CHAPTER V

THE ACTORS

§ 1. _Rise of the Actor’s Profession._

Before proceeding to give an account of the actors in the ancient Greek

drama, there are one or two points which ought to be made clear, in order

to avoid possible misconceptions. In the first place the actors and the

chorus were entirely distinct from one another. The chorus was chosen and

paid by the choregus, and performed in the orchestra. The actors were

hired by the state, and their proper place was upon the stage. The term

‘hypokrites’, or ‘actor’, was never applied to the members of the chorus.

It was not even applied to all the performers upon the stage, but only to

such of them as took a prominent part in the dialogue. The various mute

characters, such as the soldiers and attendants, and also the subordinate

characters who had only a few words to say, were not dignified with

the title of ‘actor’. In the second place it should be remembered that

the Greek actors invariably wore masks, and were consequently able to

appear in several parts in the course of the same performance. When,

therefore, it is said that in the early history of Greek tragedy only

a single actor was employed in each play, this does not imply that the

number of characters was limited to one. All it implies is that only one

character could appear at a time. The number of actors in a Greek play

never exceeded three, even in the latest period. But the effect of this

regulation upon the capacities of the Greek drama was less cramping and

restrictive than might have been supposed. There was no limitation to the

number of mute and subordinate characters which might be introduced at

any time upon the stage. There was no restriction upon the number of the

more prominent characters, provided they were not brought upon the stage

simultaneously. The only limitation was this—that not more than three of

the more prominent characters could take part in the dialogue in the

course of the same scene.

The principal function of the actors was to carry on the dialogue and

work out the action of the play. The principal function of the chorus

was to sing the odes which filled up the pauses in the action. Of course

very frequently the chorus took part in the dialogue; but, speaking in

general terms, the dialogue was the business of the actors. Such was

the condition of things during the best period of the Attic drama. But

in former times the case had been very different. At first the whole

performance was a choral one, and consisted simply of the songs and

hymns chanted at the festivals of Dionysus. There were no actors and

there was no dialogue. The history of the early development of the drama

is in other words the history of the gradual introduction of actors

and dialogue into a choral entertainment, and the gradual increase in

the importance of the dialogue, until eventually it overshadowed the

choral part altogether. The first step in the process by which a lyrical

performance was converted into a dramatic one was as follows. The custom

arose of filling up the intervals between the different portions of the

choral songs with recitations by the leader of the chorus, and dialogues

between him and the other members. For this purpose the leader of the

chorus used to mount upon a small table. The subject of the recitations

and the dialogues would be the same as the subject of the ode, and would

in most cases refer to the adventures of the god Dionysus. In these

interludes by the leader of the chorus lay the germ of the drama. The

performance as a whole was still essentially lyrical, but the practice

of inserting dialogue had been established.[670] In the case of tragedy

the next step forward was taken by Thespis. He introduced a single

actor, who took the part which had previously been taken by the leader

of the chorus, and filled up the pauses in the choral odes either with

monologues or with dialogues between himself and the leader.[671] Not

much is known about the drama of Thespis except that it was still

essentially lyrical. But as he is said to have employed masks, it is

clear that the single actor might appear in different characters in

successive scenes, and in this way some approach might be made to a

dramatic representation of a story.[672] The decisive innovation was due

to Aeschylus. He introduced a second actor, and effected a total change

in the character of the performance. Henceforward the intervals between

the choral odes were filled with dialogues between the two actors upon

the stage, instead of dialogues between the single actor and the leader

of the chorus. At the same time Aeschylus cut down the length of the

choral odes, and made the dialogue the essential and prominent feature of

the performance.[673] The result was a radical change in the nature of

tragedy: it became a dramatic instead of a lyrical form of art. During

the greater part of his career Aeschylus was contented with two actors.

Three at least out of his seven extant plays are written for performance

by two actors only.[674] This limitation upon the number of the

performers necessitated great simplicity in the construction of the play,

since it was impossible for more than two personages to take part in the

dialogue at the same time. Hence the earlier plays of Aeschylus, though

essentially dramatic in comparison with anything which preceded them, are

simple in plot and lyrical in tone when compared with the tragedies of

his successors. The different scenes rather serve to unfold a series of

pictures than to develop a complicated plot. Descriptive speeches take

the place of animated dialogue. Sophocles added greatly to the capacities

of the drama by introducing a third actor.[675] He was thus enabled to

give much greater variety and spirit to the dialogue. In his hands

for the first time tragedy became completely dramatic, and the lyrical

element was thrust still further into the background. The innovation of

Sophocles was adopted by Aeschylus in his later years, and the Orestean

trilogy—the last and most elaborate of his works—requires three actors.

Under Sophocles tragedy received its full development. The number of

actors in tragedy was henceforward limited to three.

The satyric drama was intimately connected with tragedy, and the number

of actors was apparently the same. Thus the Cyclops of Euripides,

the only extant satyric play, requires three actors. In the Naples

vase-painting, which represents the performers in a satyric play, three

actors are depicted.[676] It is true that the Alcestis of Euripides,

which was performed in place of the usual satyric drama, only requires

two actors. But the number in this case was probably due to the choice of

the poet, and not to any official regulation. In regard to comedy, very

little is known as to the steps by which it was developed. The source of

comedy lay in the phallic songs performed at the festivals of Dionysus.

The dramatic element originated in the interludes by the leader of the

chorus. The process of development must have been much the same as in

tragedy; but the names of the persons who introduced actors and dialogue

into comedy were forgotten even in Aristotle’s time. The only piece of

information upon the subject is to the effect that Cratinus was the first

to limit the number of actors to three, and that before his time there

was no regulation as to the number of persons introduced upon the stage.

