§ 1. History of the Chorus.
The history of the chorus in the Greek drama is a history of gradual decay. In the earliest period, when both tragedy and comedy were mainly lyrical, the members of the chorus were the sole performers. After the introduction of actors and dialogue the chorus still continued for a time to play the leading part. But from the beginning of the fifth century it began slowly to dwindle in importance, until at length it either disappeared altogether, or sank to the position of the band in a modern theatre. As far as tragedy is concerned the process of decline can be traced with clearness in the existing dramas. It takes various forms. In the first place there is a gradual diminution in the length of the part assigned to the chorus. In the Supplices, the oldest of existing Greek tragedies, the choral part forms no less than three-fifths of the whole composition. In the other plays of Aeschylus, with the exception of the Prometheus, it amounts on the average to about a half. In the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides the size is very much reduced. The choral part in Sophocles varies from about a quarter of the whole in the Ajax and the Antigone to about a seventh in the Electra and the Philoctetes. In Euripides it varies from about a quarter in such plays as the Bacchae and Alcestis to about a ninth in the Orestes. It appears therefore that in the fifth century the part of the chorus was gradually but continuously diminished in size. Then again there is a constant tendency throughout the century to reduce the importance of the chorus by severing its connexion with the plot. In the lyrical tragedies of the earliest period the chorus was no doubt on most occasions the principal object of interest, and took the leading part in the play. This is still the case in some of the extant tragedies of Aeschylus. In the Supplices, for instance, the whole subject of the plot is the destiny of the fugitive maidens who form the chorus. It is their adventures which excite the sympathy of the audience; the other characters are of very little significance. In the Eumenides the interest centres chiefly round the conduct and feelings of the Furies. Even in the Septem and the Persae, though the chorus play a less prominent part, their connexion with the plot is still a very close one. Their destiny is involved in that of the principal characters. But in the other plays of Aeschylus the chorus begins to take much the same position as it occupies in Sophocles, and in the earlier plays of Euripides. It was at this period that Attic tragedy reached its highest perfection, and the question as to the proper place of the chorus in the plot was solved in the manner most consistent with the genius of Greek drama. The chorus is now thrown much further into the background, and appears in most plays, not as a participant in the action, but merely as a sympathetic witness. While the dialogue is proceeding, it follows the course of events with the keenest interest, but seldom actively interferes. In the pauses between the action it moralizes on the significance of the incidents which have just occurred. Such is its position during the middle of the century. It has been removed from the stress and turmoil of the action into a calmer and more remote region, though it still preserves its interest in the events upon the stage. But in the later plays of Euripides a further development is noticeable. The chorus begins to lose even its interest in the action. In the pauses between the dialogue it sings odes of a mythological character, which have only the remotest connexion with the incidents of the plot. In the course of the dialogue itself it converses less frequently with the actors than it had done hitherto. There is also a tendency to transfer much of the music from the orchestra to the stage. The old duets between actors and chorus are reduced both in size and number, and their place is taken by solos and duets sung exclusively upon the stage. This tendency to exclude the chorus from the play was carried still further by Agathon, who gave up all pretence of connexion between the plot and the songs of the chorus, and converted his odes into professed interludes. In the time of Aristotle this practice had become universal. The choral odes were now regarded in much the same light as the pieces of music performed between the acts in a modern theatre.[850] Whether the chorus still took any part in the dialogue is not stated. But we can hardly doubt that the tendency already strongly marked in Euripides had been developed to its natural results, and that the tragic chorus of the later fourth century was practically excluded from all share in the conduct of the play. After the fourth century very little is known about its history. But the evidence seems to show that it was sometimes discarded even as early as the third century; and in later times this came to be more and more the ordinary custom. Even when retained, its functions were merely those of the modern band.[851]
The history of the comic chorus is very similar. If we look at the extant plays of Aristophanes, we find that in the first nine, which were all produced in the fifth century, the chorus is an important and conspicuous element. But in the tenth, the Ecclesiazusae, which was brought out in 392, there is a great change. The parabasis has disappeared, and the functions of the chorus are mainly confined to the singing of three or four odes, of no great length. In the Plutus, produced in 388, the decline of the chorus is still more marked. It has only about forty lines assigned to it in the course of the dialogue; and in the pauses between the dialogue it sang interludes unconnected with the plot.[852] During the rest of the century the comic chorus seems to have still lingered on in a position similar to that which it holds in the Plutus. The grammarians who say that it was abolished entirely by the Middle Comedy apparently exaggerate the state of affairs.[853] There was still a comic chorus in the time of Aristotle.[854] Even in the New Comedy the earlier poets, such as Menander and Philemon, appear to have retained it in some of their plays, though merely for the purpose of providing interludes.[855] After the fourth century there are few traces of its presence. It is true that it was regularly used in the comedies at the Delphic Soteria during the third century.[856] It is mentioned in the accounts of the Hieropoioi at Delos in 279 B.C.[857] It is found also in one comedy of Plautus, the Rudens. But in Terence there are no signs of it. This fact, combined with the statement of the grammarians that the New Comedy had no chorus, makes it certain that after the third century it had practically disappeared.[858]
§ 2. Size of the Chorus.
