were generally made of linen. Cork and wood were occasionally used.[729] The mask covered the whole of the head, both in front and behind.[730] Caps were often worn underneath, to serve as a protection.[731] The white of the eye was painted on the mask, but the place for the pupil was left hollow, to enable the actor to see.[732] The expression of the tragic mask was gloomy and often fierce; the mouth was opened wide, to give a clear outlet to the actor’s voice. One of the most characteristic features of the tragic mask was the onkos,[733] a cone-shaped prolongation of the upper part of the mask above the forehead, intended to give size and impressiveness to the face, and used where dignity was to be imparted. It varied in size according to the character of the personage. The onkos of the tyrant was especially large; that of women was less than that of men. A character was not necessarily represented by the same mask throughout the piece. The effects of misfortune or of accident had often to be depicted by a fresh mask. For instance, in the Helen of Euripides Helen returns upon the stage with her hair shorn off, and her cheeks pale with weeping. Oedipus, at the end of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, is seen with blinded eyes and blood-stained face. In such cases a change of mask must have been necessary. There are a few occasions in the extant tragedies where a change of facial expression seems to be demanded by the circumstances, but was rendered impossible by the mask. Thus in the Electra of Sophocles, the heroine is unable to show her joy at her brother’s return, and the poet has to get over this as best he can. He makes Orestes bid her show no signs of joy for fear of arousing suspicion, while she declares that there is no risk of this, for hatred of her mother has become too engrained in her for her expression to change suddenly, and her joy itself will bring tears and not laughter.[734]

The number and variety of the masks used in tragedy may be seen from the accounts in Pollux. For the ordinary tragic personages there were regular masks of a stereotyped character. Pollux enumerates twenty-eight kinds.[735] His information was derived from Alexandrian sources, and his list represents the number of masks which were employed on the later Greek stage for the ordinary characters of tragedy. It is not likely that in the time of Sophocles or Euripides the use of masks was reduced so completely to a system as in the later period; but the descriptions in Pollux will give an adequate idea of the style of the masks used in earlier times. Of the twenty-eight masks described by Pollux six are for old men, eight for young men, three for attendants, and eleven for women. The principal features by which the different masks are discriminated from one another are the style of the hair, the colour of the complexion, the height of the onkos, and the expression of the eyes. To take a few examples. The strong and powerful man, such as the tyrant, has thick black hair and beard, a tall onkos, and a frown upon his brow. The man wasted by disease has fair hair, a pale complexion, and a smaller onkos. The handsome youth has fair ringlets, a light complexion, and bright eyes. The lover is distinguished by black hair and a pale complexion. The maiden in misfortune has her hair cut short in token of sorrow. The aged lady has white hair and a small onkos, and her complexion is rather pale. Attendants and messengers are marked by special characteristics. One of them wears a cap, another has a peaked beard, a third has a snub nose and hair drawn back. One sees from these examples how completely Greek tragedy was dominated by conventional rules, in this as in all other respects. As soon as a personage entered the stage, his mask alone was enough to give the spectators a very fair conception of his character and position.

The twenty-eight tragic masks enumerated by Pollux were used for the ordinary characters of tragedy, and formed a regular part of the stock of the Greek stage-manager. But special masks were required when any unusual character was introduced. Pollux gives a long list of such masks.[736] In the first place there were numbers of mythological beings with strange attributes. Actaeon had to be represented with horns, Argo with a multitude of eyes. Evippe in the play of Euripides had the head of a mare. A special mask of this kind must have been required to depict Io with the ox-horns in the Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus. A second class of special masks was needed to represent allegorical figures such as Justice, Persuasion, Deceit, Jealousy. Of this kind are the figures of Death in the Alcestis of Euripides, and Frenzy in the Hercules Furens. Lastly, there were personifications of cities, rivers, and mountains. Five specimens of ancient tragic masks are given in figs. 17, 18. The first is the mask of a youth, the fifth that of a man; the second and third are probably masks of women. The fourth is an example of one of the special masks, and depicts Perseus with the cap of darkness upon his head.[737]

We come now to the dress of the tragic actors. Nothing is known as to the appearance of this dress in the time of Thespis and his immediate successors. Our information refers solely to the tragic costume as modified and developed by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century. The object of Aeschylus in these innovations was to add fresh splendour to the costume, and make it worthy of the colossal beings by which his stage was peopled. For this purpose he employed various devices. Among these was the cothurnus, or tragic boot, which was intended to increase the stature of the actors, and to give them an appearance of superhuman grandeur. It was a boot with a wooden sole of enormous thickness attached to it. The wooden sole was painted in various colours.[738] According to some grammarians Aeschylus invented the boot altogether;[739] others say his innovation consisted merely in giving increased thickness to the sole, and so raising the height of the actors.[740] This latter view is probably the correct one. The original of the cothurnus, as already remarked, may very likely have been the hunting boot of the same name worn by Dionysius, which was a boot reaching high up the calf, but with soles of ordinary size. After the time of Aeschylus the tragic cothurnus continued to be a regular feature in theatrical costume down to the latest period of Greek and Roman tragedy.[741] It varied in height according to the dignity and position of the wearers, a king, for instance, being provided with a larger cothurnus than a mere attendant. In this way the physical stature of the persons upon the stage was made to correspond to their social position. In the accompanying illustration (Fig. 19), representing a tragic scene, the difference between the cothurnus of the servant and that of the hero is very conspicuous.[742] Whether the cothurnus was worn by all the characters in a tragedy, or only by the more important ones, is uncertain. There was another tragic boot called the ‘krepis’, of a white colour, which was introduced by Sophocles, and used by the chorus as well as by the actors. Possibly this may have been a boot more like those of ordinary life than the cothurnus, and may have been worn by the subordinate characters.[743] The illustrations show that the cothurnus was rather a clumsy contrivance, and that it must have been somewhat inconvenient to walk with. The tragic actor had to be very careful to avoid stumbling upon the stage. Lucian says that accidents were not infrequent. Aeschines met with a misfortune of this kind as he was acting the part of Oenomaus at Collytus. In the scene where Oenomaus pursues Pelops he tripped up and fell, and had to be lifted up again by the chorus-trainer Sannio.[744] The use of the cothurnus, combined with the onkos, or prolongation of the crown of the mask, added greatly to the stature of the tragic actor. To prevent his seeming thin in comparison with his height, it was found necessary to increase his bulk by padding. His figure was thus made to appear of uniformly large proportions.[745]