After the time of Cratinus there were no further innovations, and the

number of the actors in comedy was permanently fixed at three.[677]

This number was never exceeded either in comedy or in tragedy. All the

extant Greek plays could be performed by three actors. It is sometimes

said that the Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles requires four actors; but

this is not the case. Although there are several occasions on which

Ismene appears upon the stage simultaneously with three other personages,

still on each of these occasions she does not say a word, but is merely

a mute figure. It is evident therefore that during this portion of the

play her part was taken by a ‘super’, while at the beginning and end

of the play, where she had speeches to make, the part was acted by the

tritagonist.[678] It might at first sight appear that the comedies of

Aristophanes require more than three actors; but investigations have

shown that there is not one of his plays which could not be performed by

this number, assisted by a supply of ‘supers’.[679]

The smallness of the number of the actors necessarily limited the

capacities of the Greek drama. The realistic effect produced by a

promiscuous conversation between a large group of persons was impossible

upon the Greek stage. Sometimes a certain awkwardness was caused by

the limitation in the number of the performers. For instance, at the

end of the Orestes of Euripides, Orestes is seen upon the roof of the

palace threatening to kill Hermione, and Pylades is standing beside

him. Menelaus from below makes a piteous appeal to Pylades, but Pylades

says not a single word in reply, but leaves Orestes to answer for him.

His silence is very unnatural, and is only to be accounted for by the

fact that there was no actor to spare, and therefore the poet could not

put any words in his mouth. Two of the actors were already employed in

playing the parts of Orestes and Menelaus, and the third was required

for Apollo, who comes on the scene immediately afterwards. Consequently

the part of Pylades had to be taken by a mute personage. Again there is

the scene at the end of the Electra of Euripides. Orestes has heard his

fate, and as he leaves the stage he bids farewell to Pylades, and urges

him to marry his sister Electra. Pylades maintains a stolid silence,

and the Dioscuri reply on his behalf. Here again his silence is due to

the necessities of the case. The three actors with whom the poet was

supplied were all employed, and Pylades was merely a dumb figure. Similar

instances of awkward and almost ludicrous silence on the part of certain

characters will occur to all readers of the Greek drama. But they are

not so numerous as might have been expected, and it is astonishing to

find how successfully the Greek drama, keeping within its own peculiar

limits, was able to accomplish its ends with three actors only.

There were several advantages in the smallness of the number. In the

first place the dialogue gained in clearness and simplicity, owing to the

fewness of the persons taking part in it. This simplicity was especially

well suited to the severe and statuesque character of Greek tragedy, in

which the rapid movement of a dialogue between a large number of persons

would have been altogether inappropriate. In the extant Greek tragedies

even the three actors permitted by custom are used with considerable

reserve. In most cases one of them stands by in silence, while the other

two carry on the dialogue. The two change from time to time, but it is

only on rare occasions and for brief periods that all three converse

promiscuously together. There was another obvious advantage in the

restriction. As only three actors were needed, it was easy to ensure that

they should all be performers of first-rate excellence. In modern times

the large number of actors required constitutes a great difficulty. It

is rare to see the subordinate characters in a play of Shakespeare even

tolerably performed. The effect of the piece is spoiled by the feebleness

of the princes, dukes, lords, and ladies who crowd the stage. In the

Greek drama, owing to the limitation upon the number of the performers,

this difficulty was avoided, and a high standard of excellence maintained

throughout the play. It was all the more necessary, among the Greeks, to

take some precaution of this kind, since the size of the theatre demanded

unusual powers in the actor. In a modern theatre an actor, however poor,

can at any rate usually be heard. But in the vast open-air theatre at

Athens it required a man with an exceptionally clear and powerful voice

to make himself audible to the vast multitude of spectators. It cannot

have been an easy task to find actors who combined histrionic talent with

voices of sufficient power, and if a large number had been required,

there would have been great difficulty in meeting the demand.

The original Greek word for an actor was ‘hypokrites’. Etymologically

the word seems to have meant ‘one who answers’.[680] In the times

before Aeschylus, when there was only one actor, all the dialogue was

necessarily carried on between the actor and the chorus. It is therefore

not improbable that the duty of replying to the questions and remarks

of the chorus may have been regarded as the salient feature in the

performance of the actor, and have given rise to his name, as the old

grammarians assert. In the course of the fourth century the old Attic

word for an actor went out of use, and a new one was substituted.

Henceforward actors were generally called ‘artists’, or ‘artists of

Dionysus’.[681]

As far as tragedy is concerned, the art of acting may be said to have

commenced in the time of Thespis. But actors did not come into existence

as a separate class until many years afterwards. Before the period of

Aeschylus, when only a single actor was required, his part was taken

by the poet. It is expressly said that Thespis was ‘himself acting,

according to ancient custom’, at that performance which excited the

disapproval of Solon.[682] But when a second actor was introduced by

Aeschylus, then the actor’s profession became of necessity distinct

from that of the poet. For some time afterwards the poets continued

to act occasionally in their own tragedies, side by side with the

professional actors. But the practice went gradually out of fashion in

the course of the earlier part of the fifth century. Aeschylus appears,

from the statement in his Life, to have abandoned the stage even before

the introduction of a second actor.[683] Sophocles was prevented from

appearing as an actor by the weakness of his voice. It is true that he

sometimes performed in public. In the Thamyris he played the harp, and

in the Nausicaa he delighted the spectators by his skill with the ball.

But it is not likely that on either of these occasions he took a regular

actor’s part. He probably appeared upon the scene merely as a mute

character, in order to show his skill with the harp and the ball.[684]

After the time of Sophocles there are no further instances of tragic

poets performing in their own plays.[685] As to the early history of

comic acting very little is known. Cratinus is mentioned as one of the

old poets who were called ‘dancers’, and it is therefore probable that

he acted in his own comedies. Crates is said to have begun his career

as an actor of Cratinus.[686] But after his time there is no certain

instance of a comic poet appearing upon the stage. The professional actor

was universally employed. The statement that Aristophanes acted the part

of Cleon in the Knights is due to a misconception on the part of the

scholiast.[687]

It appears then that it was in the beginning of the fifth century that

the profession of the actor came into existence as a distinct occupation.