The tragic chorus, being a direct descendant of the old dithyrambic choruses, originally consisted of fifty members.[859] After all connexion between tragedy and the dithyramb had been severed, the number of the choreutae in a tragic chorus was reduced to twelve. It has been suggested that this number was due to the practice of each poet exhibiting four tragedies at a time. It is supposed that the original chorus of fifty was divided as equally as possible among the four tragedies, so that each chorus came to consist of twelve members. The conjecture is a plausible one, but cannot be regarded as certain, owing to the scantiness of our information concerning the early history of tragedy. The size of the tragic chorus remained unaltered until the time of Sophocles, and in all the earlier plays of Aeschylus twelve choreutae are employed. Sophocles raised the number from twelve to fifteen.[860] After his time there was no further change during the great period of the Attic drama. The tragic chorus was always composed of fifteen persons. The various technical terms which refer to the arrangement of the tragic chorus are all based on the supposition that it is a chorus of fifteen. It is not quite certain whether the innovation of Sophocles was adopted by Aeschylus in his later plays. The Oresteia of Aeschylus was brought out ten years after the first appearance of Sophocles; and it has been contended that the chorus in this trilogy contained fifteen members. There is hardly sufficient evidence to determine the matter with any certainty.[861] On general grounds it seems probable that Aeschylus should have followed the example of Sophocles. At any rate there is no doubt that after the middle of the fifth century the number of the choreutae was fixed at fifteen.[862] The satyric chorus was of the same size as the tragic—a natural result of the intimate connexion between tragedy and the satyric drama.[863] The comic chorus, as long as it continued to be an integral part of the play, invariably consisted of twenty-four members. All the authorities are unanimous on the subject.[864] These were the numbers adopted in the various kinds of drama throughout the classical period of Greek literature. But in later times, after the dramatic choruses had been reduced to insignificance, and merely provided the music between the successive acts, their size, at any rate in some theatres, appears to have been diminished. Thus the comic chorus at the Delphic Soteria contained only seven members; and the tragic chorus depicted on the wall-painting at Cyrene is also a chorus of seven.[865] Whether these cases were exceptional, or whether seven had now come to be the usual number of a theatrical chorus, there is no evidence to show.
The size of the chorus in the Greek drama was regulated by conventional rules, and no change was made to suit the requirements of a particular play. For instance, in the Supplices of Aeschylus the number of the Danaides was fifty, but the chorus probably consisted of twelve maidens who did duty for the fifty. In the Supplices of Euripides the actual suppliants were the seven wives of the slaughtered chieftains, but the chorus was raised to its proper number by the addition of female attendants. It has sometimes been suggested that in the Eumenides, where the Furies are twelve or fifteen instead of three, legendary tradition was sacrificed to theatrical requirements. But, as there is no evidence to show that the number of the Furies had been settled at three as early as the time of Aeschylus, it is quite possible that in this case the usual size of the chorus was not inappropriate.
§ 3. Costume of the Chorus.
The costume of the chorus, as already pointed out, was entirely distinct from that of the actors. The tragic, comic, and satyric choruses all wore masks, in accordance with the usual Bacchic tradition.[866] In other respects their costume had nothing in common, but was designed in accordance with the spirit of the respective types of drama. The tragic chorus was usually composed of old men, or women, or maidens. In such cases they wore the ordinary Greek dress, consisting of a tunic and a mantle. No attempt was made to give them an impressive appearance by the use of strange and magnificent costumes, similar to those worn by the actors. Such costumes were perfectly appropriate to the heroes and gods upon the stage, but would have been out of place in the chorus, which was generally supposed to represent the ordinary public. The masks of the tragic chorus would of course be suitable to the age and sex of the persons represented. A special kind of white shoe, said to be the invention of Sophocles, was worn by the tragic chorus.[867] Old men usually carried a staff.[868] Various little details in dress and equipment would be added according to circumstances. Thus the chorus of bereaved matrons in the Supplices of Euripides were dressed in black garments, and had their hair cut short, as a sign of mourning; and carried branches twined with wool, the symbol of supplication, in their hands. The chorus of maidens in the Choephori, who had come to offer libations at the tomb of Agamemnon, were also dressed in black.[869] In some cases the tragic chorus was altogether of an exceptional character, and required a special costume. In the Supplices of Aeschylus the daughters of the Egyptian Danaus appear to have been dressed as foreigners. Probably the same was the case with the Persian Elders in the Persae. The Bacchantes in the play of Euripides carried tambourines in their hands, and were doubtless also provided with fawn-skins and wands of ivy.[870] But no tragic chorus ever caused a greater sensation than the chorus of Furies in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. Their costume was designed by Aeschylus himself, and the snakes in the hair, which afterwards became one of their regular attributes, were specially invented for the occasion. As they rushed into the orchestra, their black dresses, distorted features, and snaky locks are said to have inspired the spectators with terror.[871] But this chorus was of a very unusual kind. In most cases the tragic chorus was composed of ordinary men and women, and their dress was that of everyday life.
Fig. 28.
The choruses of goat-like satyrs who sang the dithyrambs in honour of Dionysus were the original source both of tragedy and of the satyric drama. These satyrs appear to have been an importation from the Peloponnesus. They are unknown to the oldest Ionic traditions. Among the primitive Ionians their place is taken by the Sileni—beings of a similar type, but resembling horses rather than goats.[872] Thus in the Homeric hymns it is the Sileni who are mentioned as companions of Dionysus, and there is no reference to the satyrs.[873] In the earliest Attic vases satyrs are never depicted, but only the horse-like Sileni. That the satyrs, with their goatish horns and tails, were a Doric conception is proved by various indications. In a fragment of Hesiod, where they are mentioned for the first time, the account of their genealogy which is given connects them with Argos.[874] We hear of ‘goat choruses’ as an ancient institution at Sicyon.[875] Pratinas, the first celebrated writer of satyric drama, was a native of Phlius. As for the costume of the satyrs who formed the chorus of the primitive drama there is not very much evidence of an early date. Vases depicting Bacchic scenes are sufficiently common, but few of them can be shown to have any connexion with a dramatic performance. The earliest reliable testimony is that supplied by the Pandora vase.[876] This vase, which belongs to the middle of the fifth century, contains a scene from the Pandora myth, and also a representation of a group of masked satyrs (Fig. 28) dancing round a flute-player. The satyrs are portrayed as half men and half goats. They have goat’s horns upon their heads, and goat’s hoofs instead of feet; and their tails are those of goats. Such seems to have been the appearance of a satyric chorus at the time the vase was painted. The next representation in point of date is that of the Naples vase (Fig. 29), which is about fifty years later. Here there is a considerable change in the make-up of the satyrs. The goatish element is less conspicuous. The goat’s horns and hoofs have disappeared, and the tail is more like that of a horse. In fact the type begins to approximate to that of the old Ionic Sileni, or horse-deities. The only part which resembles a goat is the shaggy skin round the loins. The style of satyr here depicted is the one which eventually prevailed in the theatre. Later representations of satyric choruses portray them in much the same way as the Naples vase, with goat’s loins and horse’s tails, but without hoofs or horns.[877] This evidence shows us that the satyr of the fourth and subsequent centuries was a modification of the original conception. The earliest stage satyrs were genuine goat-deities of the Doric type. But in the course of the fifth century there was a reaction in favour of the indigenous Sileni or horse-deities. The two types were mixed together, and so produced the conventional satyr of the later theatre.[878] Some scholars maintain that the type was the same from the first, and that the old dancers in the tragic and satyric drama resembled Sileni more than satyrs.[879] But this theory is scarcely compatible with the evidence of the Pandora vase. The fact, too, that tragedy was called the ‘goat-song’ seems to prove decisively that the oldest choruses were composed of goat-like beings.[880] There is also a fragment of a satyric play by Aeschylus in which one of the chorus-singers is actually addressed as a goat.[881] With this evidence before us we can hardly doubt that the Doric satyrs were the original performers in Attic tragedy and satyric drama, and that the Ionic element was introduced later on.