The garments of the tragic actor were the same as the ordinary Greek dress, but their style and colour were more magnificent. They consisted of an under-garment or tunic, and an over-garment or mantle. The tunic was brilliantly variegated in colour. Sometimes it was adorned with stripes, at other times with the figures of animals and flowers, or similar ornamentation. A special tunic of purple was worn by queens. The ordinary tragic tunic reached down to the feet. But the tunics worn by females upon the stage were sometimes longer than those worn by men, and trailed upon the ground, as the name ‘syrtos’ implies. On the other hand, it appears from various illustrations that shorter ones were occasionally provided for attendants and other minor characters. The tunic of the tragic actor was fastened with a broad girdle high up under the breast, and flowed down in long and graceful folds, giving an appearance of height and dignity. It was also supplied with long sleeves reaching to the waist. In ordinary life sleeves of this kind were considered effeminate by the European Greeks, and were mostly confined to the Greeks of Asia. The general character and appearance of the tragic tunic is well exemplified in the illustrations already given.[746]

The over-garments were the same in shape as those worn off the stage, and consisted of two varieties. The ‘himation’ was a long mantle passing round the right shoulder, and covering the greater part of the body. The ‘chlamys’ was a short cloak flung across the left shoulder. As far as shape was concerned all the tragic mantles belonged to one or the other of these two classes, but they differed in colour and material. Pollux gives a list of several of them, but does not append any description.[747] The mere names prove that they were very gorgeous in colour. There were mantles of saffron, of frog-green, of gold, and of purple. Queens wore a white mantle with purple borders. These were the colours worn by tragic personages under ordinary circumstances. But if they were in misfortune or in exile, the fact was signified to the spectators from the very first by dressing them in the garb of mourning. In such cases the colours used were black, dun, grey, yellow, or dirty white.

Coverings for the head were not usually worn by the Greeks except when they were on a journey. The same practice was observed upon the stage. Thus in the Oedipus Coloneus, Ismene arrives from Thebes wearing a ‘Thessalian hat’. Ladies also wore a ‘mitra’, or band for binding the hair. In the scene in the Bacchae, where Pentheus is dressed up as a female, one of the articles mentioned is the hair-band.[748]

Such was the tragic costume as settled by Aeschylus, and universally adopted upon the Greek stage. No stress was laid upon historical accuracy; no attempt was made to discriminate one rank from another by marked variety in the dress. The same garb in its main features was worn by nearly all the characters of a Greek tragedy. In some instances special costumes were invented for particular classes of men. Soothsayers such as Teiresias always wore a woollen garment of network, which covered the whole of the body. Shepherds were provided with a short leathern tunic. Occasionally also heroes in great misfortune, such as Telephus and Philoctetes, were dressed in rags.[749] But the majority of the characters wore the regular tragic costume, with slight additions and variations; and the only means by which the spectators were enabled to identify the well-known personages of mythology, and to discriminate between the different ranks of the characters, was by the presence of small conventional emblems. For instance, the gods and goddesses always appeared with the particular weapon or article of dress with which their names were associated. Apollo carried his bow, and Hermes his magic wand. Athene wore the aegis.[750] In the same way the well-known heroes of antiquity had generally some speciality in their costume which enabled the spectators to recognize them as soon as they came upon the stage. Hercules was always conspicuous by means of his club and lion’s skin; Perseus wore the cap of darkness, as depicted in the illustration already given.[751] Kings in a similar manner were distinguished by the crown upon their head, and the sceptre in their hand. They also had a special article of dress, consisting of a short tunic with a swelling bosom, worn over the ordinary tunic.[752] Foreigners were discriminated by some one particular attribute, rather than by a complete variety in their costume. For example, Darius wore the Persian turban; otherwise he was probably dressed in the ordinary tragic style.[753] Warriors were equipped with complete armour, and occasionally had a short cloak of scarlet or purple wrapped round the hand and elbow for protection.[754] Old men usually carried a staff in their hands. The staff with a curved handle, which occurs not infrequently in ancient works of art, was said to be an invention of Sophocles.[755] Crowns of olive or laurel were worn by messengers who brought good tidings; crowns of myrtle were a sign of festivity.[756] The above examples illustrate the mode in which the different characters and classes were discriminated upon the Greek stage by small varieties in their equipment. But in its main features the dress of the majority of the characters was the same, and consisted of the elaborate Aeschylean costume.