It grew very rapidly in importance. At first the actors who took part in

the competitions were regarded as mere subordinates, and had no share

in the honours and rewards. But towards the middle of the century a

change was made, and prizes began to be instituted for the best actors,

as well as for the best poets. The names of the actors began to be

recorded in the official lists of victors, side by side with those of

the poets and choregi.[688] In the fourth century the actors sprang

into still greater prominence. The art of acting tended to outshine the

art of dramatic writing. An age of great actors succeeded to an age

of great poets. The same phenomenon is not uncommon in the theatrical

history of other nations. In England, for instance, a period of dramatic

productiveness was followed by a period of sterility and insignificance,

and from the time of Garrick downwards the names of the great actors,

who have made themselves famous by interpreting the masterpieces of

Shakespeare, are more conspicuous than the names of dramatic authors. In

Athens the fourth century was the period when acting was brought to the

greatest perfection. To such an extent had the importance of the actor’s

profession increased, that in Aristotle’s time a play depended more for

its success upon the skill of the actor than upon the genius of the poet.

The effect upon dramatic writing was most pernicious. The poets began to

write their plays with a view to exhibiting the capacities of the actors.

Scenes which had no connexion with the plot were introduced for the sole

purpose of enabling an actor to make a display of his talents.[689]

Sophocles is said by one of the old grammarians to have been guilty of

the same sort of practice. But if there is any truth in the statement,

the evil effects are not very apparent in the extant tragedies.[690]

The charge might be brought with more plausibility against the monodies

of Euripides, which are often feeble from a literary point of view, but

would enable an actor with a fine voice to make a great impression.

However, it was not until the fourth century that the influence of the

actors became so universal as to inflict distinct injury upon the art of

dramatic writing.

The selection of the necessary number of actors for each dramatic

performance was, except in very early times, undertaken by the state. The

details in connexion with this arrangement have already been discussed

in a previous chapter.[691] The main points may be recapitulated here.

During the early part of the fifth century the poets chose their own

actors. Certain poets and certain actors were permanently associated

together. But as the actors increased in importance, they were placed

on the same footing as the poets and choregi, and were appointed by

the state. They were then distributed among the poets by lot. In the

course of the fourth century the use of the lot was discontinued in the

case of tragedy, and a new arrangement was adopted, which was rendered

possible by the fact that each tragic poet exhibited several tragedies

at the same time. Under the new system each tragedy was performed by a

different actor, and in this way all the competing poets enjoyed in turn

the services of all the actors. In comedy, as each poet exhibited only a

single play, the old system of distribution by lot was retained. If an

actor was engaged for one of the great Athenian festivals, and failed

to put in an appearance, he was fined by the state. On one occasion

Athenodorus, the great tragic actor, was hired to perform at the City

Dionysia. But he failed to keep his engagement, as he preferred to be

present and perform at the festivities held by Alexander the Great in

Phoenicia, after his return from Egypt. A heavy fine was inflicted upon

him in consequence, and was paid by Alexander.[692]

§ 2. _The distribution of the Parts among the Actors._

It has been shown that the number of the actors in a Greek play was

limited to three. The principal actor was called the protagonist; next in

importance came the deuteragonist; the tritagonist played the inferior

characters.[693] The importance of the protagonist on the Greek stage

has been pointed out already.[694] In the ordinary theatrical language

of the time a play was said to be ‘acted by’ the protagonist, as if the

other actors were of no account. The protagonist was publicly appointed

by the state, but was allowed to choose the second and third actors

at his own discretion. In the same way the prize for acting at each

festival was confined to the protagonists. In tragedy more especially

the protagonist was a person of the greatest importance. The whole

structure of a Greek tragedy was designed with the object of fixing the

interest upon some grand central figure. The significance of the other

characters consisted mainly in their capacity to excite the passions

and draw forth the sentiments of the leading personage. This being so,

it was essential that the protagonist should concentrate the interest

upon himself; otherwise the harmony and balance of the play would have

been destroyed. Hence the subordinate actors were strictly forbidden to

attempt to outshine the protagonist. Even if they had finer voices than

the protagonist, they were made to moderate and restrain their powers,

so as to allow the protagonist to retain the superiority, and rivet the

attention of the spectators upon the central character.[695] The jealousy

of protagonists towards their fellow-actors is well exemplified by the

story about Theodorus, who had a theory that the first speaker in a play

always attracted the sympathies of the audience, and therefore would

never allow any other actor, however inferior, to appear upon the stage

before himself.[696]

The distribution of the different parts among the actors was undertaken

by the poet if the play was a new one.[697] But if an old play was being

reproduced, the matter would be arranged by the protagonist who had the

management of the performance. The three actors between them filled all

the parts in a play, appearing in various characters successively. Such

a practice was rendered possible by the use of masks. An actor had only

to change his mask and his dress, and he could then reappear in a new

character. Changes of this kind could be effected in a very few moments,

as is shown by the one or two traditions on the subject which have been

preserved by the ancient scholiasts. For example, in the opening scene of

the Phoenissae Jocasta speaks the prologue, and then leaves the stage.