Fig. 29.
Some other points in connexion with the satyr’s costume have still to be mentioned. The phallus, the regular symbol of Dionysiac worship, was invariably worn. The goat-skin round the loins was often replaced by a conventional substitute, consisting of drawers of some woven material, to which the tail and phallus were attached. Drawers of this kind are worn by all the satyrs in the Pandora vase, and by one satyr in the Naples vase, and are also found in a later painting.[882] Apart from the drawers and the goat-skin, the satyrs are represented in the works of art as perfectly naked.[883] But probably in the theatre they had flesh-coloured tights, similar to those used by the comic actors. Slippers were no doubt also used, and may in early times have been made in imitation of a hoof, as in the Pandora vase. In addition to the regular satyric costume the satyrs occasionally wore other clothes, suited to the part they played in the particular drama. Thus the satyrs in the Cyclops of Euripides, being servants of Polyphemus, were dressed in the ordinary leather jerkin of the serving-man.[884] Silenus, the head of the troop, was not a member of the chorus, but appeared upon the stage with the other actors. His dress has been described already. He was a sort of elderly satyr, and is to be distinguished from the old Ionic Sileni, whose appearance was entirely different. His origin is rather obscure; but he may perhaps have been a later development, suggested by the requirements of the satyric drama.
The chorus in the Old Comedy, unlike that of the satyric drama, was of the most varied and fanciful character, and was drawn from every possible source. All classes and professions were introduced at some time or another.[885] There were choruses of Poets, Sophists, Athletes, Trades-women, Sorcerers, Knights, Drummers, and so on. Foreign nations were often represented, such as Persians, Macedonians, and Thracian women. Even individuals were multiplied into a species, and produced choruses of Hesiodi and Archilochi. When the members consisted of human beings, they were dressed in the tunic and mantle of ordinary life, with such slight additions as were necessary to mark the different professions and nationalities. The mantle was laid aside for the purpose of dancing, as the dances of the Old Comedy were of a wild and energetic character, and required freedom of action.[886] The masks were of a ludicrous type, with the features distorted.[887] In addition to the human choruses there were also those composed of mythological beings, such as Furies, Amazons, Sphinxes, and Sirens. These would be dressed no doubt in the traditional costume. Many choruses consisted of fanciful and ridiculous personifications. There were choruses of Towns, Islands, and Merchant ships; of Clouds and Seasons; of Dramas and Epistles. In all these cases the dress and general make-up appear to have been of a grotesque character, and only in a remote degree emblematic of the ideas and objects personified. For instance, the Clouds of Aristophanes appeared as women dressed in gaily coloured garments, and wore masks of a ridiculous type, with long noses and other exaggerations. The only resemblance to Clouds was in the colours of the dresses.[888] Probably in other similar cases the personification was carried out in the same rough-and-ready manner. Another class of choruses was composed of various kinds of animals. We have the Birds and Wasps of Aristophanes; and we hear of other poets introducing Goats, Frogs, Vultures, Storks, Ants, Fishes, Bees, Nightingales, and so on. Choruses of this kind appear to have been a favourite institution among the Athenians, quite apart from the drama. A theory has been propounded that they were survivals of an old theriomorphic form of worship, and that they were the original source of the comic chorus.[889] As for their connexion with a primitive type of religion, this is a speculative subject with which we have no concern. But the notion that they were the prototype of the comic chorus is not sufficiently supported by evidence. This chorus consisted originally of the ‘comus’, or band of revellers, who led the phallic processions in honour of Dionysus; and there is no reason to suppose that these revellers were dressed otherwise than as men. The varied character of the later chorus was due to the fancy and imagination of the Attic poets, who introduced all kinds of eccentric beings upon the stage, and among them choruses of animals. These latter, however, were only a small proportion of the whole, and it seems hardly justifiable to choose them out from the rest as specially connected with the origin of comedy. As regards the costume of these animal choruses, it would be highly interesting to know how it was managed. There are five vase-paintings of the early fifth century which depict such choruses dancing to the accompaniment of a flute-player; though it is doubtful whether in any case the performance is of a dramatic kind. One of these choruses consists of men disguised as horses, with knights riding on their shoulders; and it has been suggested that the chorus of Knights in Aristophanes was represented in this way.[890] Two others depict men riding on ostriches or on dolphins.[891] In these pictures, however, the whole conception is far too fanciful and unreal to throw any light on the question of the costume actually used in the theatre. In another vase the dancers are tall figures, with heads like those of a cock, and bodies enveloped in long cloaks.[892] A dress of this kind might have been employed upon the stage; but unfortunately the cloaks conceal so much of the dancer’s person that the evidence of the vase is not very instructive. The best painting for our present purpose is one which represents a chorus of birds, and which is here reproduced (Fig. 30).[893] The costume is clearly delineated. The bodies of the choreutae are covered with a close-fitting dress, made in rough imitation of feathers. Two long ends hang down from each side of the waist, and a bunch of feathers is affixed to each knee. The arms are provided with wings. A row of upright feathers is attached to the crown of the head, and the mask is made with a long and pointed nose, suggestive of the beak of a bird. From this painting we may obtain a fairly clear idea of the manner in which animals were imitated in the Old Comedy. We see that there was none of the realism one meets with in a modern pantomime. The imitation was only carried so far as to be generally suggestive of the animal intended. The body and legs were left unfettered, to allow of free movement in the dance. At the same time, to judge from the specimen before us, the costumes seem to have been designed with a great deal of spirit and humour, and to have been extremely well adapted to the purpose for which they were intended.