The tragic costume, after having been once elaborated, was retained for centuries without any important innovation. The tragic actor must have been an impressive, though rather unnatural, figure, upon the stage. His large stature and bulky limbs, his harsh and strongly-marked features, his tunic with its long folds and brilliantly variegated pattern, his mantle with its gorgeous colours, must have combined to produce a spectacle of some magnificence. We must remember that he was intended to be seen in theatres of vast dimensions, in which even the front rows of spectators were a considerable distance from the stage, while the more distant part of the audience could only discern general effects. For such theatres the tragic costume of the Greeks was admirably adapted, however unwieldy and unnatural it may have appeared on a closer inspection. Its magnificence and dignity were especially appropriate to the ideal figures which move in the dramas of Aeschylus and Sophocles. In the Frogs of Aristophanes Aeschylus is humorously made to declare that it was only right that the demigods of tragedy should wear finer clothes, and use longer words, than ordinary mortals. The tragedy of Euripides was altogether more human in tone, and a more ordinary costume would have been better suited to it. But the Greeks, with their strong feeling of conservatism in matters of art, clung to the form of dress already established. The result was not altogether satisfactory. The attempt to exhibit human nature pure and simple upon the Greek stage was bound to appear somewhat incongruous. It often happened that the speeches and actions of the heroes in Euripides were highly inconsistent with the superhuman grandeur of their personal appearance. In any case the step from the sublime to the ridiculous was a very short one in the case of the Greek tragic actor. The play had to be elevated in tone, and the performance of a high standard, to carry off the magnificence of the actor’s appearance. Otherwise his unwieldy bulk and gloomy features excited laughter rather than tears. Lucian is especially fond of ridiculing the tragic actors of the time. He laughs at their ‘chest-paddings and stomach-paddings’, ‘their cavernous mouths that look as if they were going to swallow up the spectators’, and the ‘huge boots on which they are mounted’. He wonders how they can walk across the stage in safety.[757] In Philostratus there is an amusing story of the extraordinary effect produced upon a country audience in Spain by the appearance of a tragic actor before them for the first time. It is said that as soon as he came upon the stage they began to be rather alarmed at his wide mouth, his long strides, his huge figure, and his unearthly dress. But when he lifted up his voice and commenced his speech in the loud and sonorous clang of the tragic stage, there was a general panic, and they all fled out of the theatre as if he had been a demon.[758] In order to give an idea of the style and character of Greek tragic acting, two representations of tragic scenes (Figs. 20 and 21) are inserted, the first of which obviously represents Medea hesitating about the murder of her children.[759]

§ 5. Costume of Satyric Actors.

Tragedy and the satyric drama were sister forms of art, descended from the same original. But while tragedy advanced in dignity and magnificence, the satyric drama retained all the wild licence and merriment which in early times had characterized the dithyrambic performances in honour of Dionysus. Its chorus invariably consisted of satyrs. Of the characters upon the stage, with which we are at present concerned, one was always Silenus, the drunken old follower of Dionysus; the rest were mainly heroes out of mythology, or other legendary beings. In the Cyclops of Euripides, the only extant specimen of a satyric play, the characters consist of Silenus, Odysseus, and the Cyclops. Concerning the costume of the actors the notices of Pollux are exceedingly brief. But it is possible to obtain fairly clear conceptions on the subject from several works of art, and more especially from the well-known vase-painting at Naples.[760] From this painting we see that the characters in a satyric drama, with the exception of Silenus, were dressed in much the same way as in tragedy. Their masks exhibit the same features, and their garments are of the same general description. The tunic appears to have been rather shorter, to facilitate ease of movement, as the acting in a satyric play was no doubt less dignified and statuesque than in tragedy. For the same reason the tall cothurnus of tragedy does not appear to have been worn. It is not depicted in the works of art; and although this fact in itself is perhaps hardly decisive, since even in representations of tragic scenes the cothurnus is occasionally left out, still on general grounds it appears to be most improbable that the cothurnus should have been worn in the satyric drama. But, on the whole, the heroic characters in satyric plays were dressed in much the same fashion as in tragedy. As to Silenus, his mask always represents a drunken old man, with a half-bestial expression. His under-garments, as depicted in works of art, are of two kinds. Sometimes he wears a tight-fitting dress, encasing the whole of his body with the exception of his head, hands, and feet. At other times he wears close-fitting trousers, and a tunic reaching to the knees. All these garments are made of shaggy materials, to resemble the hide of animals.[761] Certain over-garments are also mentioned by Pollux as having been worn by Silenus, such as fawn-skins, goat-skins, imitation panther-skins, mantles of purple, and mantles inwoven with flowers or animals.[762] The figures in the illustration (Fig. 22), which is taken from the vase-painting already referred to, represent the three actors in a satyric drama. The first is playing the part of some unknown hero of mythology. His tunic is rather short, and he has no cothurnus; otherwise he exhibits the usual features of the tragic actor. The second figure represents Hercules. His tunic is still shorter, and barely reaches to the knees. The third figure is that of Silenus. His body is covered with a single close-fitting garment, and he carries a panther-skin over his shoulders. All these figures are holding their masks in their hands.

§ 6. Costume of Comic Actors.

The Old Comedy was essentially the product of a particular time and place. With its local allusions and personal satire it was unsuited for reproduction or imitation among later generations. Consequently very few traditions were preserved concerning the style of the masks and dresses used in it. The literary evidence is extremely scanty, and we have to depend almost entirely on works of art for our knowledge of the subject. We have already referred to the vase-paintings from Magna Graecia (Figs. 13 and 14), depicting comic scenes acted by the Phlyakes. These Phlyakes represented one branch of the old Doric comedy, and their performances evidently originated in the same phallic exhibitions out of which Attic comedy was developed. There are many points in common between the two. In both the phallus was regularly worn. In both a frequent source of ridicule was found in parodies of tragic dramas, or of legendary fables.[763] On these grounds it was long since suspected that the costume of the Phlyakes might resemble that of the old Attic comedy, and might be used to illustrate it. This opinion has been confirmed by recent investigations.[764] An Attic vase (Fig. 23) of the early fourth century, previously overlooked, throws much light upon the subject. It gives us a picture of three comic actors dressed in their stage costume, and holding their masks in their hands.[765] There are also a number of terra cotta statuettes, of Attic workmanship, and belonging to the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth centuries, which apparently represent figures from the comic stage. Copies of two of these statuettes (Fig. 24) are here inserted.[766] The costume found on the vase and in the statuettes is much the same as that depicted in the Phlyakes paintings. It seems certain, therefore, that the dress of the Phlyakes was akin to that used in the old Athenian comedy; and it is now possible, from the sources just enumerated, to determine the general character of this latter costume.