Thereupon Antigone and an old attendant mount by a staircase on to the

roof of the palace, in order to view the Argive army encamped outside

the walls. The scholiast tells us that the protagonist played the parts

both of Jocasta and of Antigone. It was necessary, therefore, after

Jocasta had left the stage, that there should be a slight interval before

Antigone appeared upon the palace roof, to give the actor time to change

his mask and dress. Euripides managed this by making the attendant come

out alone upon the roof at first, and look about him to see that the

coast is clear, while he addresses a few words to Antigone, who is still

inside the palace. When he sees that all is safe, he calls on Antigone to

follow after him, and she thereupon mounts the staircase, and appears to

the spectators. The speech of the attendant, while he is looking about

upon the roof, consists of only fifteen iambic lines. Thus the space of

time required to speak fifteen lines was enough to enable an actor to

change from one character to another.[698] There is a further instance

which shows that even less time was necessary. In the Choephori, when

Aegisthus is murdered, a servant rushes out upon the stage and calls to

Clytaemnestra. As Clytaemnestra comes out, he apparently runs back into

the palace. Clytaemnestra speaks five lines, and then Orestes hastens out

of the palace, followed by Pylades. In the scene which ensues Pylades has

three lines to speak; and the scholiast says that his part was taken by

the servant who had just left the stage, so as to avoid the necessity of

four actors. The servant must therefore have changed his mask in a very

few moments.[699]

In the distribution of parts the protagonist took the principal

character. The parts of Oedipus, Electra, and Antigone, in the plays

of the same name by Sophocles, are specially mentioned as having been

acted by celebrated protagonists. Orestes in the play of Euripides is

also described as the part of the protagonist.[700] Usually, as in the

above instances, the chief personage gave the name to the piece. But

this was not always the case. In the Oenomaus of Sophocles the part of

Oenomaus was played by the tritagonist Aeschines. In the Cresphontes of

Euripides the principal character was Merope, and was taken by Theodorus.

The part of Cresphontes fell to Aeschines as tritagonist.[701] In the

Agamemnon of Aeschylus most likely the protagonist played the part of

Clytaemnestra, as this is certainly the most impressive character in the

play, though not the one with which the spectators are in sympathy. The

protagonist had also to take his share of the subordinate characters when

he could be spared. It has already been mentioned that in the Phoenissae

of Euripides the protagonist appeared in the part of Antigone as well

as in that of Jocasta. At times he took even the smallest characters

if the necessities of the play demanded it. Plutarch states that the

protagonist, in the part of a messenger or an attendant, often gained

more applause than the actor who bore the sceptre and the crown.[702]

It was, in fact, the chief advantage of the Greek system that even the

subordinate characters were played with as much excellence as the more

important ones. The tritagonist took what in modern times would be

called the ‘heavy’ parts. It was his special privilege, as Demosthenes

remarks, to play the tyrant and the sceptred monarch.[703] Aeschines,

in his career as tritagonist, often had to act gloomy tyrants of this

kind, such as Creon, Cresphontes, and Oenomaus. Such characters did not

require great powers in the actor. There was no pathos to be excited, no

play of conflicting emotions to be exhibited. All that was necessary was

a powerful voice, and a capacity for declaiming verses. Most likely for

the same reason the tritagonist usually spoke the prologues, which also

did not require much more in the actor than good powers of elocution.

Thus the ghost of Polydorus, which speaks the prologue in the Hecuba of

Euripides, was acted by Aeschines as tritagonist.[704] The deuteragonist

took the parts which, in point of interest, were intermediate between the

leading characters and the heavy parts which fell to the tritagonist.

There are not, however, any traditions as to particular characters having

been played by the deuteragonist. Attempts have been made in modern times

to assign the characters in the extant Greek dramas to the protagonist,

deuteragonist, and tritagonist respectively.[705] Such speculations are

interesting, in so far as they show that all the existing plays could be

perfectly well performed by three actors. Otherwise they are not of very

great value. There is generally no difficulty in deciding which was the

leading character. But it is obvious that the subordinate parts might be

distributed in various ways; and no doubt the arrangement differed at

different periods. There are no traditions on the subject in addition to

those already mentioned. Any attempt, therefore, to reproduce the exact

arrangement adopted at a particular period must depend more or less upon

conjecture.

§ 3. _Extra Performers._

For every Greek play a chorus was provided by the choregus, and three

actors were supplied by the state. But in most plays a certain number

of additional performers was required. The parts which these extra

performers had to fill may be divided, roughly speaking, into three

classes. In the first place there were the various mute personages, who

simply appeared upon the stage, and did nothing more. The second class

consisted of minor characters with only a few words to say. In these

cases extra performers were required, either because the regular actors

were already occupied, or because the part was that of a boy or girl,

which the regular actor would be unable to take. Thirdly, in many cases

a small subordinate chorus was required, in addition to the ordinary

one. The general name for the persons who undertook these parts was

‘parachoregemata’.[706] This word obviously means something which is

supplied by the choregus in addition to his ordinary expenditure. It

follows, therefore, that the cost of the extra performers was borne by

the choregus. Properly he was only responsible for the chorus; but if

additional men were required, he had to supply them. This conclusion is

confirmed by Plutarch’s story of a certain tragic actor who was going

to appear as a queen, but refused to proceed with the part, unless the

choregus provided him with a train of female attendants.[707] Extra

performers were especially necessary in the Old Comedy, in which a great

number of characters appear upon the stage.

It remains to consider more in detail the three classes of

‘parachoregemata’[708]. The mute personages appeared most frequently

in the shape of attendants, body-guards, crowds of people, and so on.

The Oedipus Rex opens with a number of suppliants kneeling at the altar

before the palace of the king. In the Choephori Orestes and Pylades

are accompanied by attendants. The judgement scene in the Eumenides

requires twelve performers to play the parts of the members of the

Areopagus. In the Agamemnon, when the king and Cassandra arrive in the

chariot, servants stand ready to spread carpets beneath their feet.[709]

Probably in many other instances great personages were accompanied by

attendants, although there is no special reference to them in the play.