Fig. 30.
§ 4. Arrangement of the Chorus.
Except on rare occasions the dramatic choruses were drawn up in formations of military regularity, both on their first entrance, and during the progress of the play. They presented a perfectly symmetrical appearance in the orchestra. In this respect they offer a contrast to the choruses in a modern opera, and to the crowds which are introduced upon the modern stage. As a rule no attempt was made to imitate the fluctuating movements and haphazard grouping of an ordinary crowd. The chorus marched into the orchestra, and took up its position before the stage, with the regularity and precision of a body of soldiers. In all dramatic choruses—tragic, comic, and satyric—the rectangular formation was invariably adopted, as opposed to the circular arrangement of the dithyrambic choruses.[894] This quadrangular formation was probably of Doric origin.[895] Every dramatic chorus, when drawn up in this way, consisted of a certain number of ‘ranks’, and a certain number of ‘files’. For instance, the tragic chorus, with its fifteen members, contained five ranks of three men each, and three files of five men each. Similarly the comic chorus, which was composed of twenty-four persons, contained six ranks of four men each, and four files of six men each. According to the Attic phraseology a chorus was said to be drawn up ‘by ranks’ when the different members of the same rank stood one behind the other. It was said to be drawn up ‘by files’ when the members of the same file were one behind the other. Accordingly, when a tragic chorus was drawn up ‘by ranks’, the men stood five abreast and three deep. When it was drawn up ‘by files’, they stood three abreast and five deep. The same regulations applied to the comic chorus. It might be arranged ‘by ranks’, with the men six abreast and four deep; or ‘by files’, with the men four abreast and six deep.[896] The arrangements throughout were of this military character. In fact the training of a choreutes was considered by many of the ancient writers to be an excellent preparation for warlike service.[897]
Fig. 31.
In the great majority of cases the chorus was supposed to consist of persons from the neighbourhood, and therefore entered the orchestra by the western passage. Their right side was towards the stage, and their left side towards the spectators. As a consequence, the left side of the chorus was much the most conspicuous and important, and the best-trained choreutae were placed there.[898] The tragic chorus might enter five abreast and three deep, or three abreast and five deep, according as the formation was by ranks or by files. As a matter of fact the arrangement by files was the one almost invariably adopted. There are several technical terms in connexion with the tragic chorus, and they all refer to a chorus which is supposed to be entering from the western side, and to be drawn up three abreast and five deep. An oblong formation of this kind would evidently be more convenient in the narrow side-entrances, and would present a broader surface to the spectators and to the stage. The diagram (Fig. 31) represents a tragic chorus entering three abreast from the western parodos. The members of the first file were called ‘aristerostatae’, or ‘men on the left’, and consisted of the handsomest and most skilful of the choreutae. The middle file was the least important of the three, as it was most out of sight of the spectators. The worst choreutae were placed in this file, and were called ‘laurostatae’, or ‘men in the passage’. The third file was the one nearest to the stage. Occasionally, if the chorus wheeled completely round, it came in full view of the spectators. It was therefore of more importance than the middle file, and a better class of choreutae were placed in it. They were called the ‘dexiostatae’, or ‘men on the right’.[899] The six men who composed the front and hindmost ranks—nos. 1, 6, 11, 5, 10, and 15 in the diagram—were styled ‘kraspeditae’, or ‘fringe-men’.[900] Finally, the three files had different names, according to their relative proximity to the spectators. The members of the left file were called ‘front-line men’; the members of the middle and right-hand files were called ‘second-line men’ and ‘third-line men’ respectively.[901]
The central position, no. 3 in the diagram, was occupied by the coryphaeus, or leader of the chorus.[902] The post of the leader was an extremely arduous one. While the dialogue was in progress, he had to carry on conversations with the actors upon the stage. During the choral odes he had to give the note to the choreutae, and superintend the dances and manœuvres. At the same time his own dancing and mimetic gestures were supposed to be a conspicuous feature in the performance. Demosthenes, speaking of dithyrambic choruses, says that the loss of the coryphaeus means the ruin of the chorus; and this must have been still more the case in a dramatic performance.[903] On the other hand the possession of a skilful leader would contribute very largely to the success of the chorus and of the drama. The choreutae on each side of the leader, nos. 2 and 4 in the diagram, were called his ‘parastatae’, or ‘assistants’, and were next in importance to the leader himself. The two choreutae on the outside, nos. 1 and 5 in the diagram, were called the ‘third men’.[904] As already remarked, the coryphaeus, together with the other four members of the left file, constituted the pick of the whole chorus.
