THE CHORUS
§ 1. _History of the Chorus._
The history of the chorus in the Greek drama is a history of gradual
decay. In the earliest period, when both tragedy and comedy were mainly
lyrical, the members of the chorus were the sole performers. After the
introduction of actors and dialogue the chorus still continued for a time
to play the leading part. But from the beginning of the fifth century
it began slowly to dwindle in importance, until at length it either
disappeared altogether, or sank to the position of the band in a modern
theatre. As far as tragedy is concerned the process of decline can be
traced with clearness in the existing dramas. It takes various forms.
In the first place there is a gradual diminution in the length of the
part assigned to the chorus. In the Supplices, the oldest of existing
Greek tragedies, the choral part forms no less than three-fifths of the
whole composition. In the other plays of Aeschylus, with the exception
of the Prometheus, it amounts on the average to about a half. In the
tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides the size is very much reduced.
The choral part in Sophocles varies from about a quarter of the whole
in the Ajax and the Antigone to about a seventh in the Electra and the
Philoctetes. In Euripides it varies from about a quarter in such plays
as the Bacchae and Alcestis to about a ninth in the Orestes. It appears
therefore that in the fifth century the part of the chorus was gradually
but continuously diminished in size. Then again there is a constant
tendency throughout the century to reduce the importance of the chorus
by severing its connexion with the plot. In the lyrical tragedies of
the earliest period the chorus was no doubt on most occasions the
principal object of interest, and took the leading part in the play. This
is still the case in some of the extant tragedies of Aeschylus. In the
Supplices, for instance, the whole subject of the plot is the destiny
of the fugitive maidens who form the chorus. It is their adventures
which excite the sympathy of the audience; the other characters are of
very little significance. In the Eumenides the interest centres chiefly
round the conduct and feelings of the Furies. Even in the Septem and the
Persae, though the chorus play a less prominent part, their connexion
with the plot is still a very close one. Their destiny is involved in
that of the principal characters. But in the other plays of Aeschylus
the chorus begins to take much the same position as it occupies in
Sophocles, and in the earlier plays of Euripides. It was at this period
that Attic tragedy reached its highest perfection, and the question as
to the proper place of the chorus in the plot was solved in the manner
most consistent with the genius of Greek drama. The chorus is now thrown
much further into the background, and appears in most plays, not as a
participant in the action, but merely as a sympathetic witness. While
the dialogue is proceeding, it follows the course of events with the
keenest interest, but seldom actively interferes. In the pauses between
the action it moralizes on the significance of the incidents which have
just occurred. Such is its position during the middle of the century. It
has been removed from the stress and turmoil of the action into a calmer
and more remote region, though it still preserves its interest in the
events upon the stage. But in the later plays of Euripides a further
development is noticeable. The chorus begins to lose even its interest
in the action. In the pauses between the dialogue it sings odes of a
mythological character, which have only the remotest connexion with the
incidents of the plot. In the course of the dialogue itself it converses
less frequently with the actors than it had done hitherto. There is
also a tendency to transfer much of the music from the orchestra to the
stage. The old duets between actors and chorus are reduced both in size
and number, and their place is taken by solos and duets sung exclusively
upon the stage. This tendency to exclude the chorus from the play was
carried still further by Agathon, who gave up all pretence of connexion
between the plot and the songs of the chorus, and converted his odes
into professed interludes. In the time of Aristotle this practice had
become universal. The choral odes were now regarded in much the same
light as the pieces of music performed between the acts in a modern
theatre.[850] Whether the chorus still took any part in the dialogue is
not stated. But we can hardly doubt that the tendency already strongly
marked in Euripides had been developed to its natural results, and that
the tragic chorus of the later fourth century was practically excluded
from all share in the conduct of the play. After the fourth century very
little is known about its history. But the evidence seems to show that
it was sometimes discarded even as early as the third century; and in
later times this came to be more and more the ordinary custom. Even when
retained, its functions were merely those of the modern band.[851]
The history of the comic chorus is very similar. If we look at the extant
plays of Aristophanes, we find that in the first nine, which were all
produced in the fifth century, the chorus is an important and conspicuous
element. But in the tenth, the Ecclesiazusae, which was brought out in
392, there is a great change. The parabasis has disappeared, and the
functions of the chorus are mainly confined to the singing of three
or four odes, of no great length. In the Plutus, produced in 388, the
decline of the chorus is still more marked. It has only about forty
lines assigned to it in the course of the dialogue; and in the pauses
between the dialogue it sang interludes unconnected with the plot.[852]
During the rest of the century the comic chorus seems to have still
lingered on in a position similar to that which it holds in the Plutus.