Not infrequently more prominent characters appeared upon the stage as

mute figures. Pylades says nothing throughout the Electra of Sophocles

and the Electra of Euripides. In the latter play one of the Dioscuri

must also have been a dumb figure, since two actors were already upon

the stage when the Dioscuri make their appearance. The person of Force

in the Prometheus Vinctus is another example. A very frequent occasion

for the employment of mute characters was in pathetic scenes between

parents and their children. The children appear as silent figures, but

give occasion for touching speeches by their parents. There is an example

in the Ajax of Sophocles, where Ajax addresses his son Eurysaces. But the

instances in Euripides are much more frequent. There is the celebrated

scene in the Medea, where Medea half relents at the sight of her

children. There is the address of Megara to her children in the Hercules

Furens. Other examples are to be found in the introduction of Manto, the

daughter of Teiresias, in the Phoenissae, and of Polymestor’s children

in the Hecuba.[710] Mute figures were also very useful in occasionally

personating one of the regular characters of the play, when the actor

of the character was temporarily required for another purpose. It has

already been pointed out that in the middle of the Oedipus Coloneus the

part of Ismene is played by a dumb personage, to enable the previous

actor of the part to appear in another character. In the final scene of

Orestes, most of the prominent characters are brought upon the stage

together, after the fashion of a modern drama. But only three of them

can speak: Helen, Hermione, Electra, and Pylades are all mute figures.

The silence of Pylades is especially unnatural. In cases of this kind an

attempt is made to produce effects which were hardly compatible with the

limited resources of Greek tragedy.

The second class of extra performers took all those minor parts in which

there was a certain amount of speaking or singing, but which it was

impossible for the regular actors to take. In tragedy such performers

were mostly required for the boys’ parts, which were unsuitable for

grown-up actors. Euripides was especially fond of introducing boys upon

the stage. In the Alcestis Eumelus bewails his mother’s death in a short

ode. Another example is the mournful dialogue between Andromache and her

little son Molossus.[711] In the Old Comedy these additional actors were

frequently needed to perform small parts at times when the three regular

actors were already on the stage. Examples are very numerous. There are

the daughters of Trygaeus in the Peace, and the daughters of the Megarian

in the Acharnians. The herald and Pseudartabas are additional examples

from the Acharnians.[712]

In the third place an extra chorus was sometimes required. The Propompi

in the Eumenides, and the chorus of boys in the Wasps, both appear side

by side with the regular chorus, and must therefore have been personated

by extra performers. An additional chorus, consisting of shepherds, was

also required in the Alexander of Euripides.[713] Sometimes the extra

chorus was not visible to the spectators, but sang behind the scenes. In

such cases the singing might be done by members of the regular chorus,

if they had not yet entered the orchestra. Examples are to be found in

the chorus of frogs in the Frogs of Aristophanes, and Agathon’s chorus in

the Thesmophoriazusae.[714] Their part would be taken by members of the

regular chorus. In the opening scene of the Hippolytus a band of huntsmen

sing a short ode to Artemis upon the stage. Immediately after their

disappearance the regular chorus, consisting of women of Troezen, enters

the orchestra. In this case the huntsmen cannot have been personated by

members of the regular chorus; but it is possible that the singing was

done by the chorus behind the scenes, while the huntsmen were represented

by mute figures.[715]

§ 4. _Costume of the Tragic Actors._

The dress of the actors in tragedy was always entirely distinct from

that of the chorus. The chorus consisted originally of satyrs, the

half-human followers of Dionysus. Later on it came to be composed in most

cases of ordinary citizens, and was dressed accordingly. But the actors

represented from the first the gods and heroes of the old mythology. For

them a different costume was required. The practice of the Greeks in

regard to this costume was totally opposed to all modern notions upon

the subject. Historical accuracy and archaeological minuteness in the

mounting of a play were matters of complete indifference to the Greeks.

Accordingly, when bringing these heroic characters upon the stage,

they never made any attempt to produce an accurate imitation of the

costume of the Homeric period. At the same time they were not content

that the heroes and gods of their tragedy should appear upon the scene

in the garments of ordinary life. Such an arrangement would have been

inconsistent with the ideal character of Greek tragedy. A special dress

was therefore employed, similar to that of common life, but more flowing

and dignified. The garments were dyed with every variety of brilliant

colour. The bulk of the actor was increased by padding his chest and

limbs, and placing huge wooden soles under his feet. Masks were employed

in which every feature was exaggerated, to give superhuman dignity

and terror to the expression. In this way a conventional costume was

elaborated, which continued for centuries to be the regular dress of the

tragic actors. All the leading characters in a Greek tragedy were dressed

in this fashion, with only such slight variations and additions as the

particular case required.

The origin of this tragic costume is a subject about which very little

is known. According to the later Greek tradition it was invented almost

entirely by Aeschylus.[716] But this is probably an exaggeration.

Aeschylus was no doubt mainly instrumental in developing and improving

the costume, and giving it a definite shape. But that the whole idea of

it was his own creation is hardly credible. Most likely it had existed,

though in a less elaborate form, long before his time. As for its origin,

the most plausible view seems to be that it was derived from the old

traditional garb of the Bacchic cultus, worn by Dionysus himself and by

his chief attendants.[717] Several indications point in this direction.

In early works of art Dionysus and his followers often appear in a long

flowing robe, not unlike that of the tragic stage. They also wear a tall

hunting boot, which was sometimes called the cothurnus, and which may

have been the prototype from which the tragic cothurnus was developed.

The custom of disguising the features with a mask or some similar device

was always a regular institution in the mummeries connected with the

Bacchic worship. The old comic actors, before the invention of the

theatrical mask, used to smear their faces with wine, or cover them with

fig-leaves. Masks were regularly worn in the processions of Dionysus down

to the latest times. The Latin peasantry, at their Bacchic festivals,

used to cover their faces with masks made out of the bark of trees.[718]

All these facts are in favour of the conclusion that the tragic dress,

with its mask, its cothurnus, and its flowing robe, was not so much the

invention of the fifth century as a development from the old festal

costume.[719] This theory has also the advantage of ascribing a parallel

origin to the dresses of the chorus and those of the actors. While the

chorus, in the older drama, appeared in the guise of satyrs or rustic

votaries of Dionysus, the actors, whose part was more dignified, assumed

the garb of Dionysus himself and of his chief attendants. One ancient

tradition asserts that the tragic dress was copied in later times by

the hierophants and torch-bearers at the Eleusinian mysteries.[720]

Some scholars have twisted this tradition round, and suggested that it

was from the hierophants and torch-bearers that the first notion of the

tragic dress was borrowed. But neither view can be regarded as probable.