The Old Comedy was the direct descendant of the boisterous phallic performances at the festivals of Dionysus. Coarseness and indecency were an essential part of it. The actors therefore regularly wore the phallus.[767] This fact, which is expressly stated by the grammarians, is confirmed by the evidence of the paintings and statuettes. It is true that Aristophanes in the Clouds takes credit to himself for having discarded this piece of indecency, and for having introduced a more refined style of wit into his comedy. But whatever he may have done in the Clouds—and it is doubtful how far his words are to be taken in the literal sense—there are numerous passages to show that in most of his other plays he followed the ordinary custom.[768] Another constant feature in the old comic dress was the grotesque padding of the body in front and behind. The figures of the actors, women as well as men, were stuffed out into an extravagant and ludicrous shape. The padding, as we see from the works of art, was enclosed in a tight-fitting under-garment, which covered the whole of the actor’s person except his head, hands, and feet.[769] This under-garment was made of some elastic knitted material, so as to fit close to the figure. In most cases it was dyed a flesh colour and represented the skin. But in some of the Phlyakes vases (e.g. Fig. 14) the arms and legs of the actors were ornamented with stripes, and a tight jersey was worn over the body, and painted in imitation of the naked figure. Apart from the under-garment the clothes worn by the actors were the tunic and mantle of ordinary life. References to various kinds of mantles and tunics are common in the plays of Aristophanes.[770] But it appears from the paintings and statuettes that in most cases these garments were cut shorter than those of real life, so as to display the phallus.

The masks of the Old Comedy fall into two classes, those for real characters, and those for fictitious ones. When real individuals were introduced upon the stage, such as Socrates and Euripides, the masks were portraits of the actual persons. Before a word was spoken the character was recognized by the audience. When Aristophanes brought out the Knights, the general terror inspired by Cleon was so great, that the mask-makers refused to make a portrait-mask of him, and an ordinary mask had to be worn. Socrates, during the performance of the Clouds, is said to have stood up in his place in the theatre, to enable the strangers present to identify him with the character upon the stage.[771] The fictitious masks, as we learn from the grammarians, were grotesque and extravagant in type.[772] They are represented as such in the works of art. The mouth is large and wide open, and the features twisted into a grimace. At the same time the masks in the Attic representations are less distorted and unnatural than those of the Phlyakes vases. The expression on the masks is mostly of a cheerful and festive kind; but sometimes crafty, thoughtful, or angry features are portrayed. Not infrequently in the Old Comedy figures of a fanciful and absurd character were introduced upon the stage. Thus Pseudartabas, the King’s Eye, had a mask with one huge eye in the centre of it. The trochilus in the Birds created laughter by its immense beak. The epops was provided with a ridiculously long crest, but seems otherwise to have been dressed like a human figure. Iris in the Birds came on the stage with outspread wings, swelling tunic, and a head-covering of enormous size, so as to cause Peisthetaerus to ask her whether she was a ship or a hat. Prometheus, with his umbrella, and Lamachus with his nodding crests, are further examples of grotesque costume.[773] The covering for the feet was not, as in the later comedy, of one conventional type, but varied according to the sex and position of the character. Several kinds of boot and shoe are referred to in Aristophanes.[774]

As regards the origin of the actor’s costume which we have been describing nothing is known from tradition. But Körte has a very plausible conjecture on the subject.[775] He points out that in the early Attic representations of Bacchic scenes there are no traces of figures resembling those of the old comic actors. The followers of Dionysus consist of Sileni and (later on) of satyrs. On the other hand, in the numerous Bacchic vases found at Corinth there are no satyrs and Sileni; their place is taken by a group of curious beings who resemble the old comic actors in these two respects—the phallus and the exaggerated bulk of the lower part of the body. These figures have no generic name; but their individual names are inserted on one of the vases, and show that they were not human beings, but creatures of the goblin type.[776] Similar figures are also found in vases from the Kabeirion at Thebes, but in this case they appear as burlesque actors taking part in Bacchic festivities.[777] Körte suggests that these goblin followers of Dionysus were the prototype of the actors in the Old Comedy; that it was in the neighbourhood of Corinth that they were first transformed into performers of farce and burlesque; and that this species of comedy, together with the ludicrous garb of the actors, then spread over various other parts of Greece, such as Athens, Thebes, and Magna Graecia. That the old Attic comedy was largely indebted to that of the northern Peloponnese is shown by various traditions; and the debt may very well have consisted in the introduction of these farcical comedians, and their combination with the old Attic choruses. If this theory is correct—and there is much to be said in its favour—it points to a curious antithesis between the early history of tragedy and comedy. The satyrs and the Corinthian goblins were both of them semi-human votaries of Dionysus, and both of them played an important part in the development of the drama. But while the satyrs became the chorus of tragedy, the goblins changed into the actors of the comic stage.