The grammarians who say that it was abolished entirely by the Middle
Comedy apparently exaggerate the state of affairs.[853] There was still a
comic chorus in the time of Aristotle.[854] Even in the New Comedy the
earlier poets, such as Menander and Philemon, appear to have retained
it in some of their plays, though merely for the purpose of providing
interludes.[855] After the fourth century there are few traces of its
presence. It is true that it was regularly used in the comedies at the
Delphic Soteria during the third century.[856] It is mentioned in the
accounts of the Hieropoioi at Delos in 279 B.C.[857] It is found also in
one comedy of Plautus, the Rudens. But in Terence there are no signs of
it. This fact, combined with the statement of the grammarians that the
New Comedy had no chorus, makes it certain that after the third century
it had practically disappeared.[858]
§ 2. _Size of the Chorus._
The tragic chorus, being a direct descendant of the old dithyrambic
choruses, originally consisted of fifty members.[859] After all connexion
between tragedy and the dithyramb had been severed, the number of the
choreutae in a tragic chorus was reduced to twelve. It has been suggested
that this number was due to the practice of each poet exhibiting four
tragedies at a time. It is supposed that the original chorus of fifty was
divided as equally as possible among the four tragedies, so that each
chorus came to consist of twelve members. The conjecture is a plausible
one, but cannot be regarded as certain, owing to the scantiness of our
information concerning the early history of tragedy. The size of the
tragic chorus remained unaltered until the time of Sophocles, and in all
the earlier plays of Aeschylus twelve choreutae are employed. Sophocles
raised the number from twelve to fifteen.[860] After his time there was
no further change during the great period of the Attic drama. The tragic
chorus was always composed of fifteen persons. The various technical
terms which refer to the arrangement of the tragic chorus are all based
on the supposition that it is a chorus of fifteen. It is not quite
certain whether the innovation of Sophocles was adopted by Aeschylus in
his later plays. The Oresteia of Aeschylus was brought out ten years
after the first appearance of Sophocles; and it has been contended that
the chorus in this trilogy contained fifteen members. There is hardly
sufficient evidence to determine the matter with any certainty.[861] On
general grounds it seems probable that Aeschylus should have followed
the example of Sophocles. At any rate there is no doubt that after the
middle of the fifth century the number of the choreutae was fixed at
fifteen.[862] The satyric chorus was of the same size as the tragic—a
natural result of the intimate connexion between tragedy and the satyric
drama.[863] The comic chorus, as long as it continued to be an integral
part of the play, invariably consisted of twenty-four members. All the
authorities are unanimous on the subject.[864] These were the numbers
adopted in the various kinds of drama throughout the classical period
of Greek literature. But in later times, after the dramatic choruses had
been reduced to insignificance, and merely provided the music between
the successive acts, their size, at any rate in some theatres, appears
to have been diminished. Thus the comic chorus at the Delphic Soteria
contained only seven members; and the tragic chorus depicted on the
wall-painting at Cyrene is also a chorus of seven.[865] Whether these
cases were exceptional, or whether seven had now come to be the usual
number of a theatrical chorus, there is no evidence to show.
The size of the chorus in the Greek drama was regulated by conventional
rules, and no change was made to suit the requirements of a particular
play. For instance, in the Supplices of Aeschylus the number of the
Danaides was fifty, but the chorus probably consisted of twelve maidens
who did duty for the fifty. In the Supplices of Euripides the actual
suppliants were the seven wives of the slaughtered chieftains, but
the chorus was raised to its proper number by the addition of female
attendants. It has sometimes been suggested that in the Eumenides, where
the Furies are twelve or fifteen instead of three, legendary tradition
was sacrificed to theatrical requirements. But, as there is no evidence
to show that the number of the Furies had been settled at three as early
as the time of Aeschylus, it is quite possible that in this case the
usual size of the chorus was not inappropriate.