That the two costumes were not dissimilar seems to be proved by the

existence of the tradition referred to. But it is unlikely that the garb

used at the performances in honour of one deity should have been borrowed

from the cultus of another. The resemblance may be better explained by

the supposition that both costumes were ancient religious dresses, used

in the worship of Dionysus and Demeter respectively.

[Illustration: FIG. 15.]

Whatever may have been the origin of the tragic costume, there is no

doubt that the form of it which eventually prevailed upon the Greek stage

dates from the time of Aeschylus. His creative genius revolutionized

every department of Greek tragedy. It was he who transformed it into an

essentially dramatic species of art, and gave it the characteristics

of grandeur and terror. It was necessary to make a corresponding

improvement in the dresses of the actors, and this reform also was

effected by Aeschylus. The type of costume which he gradually developed

was so well adapted to its purpose, that it continued unchanged in its

principal characteristics throughout the remaining history of Greek

tragedy. Subsequent generations, while making various small additions

and alterations, never altogether abandoned the original design. Our

knowledge of the subject is derived partly from the descriptions of

Pollux and others, partly from works of art. Few of these works,

unfortunately, are of early date. There is the Naples vase, belonging to

the end of the fifth century, and depicting the performers in a satyric

play. The two actors who take the heroic parts in this performance (Fig.

22) are dressed more or less closely in the tragic style. There is also a

votive relief (Fig. 15) from the Peiraeeus, of the early fourth century,

in which three tragic actors are depicted in stage costume, two of them

with their masks in their hands.[721] But the work in this relief is

so bare and devoid of detail, that it adds little to our knowledge.

The Andromeda vase, of the same date, exhibits Andromeda chained to a

rock, with Perseus and other figures on each side of her, and dressed

in a costume which was evidently suggested by that of tragedy, though

it is not a complete theatrical dress.[722] Numerous vases from Magna

Graecia, belonging mostly to the fourth century, represent scenes out of

tragedies.[723] But these too are not portrayed as theatrical scenes;

and the costumes of the characters, though often resembling those of the

tragic stage, cannot be regarded as regular actors’ costumes. Still, all

these paintings are valuable, as exhibiting in a general way some of

the main features of the tragic dress. Apart from examples of the above

kind, the works of art on which we have to depend are all of late date,

and mostly of Italian origin.[724] But Greek tragedies were commonly

performed in Italy even in imperial times; and Roman tragedy was in all

respects a mere reproduction of the Greek. Hence delineations of tragic

scenes and figures, though Italian in origin, present the characteristics

of the Greek stage. It would be unsafe to depend upon them for points

of minute detail. But they correspond in the main with the descriptions

of Pollux, and it is possible to obtain from them a fairly trustworthy

picture of the general appearance of the Greek actors. The accompanying

figure of a tragic actor (Fig. 16) is copied from an ivory statuette

found in the ruins of a villa near Rieti.[725] On comparing together

these various representations, which range in date over a period of

five or six hundred years, it is interesting to find that they all bear

a strong family resemblance to one another. The pictures of the tragic

actor, whether found on Greek vases, Etruscan mosaics, or wall-paintings

of Cyrene and Pompeii, obviously belong to one common type. In spite of

considerable differences in point of detail they portray the same general

conception. This fact confirms the ancient tradition, that the costume

of the tragic stage, in all its more important features, was definitely

settled by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century.

The contrast between the ancient and the modern actor is marked by

nothing so conspicuously as by the use of masks. These masks, or similar

devices, were a regular feature in the old Dionysiac worship, and were

probably inherited as such by the tragic stage, and not invented of set

purpose. With the growth of tragedy they soon acquired a new character.

Thespis, the earliest of tragic actors, is said at the commencement of

his career to have merely painted his face with white lead or purslane.

Later on he employed masks; but these were of a very simple character,

consisting merely of linen, without paint or colouring. Choerilus

introduced certain improvements which are not specified. Phrynichus set

the example of using female masks.[726] Aeschylus was the first to employ

painted masks, and to portray features of a dreadful and awe-inspiring

character. Though not the inventor of the tragic mask, as some ancient

writers assert, he was the first to give it that distinctive character

from which in later times it never varied except in detail.[727] After

the time of Aeschylus there is no further mention of any radical

alterations or improvements in the manufacture of masks.

The use of masks is indissolubly connected with the style and character

of Greek tragedy. It is said to have added resonance to the actor’s

voice; and this was a point of great importance in the vast theatres of

the ancients.[728] Also without masks it would have been impossible

for one actor to play several parts, or for men to play the parts of

women. At the same time the practice had its inconvenient side. The

Greek actor was deprived of any opportunity for displaying those powers

of facial expression which are one of the chief excellences in modern

acting. It was only by his gestures that he could emphasize the meaning

of what he had to say: his features remained immovable. But niceties of

facial expression would have been scarcely visible in the huge expanse

of a Greek theatre. The tragic mask, on which were depicted in bold and

striking lines the main traits in the character represented, was really

much more effective, and could be seen by the most distant spectator.

Then again it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for a Greek

actor to delineate finely drawn shades of individual character. The masks

necessarily ran in general types, such as that of the brutal tyrant,

the crafty statesman, the suffering maiden, and so on. The acting would

have to correspond. It would be difficult to imagine the part of Hamlet

acted in a mask. But the characters of Greek tragedy were mostly types

rather than individuals. The heroes and heroines were drawn in broad

general outlines, and there was little attempt at delicate strokes

of character-painting. The use of masks no doubt helped to give this

particular bent to Greek tragedy.

[Illustration: FIG. 16.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 17.]