The New Comedy was of much longer duration than the Old Comedy, and was much more widely spread. It continued to flourish at Athens itself as late as the imperial epoch, and was transferred to Rome in the translations of Plautus and Terence and the other comic writers. There is no lack of information as to the costumes generally in use.[778] In the first place all the actors wore masks, just as in the other branches of the Greek drama. As far as abstract fitness goes, the masks might well have been dispensed with. As the New Comedy was essentially a comedy of manners and everyday life, and its chief excellence lay in the accurate delineation of ordinary human character, it is probable that a style of representation after the fashion of the modern stage would have been much more appropriate to it. In a theatre of moderate size, with actors untrammelled by the use of masks, all the finer shades in the character-painting might have been exhibited clearly to the spectators. But in ancient times such a thing was impossible. To the Greek mind the use of masks was inseparably associated with the stage; and the Greeks were in such matters extremely tenacious of ancient custom. It is also very questionable whether in their enormous theatres masks could possibly have been dispensed with. At any rate they were invariably retained in the New Comedy. But it is a strange thing that, although in all other respects the New Comedy was a faithful representation of ordinary life and manners, the masks employed should have been of the most ludicrous and grotesque character. The fact is expressly stated by Platonius, and is borne out by the evidence of numerous works of art.[779] There was a total disregard for realism and fidelity to nature. The exaggerated eyebrows and distorted mouths gave an utterly unnatural expression to the features. Such masks were perfectly in keeping with the tone of the Old Comedy, in which parody and caricature predominated. But it is strange that they should have been adopted in the New Comedy, which otherwise was praised for holding the mirror up to nature. The reason probably lay in the size of the theatres. The excellence and humour of a finely-drawn mask would have been lost upon an audience seated at a great distance from the stage. Of course the statement of Platonius has to be taken with some qualification. The masks were not invariably distorted. Some of the young men and women were depicted with handsome, though strongly-marked, features, as in tragedy. But the comic characters always wore masks of the grotesque kind just referred to. Copies of four comic masks (Figs. 25 and 26) are given on the next page.[780]

Pollux supplies a long list of the masks in ordinary use in the New Comedy, with accurate descriptions of each of them.[781] His list comprises masks for nine old men, eleven young men, seven slaves, three old women, and fourteen young women. In this list are included all the stock characters of the New Comedy, such as the harsh father, the benevolent old man, the prodigal son, the rustic youth, the heiress, the bully, the pimp, the procuress, and the courtesan. For all these characters there are regular masks with strongly characteristic features. In the plays of the New Comedy, as each personage stepped upon the stage, he must have been recognized at once by the audience as an old friend. Constant repetition must have rendered them familiar with the typical features of each sort of character. Certain kinds of complexion, and certain styles of hair and eyebrow, were appropriated to particular classes. White or grey hair was of course the regular sign of old age. Red hair was the mark of a roguish slave. Thick curly hair denoted strength and vigour. Miserly old men wore their hair close-cropped, while soldiers were distinguished by great shaggy manes. The hair of the courtesans was bound up with golden ornaments, or brilliantly-coloured bands. Beards were distinctive of manhood or middle age, and were not used in the masks of youths or old men. The complexion was always a prominent feature in the mask. A dark sun-burnt complexion was the sign of rude health, and was given to soldiers, country youths, or young men who frequented the palaestra. A white complexion denoted effeminacy; pallor was the result of love or ill-health. Red cheeks, as well as red hair, were given to rogues. The eyebrows were strongly marked and highly characteristic. When drawn up they denoted pride or impudence, and were used in the masks of young men and of parasites. The hot-tempered old father, who alternated between fits of passion and fits of affection, had one eyebrow drawn up and the other in its natural position, and he used to turn that side of his face to the audience which was best in keeping with his temper at the moment. Noses were generally of the straight Greek type; but old men and ‘parasites’ occasionally had hook noses, and the country youth was provided with a snub nose. Sometimes the ears showed signs of bruises, to denote that the person had frequented the boxing-school. The modern equivalent would be a broken nose, but among Greek boxers the ear was the part principally aimed at. The above abstract of the account in Pollux, together with the illustrations on the previous page, will give some idea of the different styles of mask employed in the later comedy.

The costume of the actors in the New Comedy was copied from that of ordinary life. The covering for the foot was the same for all the characters, and consisted of a light sort of shoe, which was merely drawn on, without being tied in any way.[782] Pollux gives a short account of the dresses used in the New Comedy, from which it appears that particular colours were appropriated to particular classes.[783] White was worn by old men and slaves, purple by young men, black or grey by parasites. Pimps had a bright-coloured tunic, and a variegated mantle. Old women were dressed in green or light blue, young women and priestesses in white. Procuresses wore a purple band round the head. The above statements are to a certain extent corroborated by the testimony of the works of art, but there are numerous exceptions. They cannot therefore be regarded as an exhaustive account of the subject. Other details of dress and costume are mentioned by Pollux. Old men carried a staff with a bent handle. Rustics were dressed in a leather tunic, and bore a wallet and staff, and occasionally a hunting-net. Pimps had a straight staff, and carried an oil flask and a flesh-scraper. Heiresses were distinguished by fringes to their dress. Considered as a whole the costume of the New Comedy seems to have been even more conventional than that of tragedy. The colour of a person’s dress, the features of his mask, and small details in his equipment, would tell the spectators at once what sort of a character he was intended to represent. A scene from a wall-painting (Fig. 27) is here inserted, as a specimen of the style and outward appearance of the New Comedy.[784]

§ 7. Speech, Song, and Recitative.