Concerning the formation in which the comic chorus entered the orchestra there is not much information. Like the tragic chorus, it might enter either by ranks or by files; that is to say, it might come in six abreast and four deep, or four abreast and six deep. There can be no doubt that the oblong formation of four abreast and six deep was the one usually adopted. It would be more suitable from every point of view. Both the tragic and the comic choruses were probably preceded into the orchestra by the flute-player.[905] On certain rare occasions the formal entrance in a rectangular body was dispensed with, and an irregular mode of entrance was adopted, in order to produce a dramatic effect. The best example is in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. When the Furies made their second appearance, they came rushing into the orchestra one by one, in hot pursuit of Orestes, and created a profound sensation by their movements and appearance.[906] There is another instance in the Birds of Aristophanes. The birds begin by entering one by one. The flamingo comes first, and its appearance is criticized by the actors upon the stage. The cock follows, and is similarly criticized. Then comes the hoopoe, and after it the glutton-bird. These, as we have seen, were probably musicians. Finally, the chorus of twenty-four birds come fluttering in together, so as to block up the side-entrances.[907] In the Lysistrata the chorus is divided into two halves, one consisting of men, the other of women. The chorus of men enters first; the chorus of women follows after an interval.[908] But instances of this kind were very rare and exceptional. Usually the chorus entered in a rectangular body, with the precision of a troop of soldiers.
In most cases the entrance of the chorus took place at the conclusion of the ‘prologue’ or introductory scene upon the stage; and the march in was accompanied by a chant, which was called the ‘parodos’, or entrance-song.[909] However, in a considerable number of plays there was no parodos at all, but the chorus entered the orchestra in silence, while the first act of the drama was in progress, and then commenced a musical dialogue with the actors upon the stage. Instances of this mode of entrance are to be found in such tragedies as the Electra of Sophocles and the Orestes of Euripides.[910] A few plays do not conform to either of these two conventional types. Occasionally, for instance, there is no prologue, and the play begins with the parodos, as in the Supplices and Persae of Aeschylus. This was no doubt the old-fashioned mode of commencement, derived from the times when the drama was still entirely lyrical. Then again, in the Eumenides the parodos is sung on the second entrance of the Furies, after their arrival at Athens. In the Supplices of Euripides the chorus are seen kneeling upon the stage in supplication when the play commences. There they remain in silence during the performance of the prologue, and then proceed to sing an ode, in place of the usual parodos, from their position on the stage. In the Clouds it appears that the chorus chant the first two odes behind the scenes, and then enter the orchestra silently. The Rhesus commences with a dialogue in anapaests between Hector and the chorus.
The next point to be considered is the position taken up by the chorus after entering the orchestra. On most occasions, as already stated, the chorus came in by the western side, drawn up in rectangular formation, with the stage on its right hand and the spectators on its left. It advanced half-way into the orchestra, then came to a halt, and each member of the chorus turned round to the right, so as to face the stage. By this manœuvre the whole chorus was made to look towards the stage, and the arrangement by files was converted into one by ranks. For instance, the tragic chorus, which had entered three abreast and five deep, now stood before the stage five abreast and three deep. The coryphaeus and principal choreutae stood in the back line, and retained their position nearest to the spectators, and furthest away from the stage. This position they kept throughout the performance.[911] In a similar manner the comic chorus, after entering the orchestra four abreast and six deep, would halt in front of the stage, go through the manœuvre just described, and convert itself into a body standing six abreast and four deep. There is no information as to the position of the coryphaeus in the comic chorus. But there can be no doubt that, like the tragic coryphaeus, he stood in the back row, as near as possible to the spectators.
While the actors were upon the stage, and the dialogue was in progress, the chorus continued to stand with their backs towards the spectators, and their faces towards the stage, so as to follow the course of the action.[912] This was their normal position during the play, and, although it may seem strange to our modern ideas, it was a necessary consequence of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama was developed. When the stage was empty, the pauses between the acts were filled up by the choral odes called stasima. There is no reliable information as to the position and movements of the chorus during the performance of the stasima. As the singing was accompanied by dancing, the choreutae must have been moving to and fro. But in the absence of evidence it seems useless to venture on conjectures as to the exact nature of the evolutions. One thing may be regarded as certain, that during the performance of the stasima the chorus did not continue to face towards the empty stage, and turn their backs upon the audience. Such a position would have been quite unnatural and unmeaning. In the Old Comedy there was a peculiar sort of interlude called the parabasis, which came during a pause in the action, and consisted of a series of lyrics and addresses, delivered by the chorus, and dealing with ordinary topics of the day. While reciting the first part of the parabasis the chorus wheeled completely round so as to face the spectators. Hence the name ‘parabasis’, which means ‘a turning aside’. The latter part was antistrophical in form, and during its delivery the chorus separated into two divisions, which stood facing one another. The different portions of the parabasis were then given by each division in turn.[913]
Sometimes, though not often, in the course of a play the chorus left the orchestra for a short period, and made a second entrance later on.[914] The instances of the practice which occur in the Eumenides and the Ajax were necessitated by the change of scene in those plays.[915] There is another example in the Helena of Euripides. Helen and the chorus retire into the palace, to inquire about the fate of Menelaus from Theonoe. In their absence Menelaus enters the stage, and recounts his adventures to the audience. Then Helen and the chorus return, and the recognition gradually takes place.[916] Similar temporary departures of the chorus are to be found in the Alcestis and the Ecclesiazusae; but they seem to have been of very rare occurrence.[917] At the end of the play the chorus retired by the passage from which it had entered, and was preceded by the flute-player.[918] In the Seven against Thebes the chorus leave the orchestra in two divisions, one following the body of Polyneices, the other that of Eteocles. But in most cases they probably marched but in the same rectangular formation in which they had entered.
§ 5. The Delivery of the Choral Part.