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]

[Illustration: FIG. 18.]

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]

[Illustration: FIG. 19.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 20.]

[Illustration: FIG. 21.]

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._

[Illustration: FIG. 22.]

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._

[Illustration: FIG. 23.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 24.]

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.

[Illustration: FIG. 25.]

[Illustration: FIG. 26.]

[Illustration: FIG. 27.]

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.

§ 10. _The Actors’ Guild._

In the course of the fourth century the members of the theatrical

profession at Athens, together with the performers in the various lyric

and musical contests, formed themselves into a guild, for the purpose of

protecting their interests and increasing their importance. The members

of the guild were called The Artists of Dionysus. Poets, actors, and

chorus-singers, trainers, and musicians all belonged to the guild. When

it first came into existence is not known for certain. Sophocles is said

to have formed a sort of literary club, which may have been the prototype

of the guild; but it is possible that there was no connexion between the

two. At any rate it was fully established in the time of Aristotle, by

whom it is mentioned.[822]

The guild was of great value in maintaining and enforcing the various

privileges of the members. These were very considerable. Musical and

dramatic contests among the Greeks were confined almost entirely to

the great religious festivals, and regarded as celebrations in honour

of the gods. The professionals who took part in them were ministers

engaged in the service of the gods, and their presence was necessary

for the due performance of the various observances. To enable them to

fulfil their engagements, many of the ordinary laws and regulations

were relaxed. In the first place actors and musicians were permitted to

travel through foreign and hostile states for the purpose of attending

the festivals. Even in time of war their persons and property were

ensured from violation. Owing to this custom the actors Aristodemus and

Neoptolemus were able to travel frequently to and fro between Athens and

Macedonia during the height of the war, and to assist materially in the

negotiation of the peace.[823] In the second place actors and musicians

claimed to be exempt from naval and military service, in order to pursue

their professional avocations in Athens and elsewhere. In the time of

Demosthenes this immunity from service was occasionally granted, but had

not yet hardened into an invariable custom. Demosthenes mentions the

cases of two musicians who were severely punished for avoiding military

service. One of them was Sannio the chorus-trainer, and the other was

Aristides the chorus-singer. Meidias also is said to have used the most

strenuous exertions to prevent the chorus of Demosthenes from being

exempted from service.[824] At this time, therefore, it seems that such

immunity was sometimes granted and sometimes not. Later on the Guild of

Artists of Dionysus succeeded in getting the Amphictyonic Council to pass

a decree, by which the Athenians were bound as a religious obligation

to grant exemption from military service to all members of the dramatic

and musical profession. In the same decree the duty of allowing them a

safe passage through their territories was enforced upon the Greek nation

generally. This decree was renewed towards the beginning of the third

century at the request of the Guild. A copy of the decree was engraved

on stone and erected in the theatre at Athens, and has fortunately

been preserved.[825] A translation of the more important passages will

be of interest, as throwing light upon the position of the theatrical

profession at Athens. It ran as follows: ‘It was resolved by the

Amphictyonic Council that security of person and property, and exemption

from arrest during peace and war, be ensured to the artists of Dionysus

at Athens; ... that they enjoy that exemption from military service

and that personal security which have previously been granted to them

by the whole Greek nation; that the artists of Dionysus be exempt from

naval and military service, in order that they may hold the appointed

celebrations in honour of the gods at the proper seasons, and be released

from other business, and consecrated to the service of the gods; that

it be unlawful to arrest or seize an artist of Dionysus in time of war

or peace, unless for debt due to a city or a private person; that, if

an artist be arrested in violation of these conditions, the person who

arrests him, and the city in which the violation of the law occurs, be

brought to account before the Amphictyonic Council; that the immunity

from service and personal security which are granted by the Amphictyonic

Council to the artists of Dionysus at Athens be perpetual; that the

secretaries cause a copy of this decree to be engraved on a stone pillar

and erected in the temple, and another sealed copy of the same to be sent

to Athens, in order to show the Athenians that the Amphictyonic Council

is deeply concerned in the observance of religious duties at Athens, and

is ready to accede to the requests of the artists of Dionysus, and to

ratify their present privileges, and confer such other benefits upon them

as may be possible.’ In this decree it is very noticeable that dramatic

and musical performances are treated throughout as divine observances in

honour of the gods, and the actors and other professionals are described

as ministers consecrated to the service of religion. The maintenance

of their privileges is therefore a sacred obligation in which the

Amphictyonic Council is deeply interested.

Another inscription has been preserved referring to the Athenian Guild

of Artists of Dionysus.[826] It appears that the Guild had a sacred

enclosure and altar at Eleusis, where they were accustomed to offer

libations to Demeter and Kore at the time of the Eleusinian mysteries.

During the disturbances of the Sullan campaigns the altar was dismantled,

and the yearly celebrations discontinued. The inscription is a decree of

the Guild thanking a certain Philemon for his exertions in restoring the

altar and renewing the annual ceremonies.

From the time of the fourth century onwards guilds of actors similar

to that at Athens were rapidly formed in various places throughout the

Greek-speaking world. In this way the masterpieces of Greek tragedy were

made familiar to the most remote districts to which Greek civilization

had penetrated. But it is beyond the scope of the present work to

trace the progress of the Greek drama outside the limits of Athens and

Attica.[827]

§ 11. _Social Position of Actors._

In Greece the profession of the actor was an honourable one, and there

was no suspicion of degradation about it, as there was in Rome.[828]

Actors and other dramatic performers were regarded as ministers of

religion. In the dramatic exhibitions at Athens the actors were placed on

the same level as the poets and choregi. Their names were recorded in the

public archives, and in commemorative tablets; and competitions in acting

were established side by side with the competitions between the poets.