The profession of acting in ancient times required a great variety of accomplishments. The words of a play were partly spoken and partly sung, and it was necessary that the actor should have a knowledge of music, and a carefully cultivated voice. He had to combine the qualities of a modern actor with those of an operatic singer. In fact the Greek drama was not unlike a modern comic opera in this particular respect, that it consisted of a mixture of speaking and of singing. The question as to the mode in which the different portions of the dialogue were delivered, and the proportion which speech bore to song in the parts of the actors, is a matter of very great interest. In the first place there can be little doubt that, with few exceptions, all that portion of the dialogue which was written in the ordinary iambic trimeter was merely spoken or declaimed, with no musical accompaniment whatsoever. This of course constituted by far the larger part of the dialogue. Some remarks of Aristotle in the Poetics may be cited in proof of the above statement. Aristotle expressly says that in certain portions of the drama there was no music at all. In another place he remarks that when dialogue was introduced into tragedy, the iambic trimeter was naturally adopted as the most suitable metre, since it is ‘better adapted for being spoken’ than any other.[785] A second argument is to be found in the practice of the Roman stage. In two of the manuscripts of Plautus there are marks in the margin to discriminate between the portions of the play which were spoken, and the portions which were sung. The result is to show that, while the rest of the play was sung, the iambic trimeters were always spoken.[786] As Roman comedy was a close and faithful imitation of the Greek, it follows almost as a matter of certainty that the iambic trimeters were spoken in the Greek drama also. It is true that in one place Lucian contemptuously remarks about the tragic actor, that he ‘occasionally even sings the iambic lines’.[787] But this statement, at the very most, cannot be held to prove more than that in Lucian’s time iambic passages were sometimes sung or chanted. It is no proof that such a practice ever existed in the classical period. It is quite possible that in the second century A.D., when the chorus had either disappeared from tragedy, or been very much curtailed, some of the more emotional portions of the iambic dialogue were sung or chanted as a sort of equivalent. But Lucian himself speaks of the practice with disapproval, as a sign of bad taste and degeneracy. In the best period of the drama there can be little doubt that the ordinary iambics were spoken. The only exception was in cases where iambic lines occurred in close connexion with lyrical metres. For instance, iambics are sometimes inserted in the midst of a lyrical passage. At other times speeches in iambics alternate with speeches in a lyrical metre, and the pairs of speeches are bound up into one metrical system. In such cases the iambics were probably given in song or recitative. But the regular iambic dialogue, and in consequence the greater part of the play, was spoken without musical accompaniment.

The lyrical portions of a Greek play were almost always sung. In an actor’s part the lyrical passages consisted either of solos, or of duets and trios between the characters on the stage, or of joint performances in which actors and chorus took part alternately. These musical passages were in tragedy confined mainly to lamentations and outbursts of grief.[788] In general it may be said that, both in tragedy and comedy, song was substituted for speech in those scenes where the emotions were deeply roused, and found their fittest expression in music.

In addition to the declamation of the ordinary dialogue, and the singing of the lyrical passages, there was also a third mode of enunciation in use upon the Greek stage. It was called ‘parakataloge’, and came half-way between speech on the one hand, and song on the other. Its name was due to the fact that it was allied in character to ‘kataloge’, or ordinary declamation. It corresponded closely to what is called recitative in modern music, and consisted in delivering the words in a sort of chant, to the accompaniment of a musical instrument. On account of its intermediate character it was sometimes called ‘speech’, and sometimes ‘song’. It was first invented by Archilochus, and employed by him in the delivery of his iambics, which were partly sung, and partly given in recitative. A special kind of harp, called the klepsiambos, was originally employed for the purpose of the accompaniment. Recitative was subsequently introduced into the drama, as Plutarch expressly states.[789] It is not easy to determine, by means of the slight and hazy notices upon the subject, what were the particular portions of a play in which recitative was employed. But there are certain indications which seem to show that it was used in the delivery of iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters, and of regular anapaestic dimeters. Thus it is distinctly recorded of the actor Nicostratus that he gave trochaic tetrameters in recitative to the accompaniment of the flute.[790] Then again, the two sets of trochaic tetrameters, which came at the end of the parabasis, cannot have been sung, as their very name implies. The probability therefore is that they were given in recitative.[791] Thirdly, there is a passage in the Peace where the metre changes abruptly from lyrics to trochaic tetrameters without any break in the sentence.[792] It is difficult to suppose that in such a case a transition was made suddenly from song to mere speech. But the transition from song to recitative would have been quite feasible. Fourthly, it is asserted that on those occasions when the speech of an actor was accompanied by dancing on the part of the chorus, the metres employed were mostly iambic and anapaestic tetrameters.[793] But as it is impossible, in the case of Greek performers, to imagine dancing without a musical accompaniment, the verses must have been given in recitative. Fifthly, in the parabasis to the Birds the nightingale is asked to lead off the anapaests with the flute; and the scholiast remarks that ‘the parabasis was often spoken to the accompaniment of the flute’.[794] This statement means that the anapaestic tetrameters, which constitute the parabasis proper, were given in recitative. Lastly, there is the fact that the terms ‘speech’ and ‘song’ are both used of anapaests, implying that they occupied an intermediate position.[795] For these and other similar reasons it appears probable that recitative was employed in passages written in the metres already specified, that is to say, in iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters and in regular anapaestic dimeters. It seems too that on certain rare occasions it was used in lyrical passages.[796]