As regards the delivery of the words, the chorus, like the actors, was not confined to one manner only, but used song, speech, and recitative by turns, according to the varying character of the metre. The lyrical portions of the drama were almost invariably sung. The ordinary iambic trimeters were spoken. The systems of anapaestic dimeters, and the iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters were delivered in recitative to the accompaniment of the flute.[919] A question now arises which is of great interest and importance in connexion with the choral part of the performance. It is obvious to any reader of a Greek play that many of the speeches and songs assigned to the chorus were not intended to be delivered by the whole of the chorus, but by individual members. This fact is patent to every one. But when any attempt is made to settle the exact character of the distribution the greatest diversity of opinion prevails. Attempts have been made to portion out the choral odes between different members and sections of the chorus on the strength of indications supplied by the metre, or by the sense of the words.[920] But it is plain that inferences based on evidence of this kind must be very uncertain in character. As a matter of fact different investigators have arrived at the most contradictory conclusions. Hence in the present state of our knowledge any detailed account of the matter is out of the question. It will be necessary to be content with certain general conclusions, which are based on actual evidence, or are so plausible in themselves as to be very widely accepted.
First, then, as to the part taken by the chorus as a whole. In ordinary circumstances the parodos and the stasima appear to have been sung by the whole chorus together. The parodos, as already explained, was the song of the chorus on its first entrance. The stasima were the long and important odes inserted between the successive divisions of the play, in order to fill up the pauses in the action. It is natural in itself to suppose that these portions should have been sung by the whole chorus, and the supposition is borne out by the statements of Aristotle.[921] Sometimes there were exceptions. For example, the chorus in the Alcestis, on its first entrance, is divided into two half-choruses, which sing successive passages of the parodos alternately. In the Ion the parodos is obviously sung by subdivisions or by individuals, and not by the whole chorus. In the Frogs a long speech by the coryphaeus is inserted in the middle of the parodos. In the Lysistrata the chorus is divided throughout the play into two half-choruses, one of men, the other of women.[922] But in the majority of cases the parodos and the stasima were given by the whole body of the chorus. Not infrequently, in the middle of the dialogue, small odes were inserted which resembled stasima in their general character, but differed from them in point of brevity, and from the fact that they came in the course of the dialogue, and not during a pause in the action. They were often songs of triumph or exultation, occasioned by sudden developments in the plot; and were accompanied by a lively dance.[923] These short odes were no doubt sung by the whole chorus, in the same manner as the stasima. It has been suggested that the strophes and antistrophes in the stasima were delivered by half-choruses in succession, and that the epode was given by the whole chorus. But there is no real evidence in support of this hypothesis, and epodes are only rarely to be met with in dramatic choruses.
In the second place some of the words assigned to the chorus were actually delivered by the coryphaeus. There is no direct testimony to this effect, but the matter hardly admits of doubt. On a great many occasions the chorus drops the tone of lyrical exaltation, and converses with the persons on the stage in an easy and familiar manner. It plays the part of an ordinary actor. In all such cases it is evident that the chorus must have been represented by the coryphaeus alone. The dialogues between the actors and the coryphaeus were a peculiar and distinctive feature of the old Greek drama. They were, in fact, a direct survival from the early period, when there was only a single actor upon the stage, and when the dramatic element in a play was necessarily confined to conversations between the actor and the chorus. In addition to the dialogues just mentioned, there are several other portions of the chorus which may be assigned to the coryphaeus with a fair amount of certainty. Such are the anapaests with which the approach of a new personage is announced at the end of a choral ode in tragedy. These anapaests, being delivered in recitative, would make a gentle transition from the song of the chorus to the speech of the actors. Then again, it is probable that in comedy all the anapaestic tetrameters were spoken by the coryphaeus, including the speech to the people at the commencement of the parabasis, and speeches such as that which is inserted in the parodos of the Frogs.[924] In comedy also the coryphaeus had frequently to address words of exhortation and remonstrance to the rest of the chorus.[925] As regards the anapaests at the beginning and the end of a play, the question is far more doubtful. It was the old fashion in tragedy for the entrance song of the chorus to commence with a series of anapaests. The custom is retained in the Persae, Supplices, and Agamemnon of Aeschylus, and the Ajax of Sophocles. Most Greek plays also conclude with a few anapaests. It has been suggested that the verses in each case were delivered by the coryphaeus alone; but the suggestion is hardly a plausible one. If chanted in combination by the whole body of the chorus they would make its entrance and departure much more impressive. It need hardly be remarked that, when the chorus was divided into half-choruses, the part generally taken by the coryphaeus was in this case taken by the leaders of the two halves. For example, throughout the Lysistrata the chorus of men and the chorus of women were represented in the dialogue by their respective leaders. In the Seven against Thebes the concluding anapaests would be spoken by the leaders of the hemichoria. It is also highly probable that the two sets of trochaic tetrameters, which come at the end of the parabasis, were recited, not by the half-choruses, but by their leaders.
Thirdly, certain portions of the chorus were occasionally spoken or sung by individual choreutae. The best known example is in the Agamemnon, during the murder of the king, when the chorus stands outside the palace, debating helplessly as to what it ought to do, and each of the old men pronounces his opinion in turn. There is another instance in the lyrical ode at the commencement of the Eumenides. The Furies wake up, find that Orestes is gone, and reproach Apollo in a series of brief, detached sentences, each being sung by one member of the chorus.[926] The above examples admit of no doubt. Whether the practice was a common one, and whether the choral parts were frequently distributed among individual choreutae, is a matter of great uncertainty. It is manifestly unsafe to infer that it was done in all cases where the choral passage is full of mutual exhortations and addresses, and the language is broken up into disconnected sentences. For example, in the parodoi in Aristophanes the members of the chorus often address one another by name, and exhort one another to greater activity. But it does not therefore follow, as has been supposed, that these passages were delivered in portions by individuals. A chorus might be perfectly well chanted by the whole body, though written in vivid and dramatic style.[927] It is hardly safe therefore to distribute choral passages among individual choreutae except on very strong evidence. The extent to which the practice prevailed in the ancient drama must be regarded as an open question.