§ 3. _Costume of the Chorus._
The costume of the chorus, as already pointed out, was entirely distinct
from that of the actors. The tragic, comic, and satyric choruses all
wore masks, in accordance with the usual Bacchic tradition.[866] In
other respects their costume had nothing in common, but was designed in
accordance with the spirit of the respective types of drama. The tragic
chorus was usually composed of old men, or women, or maidens. In such
cases they wore the ordinary Greek dress, consisting of a tunic and a
mantle. No attempt was made to give them an impressive appearance by
the use of strange and magnificent costumes, similar to those worn by
the actors. Such costumes were perfectly appropriate to the heroes and
gods upon the stage, but would have been out of place in the chorus,
which was generally supposed to represent the ordinary public. The
masks of the tragic chorus would of course be suitable to the age and
sex of the persons represented. A special kind of white shoe, said to
be the invention of Sophocles, was worn by the tragic chorus.[867] Old
men usually carried a staff.[868] Various little details in dress and
equipment would be added according to circumstances. Thus the chorus of
bereaved matrons in the Supplices of Euripides were dressed in black
garments, and had their hair cut short, as a sign of mourning; and
carried branches twined with wool, the symbol of supplication, in their
hands. The chorus of maidens in the Choephori, who had come to offer
libations at the tomb of Agamemnon, were also dressed in black.[869]
In some cases the tragic chorus was altogether of an exceptional
character, and required a special costume. In the Supplices of Aeschylus
the daughters of the Egyptian Danaus appear to have been dressed as
foreigners. Probably the same was the case with the Persian Elders in
the Persae. The Bacchantes in the play of Euripides carried tambourines
in their hands, and were doubtless also provided with fawn-skins and
wands of ivy.[870] But no tragic chorus ever caused a greater sensation
than the chorus of Furies in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. Their costume
was designed by Aeschylus himself, and the snakes in the hair, which
afterwards became one of their regular attributes, were specially
invented for the occasion. As they rushed into the orchestra, their black
dresses, distorted features, and snaky locks are said to have inspired
the spectators with terror.[871] But this chorus was of a very unusual
kind. In most cases the tragic chorus was composed of ordinary men and
women, and their dress was that of everyday life.
[Illustration: FIG. 28.]
The choruses of goat-like satyrs who sang the dithyrambs in honour of
Dionysus were the original source both of tragedy and of the satyric
drama. These satyrs appear to have been an importation from the
Peloponnesus. They are unknown to the oldest Ionic traditions. Among the
primitive Ionians their place is taken by the Sileni—beings of a similar
type, but resembling horses rather than goats.[872] Thus in the Homeric
hymns it is the Sileni who are mentioned as companions of Dionysus, and
there is no reference to the satyrs.[873] In the earliest Attic vases
satyrs are never depicted, but only the horse-like Sileni. That the
satyrs, with their goatish horns and tails, were a Doric conception
is proved by various indications. In a fragment of Hesiod, where they
are mentioned for the first time, the account of their genealogy which
is given connects them with Argos.[874] We hear of ‘goat choruses’ as
an ancient institution at Sicyon.[875] Pratinas, the first celebrated
writer of satyric drama, was a native of Phlius. As for the costume of
the satyrs who formed the chorus of the primitive drama there is not
very much evidence of an early date. Vases depicting Bacchic scenes are
sufficiently common, but few of them can be shown to have any connexion
with a dramatic performance. The earliest reliable testimony is that
supplied by the Pandora vase.[876] This vase, which belongs to the middle
of the fifth century, contains a scene from the Pandora myth, and also
a representation of a group of masked satyrs (Fig. 28) dancing round
a flute-player. The satyrs are portrayed as half men and half goats.
They have goat’s horns upon their heads, and goat’s hoofs instead of
feet; and their tails are those of goats. Such seems to have been the
appearance of a satyric chorus at the time the vase was painted. The next
representation in point of date is that of the Naples vase (Fig. 29),
which is about fifty years later. Here there is a considerable change
in the make-up of the satyrs. The goatish element is less conspicuous.
The goat’s horns and hoofs have disappeared, and the tail is more like
that of a horse. In fact the type begins to approximate to that of
the old Ionic Sileni, or horse-deities. The only part which resembles
a goat is the shaggy skin round the loins. The style of satyr here
depicted is the one which eventually prevailed in the theatre. Later
representations of satyric choruses portray them in much the same way as
the Naples vase, with goat’s loins and horse’s tails, but without hoofs
or horns.[877] This evidence shows us that the satyr of the fourth and
subsequent centuries was a modification of the original conception. The
earliest stage satyrs were genuine goat-deities of the Doric type. But
in the course of the fifth century there was a reaction in favour of the
indigenous Sileni or horse-deities. The two types were mixed together,
and so produced the conventional satyr of the later theatre.[878] Some
scholars maintain that the type was the same from the first, and that the
old dancers in the tragic and satyric drama resembled Sileni more than
satyrs.[879] But this theory is scarcely compatible with the evidence of
the Pandora vase. The fact, too, that tragedy was called the ‘goat-song’
seems to prove decisively that the oldest choruses were composed of
goat-like beings.[880] There is also a fragment of a satyric play by
Aeschylus in which one of the chorus-singers is actually addressed as
a goat.[881] With this evidence before us we can hardly doubt that the
Doric satyrs were the original performers in Attic tragedy and satyric
drama, and that the Ionic element was introduced later on.