It may be interesting to collect together in this place such information as we possess concerning the musicians and musical instruments employed in the Greek drama. The instrument generally used for the accompaniment both of the singing and of the recitative was the flute.[797] The harp had formerly been employed very frequently. But it was found that the flute, being a wind instrument, harmonized better with the human voice.[798] However, the harp was occasionally introduced. In the Frogs Aeschylus calls for the harp, when he is going to give a specimen of the lyrics of Euripides. Similarly, in the parody of the choruses of Aeschylus, the recurrence of the refrain ‘phlattothrat’ points to an accompaniment on the harp. A harpist is depicted on the Naples vase, side by side with the flute-player.[799] In the beginning of the Birds, when the chorus makes its entrance, the regular chorus of twenty-four birds is preceded by four others, the flamingo, cock, hoopoe, and gobbler. These were apparently musicians; and the instrument which they played must have been the harp; since later on, when the parabasis is going to begin, Procne has to be sent for specially to play the flute-accompaniment.[800] As regards the number of musicians and instruments, the ordinary provision for a tragedy or comedy was a single flute-player. In the Delphic inscriptions of the third century, which give the names of the performers in the various contests at the Soteria, we find that in every dramatic exhibition only one flute-player was provided. Works of art never depict more than one; and one is the number mentioned by the grammarians.[801] But extra music might be supplied in special cases. Harpists, as we have seen, were occasionally employed, and as many as four of them seem to have been used in the Birds. Probably in the same way, when a special effect was to be produced, the number of the flute-players might be augmented. As to the costume of the musicians very little is known. In works of art they never appear in masks. But in the Birds it is clear that the flute-player and the four harpists were disguised as birds, and wore masks of an appropriate kind. Possibly in the Old Comedy the musicians were often arrayed in the same fashion as the chorus. But in tragedy and satyric drama the evidence of the vase-paintings would seem to show that they had no masks, but were dressed either in ordinary costume or in the long and ornamental tunic of the actors.[802] Their position during the performance was naturally in the orchestra, close to the chorus. In the Birds Procne has to come down from the stage to the orchestra, in order to accompany the parabasis. We are told also that at the end of a drama the flute-player marched out at the head of the chorus.[803] Hence we may conclude that he entered in front of them at the beginning of a play; and this supposition is confirmed by the manner in which the four harpists make their entrance in the Birds. Very probably the usual place for the musicians was near the altar of Dionysus.

§ 8. Importance of the Voice in Greek Acting.

In ancient acting the possession of a fine musical voice was a matter of absolute necessity. Several considerations will make it evident that the voice of the actor, upon the Greek stage, must have been far more important than it is at present. In the first place a considerable portion of the words in every Greek play was either sung or delivered in recitative. In the second place each actor had to play several parts in succession, and to appear sometimes as a man, and sometimes as a woman. It would be essential, therefore, to mark the difference between the various personages by a corresponding variety in the tone of voice employed; and for this purpose an organ of great flexibility and compass must have been required. In the third place the whole character of Greek acting was largely modified by the costume of the performers. A modern actor adds force and emphasis to his speeches by means of the variety of his facial expression. A single glance, a slight movement of the features, is often enough to produce a very great effect. But to the Greek actor this mode of impressing the spectators was denied, owing to the use of masks. His features bore the same settled expression throughout the play. Even his gestures, in the case of tragedy, must have been much more restricted than in modern times, owing to the nature of the dress which he had to wear. On account of these limitations he was compelled to rely mainly upon his voice for the purpose of expressing all the fleeting emotions of the character he represented. Great skill and variety in the modulation of his tones were needed to counterbalance the absence of facial movement. Lastly, the Greek actor required a voice of enormous power, in order to make himself heard. When it is remembered that the theatre of Dionysus was in the open air, and was capable of holding nearly twenty thousand spectators, it will easily be seen that, in spite of the excellence of the acoustic arrangements, the demands upon the actor’s voice must have been excessively great.

For these various reasons the first and most essential requisite in a Greek actor was a powerful and expressive voice. As a matter of fact, whenever an actor is mentioned by an ancient author, he is referred to in language which at the present day would seem much more appropriate to a notice of an operatic singer. It is always the excellence of the voice which is emphasized, little regard being paid to other accomplishments. And it is not so much the quality as the strength of the voice which is commended. The highest merit, on the Greek stage, was to have a voice that could fill the whole theatre. Numberless passages from ancient authors might be quoted in proof of this assertion, but a few specimens will suffice. Of Neoptolemus, the great tragic actor, it is said that ‘his powerful voice’ had raised him to the head of his profession.[804] Licymnius, the actor mentioned in one of the letters of Alciphron, won the prize for acting at a tragic contest on account of ‘his clear and resonant utterance’.[805] Dionysius, the tyrant of Syracuse, on a certain occasion, being covetous of distinction as a dramatic writer, dispatched a company of actors to the Olympic festival, to give a performance of one of his tragedies. As he wished to ensure that the exhibition should be of the highest excellence, he was careful to choose ‘actors with the best voices’.[806] In a similar manner the emperor Nero prided himself on his talents as an actor. He instituted a tragic contest at the Isthmian festival, in order to display his powers. At this contest the actor Epeirotes ‘was in splendid voice, and as his tones were more magnificent than ever, he won the greatest applause’.[807] The above passages are in reference to particular actors. Remarks about acting in general are of the same type. Demosthenes is reported to have said that ‘actors should be judged by their voices, politicians by their wisdom’. According to Zeno an actor was bound to have ‘a powerful voice and great strength’. Aristotle defines the science of acting as being ‘concerned with the voice, and the mode of adapting it to the expression of the different passions’. Lucian remarks that the actor is ‘responsible for his voice only’. Plato would expel ‘the actors with their beautiful voices’ from his ideal state.[808] Finally, there is the curious fact recorded by Cicero, that in the performance of a Greek play, when the actors of the second and third parts ‘had louder voices’ than the protagonist, they used to moderate and restrain their tones, in order to leave him the pre-eminence.[809] These passages, and others of the same kind which might be quoted, read like notices about operatic singers and musical performances, and prove conclusively the supreme importance of the voice among the ancient Greek actors.