It is true that Aeschines is very frequently taunted by Demosthenes with

his theatrical career, but the taunts are due to the fact, not that he

was an actor, but that he was an unsuccessful one. Actors at the head of

their profession occupied a very distinguished position. Aristodemus, the

tragic actor, was on two occasions sent as ambassador to Macedon by the

Athenians, and was largely instrumental in negotiating the peace.[829]

The great Athenian actors were much sought after by the monarchs of the

time. Aristodemus and Neoptolemus were frequently at the court of Philip,

and Thessalus and Athenodorus at the court of Alexander.[830] Thessalus

was a great favourite with Alexander, and was employed by him on delicate

missions.[831] The leading actors seem to have made large incomes. For

instance, Polus told Demosthenes that he was paid a talent for acting

during two days, only.[832] It is not stated whether the performance

to which he refers took place at Athens, or elsewhere; but in all

probability it was in some foreign state. There is no evidence to show

what salaries were paid to the actors at the great Athenian festivals.

As for the lower ranks of the profession, the tritagonists,

chorus-singers, musicians, and so on, though there was nothing

dishonourable about their calling, their reputation does not seem to

have been very high. Their strolling and uncertain manner of life

seems to have had a bad effect upon their character. Aristotle, in his

Problems, asks the question why it is that the artists of Dionysus are

generally men of bad character. He thinks the reason is partly due to the

vicissitudes in their fortunes, and the rapid alternations between luxury

and poverty, partly to the fact that their professional duties left them

no time for general culture.[833] His remarks of course apply mainly to

the lower grades of the profession.

§ 12. _Celebrated Athenian Actors._

Before concluding this account of Greek acting some notice of the

principal Greek actors may not be out of place. Unfortunately in most

cases little more is known about them than their names. Several tragic

actors of the fifth century are referred to by ancient writers, such as

Cleander and Mynniscus, the actors of Aeschylus, and Cleidemides and

Tlepolemus, the actors of Sophocles.[834] But no details are recorded as

to their individual characteristics and different styles. One interesting

fact is known about Mynniscus, to the effect that he considered the

acting of his successors as deficient in dignity and over-realistic.

He was especially severe upon Callippides, the representative of the

younger generation of actors.[835] This Callippides was notorious for his

conceit. On one occasion, when he was giving himself airs in the presence

of Agesilaus the Spartan, he was considerably disconcerted by being

asked by the latter whether he was ‘Callippides the pantaloon’.[836]

Another tragic actor of the same period was Nicostratus, who was

especially excellent in his delivery of the long narrative speeches

of the messengers. His style was so perfect that to ‘do a thing like

Nicostratus’ came to be a proverbial expression for doing it rightly.[837]

But it was in the age of Demosthenes that the most celebrated group

of tragic actors flourished. Among them was Polus of Aegina, who was

considered to be the greatest actor of his time, and whose name is very

frequently referred to by later writers. He was one of the actors who had

the credit of having taught elocution to Demosthenes.[838] At the age of

seventy, and shortly before his death, he performed the feat of acting

eight tragedies in four days.[839] A well-known story is told about him

to the following effect. Soon after the death of a favourite son, he

happened to be acting the part of Electra in the play of Sophocles. In

the scene in which Electra takes in her hands the urn supposed to contain

the ashes of Orestes, and pours forth a lamentation over his death,

Polus came upon the stage with the urn containing the ashes of his own

son, and holding it in his hands proceeded to act the scene with such

profound depth of feeling as to produce the greatest impression upon the

audience. As Gellius remarks, the acting in this case was no fiction, but

a reality.[840] Another of the great actors of this time was Theodorus,

about whom a few facts are recorded. The exceedingly natural tone of his

delivery, and his habit of never permitting any of the subordinate actors

to appear upon the stage before himself, have already been referred

to. He considered that tragedy was much more difficult to act in than

comedy, and once told the comic actor Satyrus that it was easy enough to

make an audience laugh, but to make them weep was the difficulty.[841]

His own powers in this respect were very great. Once when acting in

Thessaly he produced such an effect upon the brutal tyrant Alexander of

Pherae that Alexander was compelled to leave the theatre, because, as he

afterwards told Theodorus, he was ashamed to be seen weeping over the

sufferings of an actor, while he was perfectly callous about those of

his countrymen.[842] The tomb of Theodorus, close to the banks of the

Cephisus, was still to be seen in the time of Pausanias.[843]

The other leading tragic actors of this period were Aristodemus,

Neoptolemus, Thessalus, and Athenodorus. The two former were frequently

at the court of Philip, and took a large part in bringing about the peace

of Philocrates. They are therefore denounced by Demosthenes as traitors

to their country, and advocates of Philip’s interests.[844] Neoptolemus

was the actor who, at the banquet held in Philip’s palace on the day

before his assassination, recited a passage out of a tragedy bearing upon

the uncertainty of human fortune, and the inexorable power of death. The

fact was afterwards remembered as an ominous coincidence.[845] Thessalus

and Athenodorus were often rivals. At Tyre, after the return of Alexander

from Egypt, they were the principal competitors in the great tragic

contest, in which the kings of Cyprus were the choregi, and the chief

generals of the army acted as judges. On this occasion Athenodorus won,

to the great grief of Alexander, who said he would have given a part of

his kingdom to have ensured the victory of Thessalus.[846] The same two

actors were also competitors at the City Dionysia in the year 341, but

both of them were then beaten by Neoptolemus.[847]

Among the Greeks the distinction between the tragic and the comic actors

was as complete as that between the tragic and comic poets.[848] There

are no instances during the classical period of an actor attempting both

branches of the profession. Still less is recorded about the great comic

actors than about the actors of tragedy. A few names are mentioned, but

there is almost a total absence of details concerning their style and

mannerisms. We are told that one of Hermon’s jests was to knock the heads

of his fellow-actors with a stick, and that Parmenon was celebrated for

his skill in imitating the grunting of a hog.[849] Interesting criticisms

on the acting and the actors in comedy are unfortunately nowhere to be

found.