Fourthly, the division into half-choruses was not infrequent.[928] It might be done in two ways. In the first place the chorus throughout the whole play might be composed of two separate divisions, differing from one another in point of age, sex, or position. The chorus in the Lysistrata, consisting of one body of men, and one body of women, is an example. In the second place the chorus might be divided temporarily into half-choruses, either because of the special requirements of the play, or merely for purposes of singing and recitation. There are several certain examples in tragedy. In the Ajax of Sophocles the sailors hasten off, some to the east and some to the west, in search of Ajax. They return after a time from opposite sides of the orchestra, bringing word that they have not found him. In the Orestes, while Helen is being attacked within the palace, Electra keeps watch outside, and posts the chorus in two divisions at each end of the orchestra, to guard against surprise.[929] The examples in the Alcestis and the Seven against Thebes have already been referred to. In comedy the practice was not at all uncommon, if the testimony of certain manuscripts is to be accepted. Various choral passages in the comedies of Aristophanes are distributed between half-choruses, including the two odes at the end of the parabasis, and other lyrical pieces of an antistrophic character.[930]
A suggestion has been made that the divisions into ranks and files were utilized for musical purposes; that in tragedy, for instance, successive passages were delivered in turns by ranks of three men, or files of five men; and that the ranks and files of the comic chorus were used in the same manner. This is pure conjecture. It may or may not have been the case; but there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the musical duets it is impossible to speak with certainty. Whether they were mostly given by the whole chorus, or by halves, or smaller subdivisions, or by individual choreutae, or by the coryphaeus, is a matter concerning which there is no trustworthy information.[931] Such indications as are supplied by varieties in metre, grammar, or subject, are too vague and uncertain to lead to any definite conclusion. Unless, therefore, further evidence of a distinct character is discovered, this particular question will have to be regarded as an unsettled problem.
§ 6. The Dancing.
In the ancient Greek drama, as in modern opera, the three sister arts of Music, Poetry, and Dancing were all brought into requisition. But there was this difference—in the Greek drama the poetry was the principal feature of the performance; the music and the dancing were subordinate. Moreover, dancing was seldom introduced by itself as a mere spectacle; it was mainly used in combination with singing, to interpret and add vividness to the words of the song. The music, the poetry, and the dancing were blended together into one harmonious whole, each part gaining an advantage by its combination with the other two. Most, if not all, of the choral songs were accompanied by dances of one sort or another. To the Greek mind there was an inseparable connexion between song and dance, and the notion of choral singing unaccompanied by dancing would have appeared strange and unusual. The two arts had grown and developed simultaneously, as appears from the fact that many of the technical terms in metrical phraseology referred originally to the movements of the dance. For instance, the smallest division of a verse was called a ‘foot’. A verse of two feet was styled a ‘basis’, or ‘stepping’. The words ‘arsis’ and ‘thesis’, which denoted the varying stress of the voice in singing, originally referred to the raising up and placing down of the foot in marching and dancing. These terms show how closely the two arts of dancing and singing were associated together in ancient Greece. A choreutes who was unable to accompany a song with expressive dance-movements was looked down upon as an inferior performer.[932] Dancing therefore, as might have been expected, played a most important part in tragedy, comedy, and the satyric drama. It was held among the Greeks in the greatest estimation, and there was none of that feeling of degradation about it which was common among the Romans. A man might dance in public without any loss of dignity, provided the dance was of a graceful and becoming character. Sophocles himself, the great tragic poet and fellow general of Pericles, was not ashamed to appear in a dance in one of his own tragedies.[933]
At the same time it should be remembered that dancing in ancient Greece was a very different thing from dancing in modern times. It included a great deal more. The word ‘dancing’ in English necessarily implies movement with the feet. It would be impossible in English to say that a man was dancing, if he continued to stand in the same position. But in Greek dancing this was not necessarily the case. The word ‘orchesis’, which we translate as ‘dancing’, had in reality a much wider meaning. Greek dancing originated, according to Plato, in the instinctive tendency of mankind to accompany speech and song with explanatory movements of the body.[934] It was essentially a mimetic performance. It included, not only all such motions as are denoted by dancing in the modern sense of the word, but also every kind of gesture and posture by which various objects and events can be represented in dumb show. Its principal function was to interpret and illustrate the words of poetry. For this purpose nothing could be more important than appropriate gesticulation. Hence in Greek dancing the movements of the hands and arms played a larger part than the movements of the feet. The same was the case in Roman dancing also. A few quotations will illustrate this fact. Telestes, the celebrated dancer employed by Aeschylus, was said to be able to ‘depict events with his hands in the most skilful manner’.[935] Demetrius the Cynic, after witnessing the performance of a celebrated dancer, exclaimed that he ‘spoke with his hands’.[936] Ovid, in his Art of Love, when advising a lover to show off his best qualities before his mistress, tells him to sing if he has a good voice, to dance ‘if his arms are flexible’.[937] The flourishes and gesticulations with which a professional carver cut out a hare were called ‘dancing’ by the ancients.[938] Quintilian, speaking of the gestures used in oratory, gravely says that there ought to be a considerable difference between the orator and the dancer; that the gestures of the orator should represent the general sense of the words, rather than the particular objects mentioned.[939] The bare fact of his comparing an orator with a dancer is a proof of the vital difference between ancient and modern dancing, and the importance of mere gesticulation in the former.
The purpose, then, of ancient dancing was to represent various objects and events by means of gestures, postures, and attitudes. In this kind of mimicry the nations of southern Europe are particularly skilful, as may be seen at the present day. The art was carried by the Greeks to the highest perfection, and a good dancer was able to accompany a song with such expressive pantomime as to create a visible picture of the things described. Aristotle defines dancing as an imitation of ‘actions, characters, and passions by means of postures and rhythmical movements’.[940] His language indicates very clearly the unlimited capabilities of Greek dancing. Its general character will be well exemplified by the following account from Plutarch’s Symposiaca. Dancing, it is there stated, might be divided into Motions, Postures, and Indications. Motions were of the greatest use in depicting actions and passions. Postures were the attitudes in which each motion terminated. For example, a dancer might halt in such a posture as to suggest Apollo, or Pan, or a Bacchante. Indications were not mimetic at all, but consisted in merely pointing out certain objects, such as the heaven, the earth, the bystanders. Dancing might be defined as poetry without words. The combination of poetry and dancing, of words and gestures, produced a perfect imitation.[941] In the above account from Plutarch we have a clear exposition of the Greek conception of dancing as the handmaid of poetry. Its function was to delineate and to emphasize the creations of the poet. This was the part which it played in the Greek drama. It is most important, therefore, when speaking of dancing in connexion with the old dramatic performances, to remember the essential difference between the ancient and modern meaning of the words.