Such being the requirements of the Greek stage, it was necessary that the actors should receive a musical education as elaborate as that of a professional singer in modern times. Cicero informs us that the Greek tragic actors spent many years in the training of their voices, and used to test them, before each performance, by running over all their notes from the highest to the lowest.[810] They had to be careful and abstemious in their diet, as excess in eating and drinking was found to be inconsistent with the possession of a good voice.[811] The importance attached to this particular quality in the actor’s art was not always beneficial in its results. Actors were sometimes inclined to violate good taste by intruding into their performances mere exhibitions of skill in the manipulation of the voice. They were ready to catch the applause of the populace by startling effects, such as imitations of the rushing of streams, the roaring of seas, and the cries of animals.[812] Moreover, it was a common fault among the ancient actors that, as a result of excessive training, their voices sounded artificial and unnatural. There was a special term to denote the forced tone of voice which was caused by too much exercise. Aristotle remarks that one of the principal excellences of the tragic actor Theodorus was the thoroughly natural character of his delivery. Unlike other actors, he seemed to speak with his own voice.[813]

§ 9. Style of Greek Acting.

Both in tragic and comic acting a loud and exceedingly distinct utterance must have been a matter of necessity. But in comedy the tone of voice adopted appears, as was only natural, to have been much less sonorous than that of the tragic actors, and to have approached far more closely to the style of ordinary conversation.[814] In tragedy, on the other hand, it was the conventional practice to declaim the verses with a loud and ringing intonation, and to fill the theatre with a deep volume of sound. Ancient authors often refer to the sonorous utterances of the tragic stage.[815] With bad actors the practice would easily degenerate into mere bombast. Pollux mentions a series of epithets, such as ‘booming’ and ‘bellowing’, which were applied to actors guilty of such exaggeration. Socrates and Simylus, the tragic actors with whom Aeschines went on tour in the country districts of Attica, derived their nickname of ‘the Ranters’ from a fault of this kind.[816]

Another point which was required from ancient actors was great distinctness in the articulation of the separate words, and a careful observance of the rhythm and metre of the verses. In this respect the Athenians were a most exacting audience. Cicero speaks of their ‘refined and scrupulous ear’, their ‘sound and uncorrupted taste’.[817] Ancient audiences in general had a much keener ear for the melody of verse than is to be found in a modern theatre. A slovenly recitation of poetry, and a failure to emphasize the metre, would not have been tolerated by them. Cicero remarks on the fact that, though the mass of the people knew nothing about the theory of versification, their instinctive feeling for rhythmical utterance was wonderfully keen. He says that if an actor should spoil the metre in the slightest degree, by making a mistake about a quantity, or by dropping or inserting a syllable, there would be a storm of disapproval from the audience.[818] No such sensitiveness is to be found in modern theatres. It is common enough at the present day to hear blank verse declaimed as if it were prose. But among the ancient Greeks the feeling for correctness of rhythm in poetical recitations was just as instinctive as is the feeling for correctness of tune among ordinary musical audiences at the present time. If an actor in a Greek theatre made a slip in the metre of his verses, it was regarded in much the same way as a note out of tune would be regarded in a modern concert-room. As a consequence the mode of declamation practised on the ancient stage must have been much more rhythmical than anything we are now accustomed to, and the pauses and movements of the metre must have been much more clearly emphasized.

The use of appropriate gesture, in the case of Greek acting, was especially important, since facial expression was prevented by the mask, and the actor had to depend solely on the tones of his voice, and the effectiveness of his movements. In comedy, as might be expected, the gesticulation was of a free and unconstrained character, and is exemplified in numerous works of art. In tragedy, on the other hand, a more dignified style was adopted. The nature of the tragic actor’s dress was sufficient in itself to make a realistic type of acting impossible. Of course it is easy to exaggerate the cumbersomeness of the ancient costume. It would be a mistake to suppose that it hampered the actor’s limbs to such an extent as to prevent him moving about like an ordinary human being. Many passages in the ancient dramas prove that this was not the case. Actors could walk rapidly off the stage, or fly for refuge to an altar, or kneel down in supplication, without any difficulty.[819] They could even fall flat on the ground. Philoctetes sinks to the earth in a fainting-fit, overcome by the pain of his wound. Iolaus is knocked down by the Argive herald, while trying to protect the children of Hercules. Ajax throws himself on his sword, and Evadne flings herself from a rock on to the funeral pyre beneath. Hecuba, at the beginning of the Troades, lies stretched upon the earth in an agony of grief; and later on, when she hears the doom of Cassandra, she again falls prostrate.[820] But although, as we see from these examples, the tragic actor was not debarred from the ordinary use of his limbs, still the character of his dress must have made violent and impetuous movements a matter of great difficulty. Even if they had been easy, they would have been inconsistent with the tone of the tragic stage. The world of Greek tragedy was an ideal world of heroes and demigods, whose nature was grander and nobler than that of human beings. The realistic portrayal of ordinary human passions was foreign to the purpose of Greek tragedy. Scenes of physical violence or of abject prostration, such as those which have just been mentioned, are of rare occurrence. To be in harmony with this elevation of tone it was necessary that the acting should be dignified and self-restrained. Violent movements were usually avoided. A certain statuesque simplicity and gracefulness of pose accompanied the gestures of the tragic actor. On the long and narrow stage the figures were arranged in picturesque and striking groups, and the successive scenes in the play presented to the eye of the spectator a series of artistic tableaux. The representations of tragic scenes and personages in ancient works of art are characterized by a dignity and a repose which call to mind the creations of the sculptor. This sober and restrained style of acting was developed under the influence of Aeschylus and Sophocles during the great period of Attic tragedy. In later times a tendency towards realism and exaggeration in the gestures and the movements began to show itself. The actors of the fourth century were censured by many critics for having degraded the art of acting from its former high level, and for having introduced a style which was unworthy of the dignity of the tragic stage. Callippides was called an ape by the old actor Mynniscus because of the exaggerated vehemence of his manner.[821] But as the tragic costume, with its burdensome accompaniments, was retained with little alteration, it must have prevented any great advance in the direction of realism and violent gesticulation. The statuesque style of acting continued on the whole to be characteristic of the tragic stage, and was indeed the only proper style for Greek tragedy.