Some few facts have been recorded concerning the history of dancing in connexion with the drama. In the earliest times it consisted mainly of movements with the feet. The use of the hands and arms in dancing, and the introduction of elaborate gesticulation, was a development due to a later period.[942] In the old-fashioned dramas of Thespis and his immediate successors dancing necessarily played a very important part. Both tragedy and comedy were at that time mainly lyrical, and the long choral odes were accompanied throughout by dances. The early dramatists, such as Thespis, Phrynichus, Pratinas, and Cratinus, were called ‘dancers’ as well as poets, because one of their principal duties consisted in training their choruses in the art of dancing.[943] Phrynichus, in an epigram of which two verses are still preserved, boasts of having discovered more figures in dancing than there are waves in a stormy sea.[944] The tragic dance of the sixth century, to judge from the specimens given by Philocleon at the end of the Wasps, was of a wild and lively character.[945] The tone of solemnity, by which it was afterwards distinguished, was due to the innovations of Aeschylus. It was probably in the time of Aeschylus that dancing in tragedy reached its highest pitch of excellence. His long choruses gave ample opportunities for the display of the dancer’s skill. Moreover, the training of the chorus was personally superintended by Aeschylus, and he is said to have himself invented a great number of postures and attitudes to be used in dancing.[946] Towards the end of the fifth century the art appears to have declined in significance, along with the general decrease in the importance of the chorus. It began to lose something of its mimetic character. Plato, the comic poet, who flourished at the end of the fifth century, contrasts the mediocrity of the choral dancing in his day with the excellence of that of a former period. In old times, he says, a good dancer was a sight worth seeing; but the choreutae of the present day stand in a row, like so many cripples, and bawl out their songs, without any attempt at appropriate motions and gestures.[947] This deterioration was a necessary consequence of the tendency to thrust the chorus more and more into the background.
The general character of the dancing in the Greek drama has already been described. As far as details are concerned our information is very defective, and only slight indications are to be obtained from the existing plays. It is probable that, when the parodoi commenced with a series of anapaests, the chorus only marched in, without dancing. But all parodoi written in lyrical metres were undoubtedly accompanied with a dance. The iambic and trochaic tetrameters, in which many of the parodoi in Aristophanes are written, seem to have been generally intended for choruses which entered running, and with an appearance of great haste.[948] The stasima, or long choral odes between the acts, are said by many of the scholiasts to have been unaccompanied by dancing, and to have been delivered by the chorus standing perfectly still.[949] The statement is no doubt an error, due to false etymology. The stasima, or ‘stationary songs’, were so called, not because the chorus stood still during their delivery, but because it remained all the time in the orchestra. They were therefore opposed to the parodoi, which were delivered while the chorus was coming in, and to the exodoi, which were delivered while it was going out.[950] That the stasima were accompanied by dancing is proved by several references to dancing which they contain.[951] A tradition has been preserved by one scholiast concerning the manœuvres of the chorus in the stasima. It is said that during the strophe they moved to the right, during the antistrophe to the left; and that during the epode they remained standing in the same position as at first.[952] This description, however, has probably been applied to the drama by mistake. A manœuvre of the kind mentioned, though suitable to the circular chorus of the dithyramb, would be out of place in the rectangular formations of the dramatic choruses. Also it is comparatively rare to find epodes in the stasima. As for the incidental odes, which occur in the middle of the dialogue, many of those were written in the lively hyporchematic style, to mark the joy of the chorus at an unexpected turn of fortune. Some of the regular stasima were of the same type.[953] The dances by which these odes were accompanied were extremely brisk and energetic, in tragedy as well as in comedy.[954] The exodoi, or concluding utterances of the chorus, were not usually attended with dancing, but were delivered in recitative as the chorus marched out. There is an exception in the Wasps and the Ecclesiazusae, which are terminated by the chorus dancing out of the orchestra. But Aristophanes himself remarks that this was an innovation.[955] There is no reason to suppose that in tragedy the kommoi, or musical dialogues between actors and chorus, were unaccompanied with dancing. But naturally, if this was the case, the dance would be of a quiet and sober kind, consisting more of appropriate gestures and motions than of dancing in the modern sense of the word.
During a large part of every Greek play the chorus had nothing to say or sing, but merely stood watching the actors, and listening to the dialogue. It would be absurd to imagine that they remained stolid and indifferent during all this period. Chorus and actors were supposed to form one harmonious group, and no doubt the chorus followed the events upon the stage with a keen appearance of interest, and expressed their sympathy with the different characters by every kind of gesture and by-play. Occasionally the long descriptive speeches delivered from the stage were accompanied with a mimetic dance on the part of the chorus.[956] The events described by the actor were represented in dumb show by the choreutae. In comedy it was a regular practice to introduce descriptive speeches of this sort, the metres used being iambic or anapaestic tetrameters, which were especially suitable for dancing to. There is an example in the Clouds, where Strepsiades describes his quarrel with Pheidippides. The various phases of the quarrel were represented in dumb show by the chorus, keeping time with the recitative of the actor.[957] Again, we are told that Telestes, the dancer employed by Aeschylus, ‘danced the Seven against Thebes’ so successfully as to bring the various events before the very eyes of the spectators. The statement no doubt refers to the dumb show with which he accompanied the long descriptive speeches that abound in that play.[958]