[Illustration: FIG. 29.]
Some other points in connexion with the satyr’s costume have still to
be mentioned. The phallus, the regular symbol of Dionysiac worship, was
invariably worn. The goat-skin round the loins was often replaced by a
conventional substitute, consisting of drawers of some woven material, to
which the tail and phallus were attached. Drawers of this kind are worn
by all the satyrs in the Pandora vase, and by one satyr in the Naples
vase, and are also found in a later painting.[882] Apart from the drawers
and the goat-skin, the satyrs are represented in the works of art as
perfectly naked.[883] But probably in the theatre they had flesh-coloured
tights, similar to those used by the comic actors. Slippers were no doubt
also used, and may in early times have been made in imitation of a hoof,
as in the Pandora vase. In addition to the regular satyric costume the
satyrs occasionally wore other clothes, suited to the part they played in
the particular drama. Thus the satyrs in the Cyclops of Euripides, being
servants of Polyphemus, were dressed in the ordinary leather jerkin of
the serving-man.[884] Silenus, the head of the troop, was not a member of
the chorus, but appeared upon the stage with the other actors. His dress
has been described already. He was a sort of elderly satyr, and is to be
distinguished from the old Ionic Sileni, whose appearance was entirely
different. His origin is rather obscure; but he may perhaps have been a
later development, suggested by the requirements of the satyric drama.
The chorus in the Old Comedy, unlike that of the satyric drama, was
of the most varied and fanciful character, and was drawn from every
possible source. All classes and professions were introduced at some
time or another.[885] There were choruses of Poets, Sophists, Athletes,
Trades-women, Sorcerers, Knights, Drummers, and so on. Foreign nations
were often represented, such as Persians, Macedonians, and Thracian
women. Even individuals were multiplied into a species, and produced
choruses of Hesiodi and Archilochi. When the members consisted of human
beings, they were dressed in the tunic and mantle of ordinary life,
with such slight additions as were necessary to mark the different
professions and nationalities. The mantle was laid aside for the purpose
of dancing, as the dances of the Old Comedy were of a wild and energetic
character, and required freedom of action.[886] The masks were of a
ludicrous type, with the features distorted.[887] In addition to the
human choruses there were also those composed of mythological beings,
such as Furies, Amazons, Sphinxes, and Sirens. These would be dressed no
doubt in the traditional costume. Many choruses consisted of fanciful
and ridiculous personifications. There were choruses of Towns, Islands,
and Merchant ships; of Clouds and Seasons; of Dramas and Epistles. In
all these cases the dress and general make-up appear to have been of
a grotesque character, and only in a remote degree emblematic of the
ideas and objects personified. For instance, the Clouds of Aristophanes
appeared as women dressed in gaily coloured garments, and wore masks
of a ridiculous type, with long noses and other exaggerations. The only
resemblance to Clouds was in the colours of the dresses.[888] Probably
in other similar cases the personification was carried out in the same
rough-and-ready manner. Another class of choruses was composed of various
kinds of animals. We have the Birds and Wasps of Aristophanes; and we
hear of other poets introducing Goats, Frogs, Vultures, Storks, Ants,
Fishes, Bees, Nightingales, and so on. Choruses of this kind appear to
have been a favourite institution among the Athenians, quite apart from
the drama. A theory has been propounded that they were survivals of an
old theriomorphic form of worship, and that they were the original source
of the comic chorus.[889] As for their connexion with a primitive type of
religion, this is a speculative subject with which we have no concern.
But the notion that they were the prototype of the comic chorus is not
sufficiently supported by evidence. This chorus consisted originally
of the ‘comus’, or band of revellers, who led the phallic processions
in honour of Dionysus; and there is no reason to suppose that these
revellers were dressed otherwise than as men. The varied character of the
later chorus was due to the fancy and imagination of the Attic poets, who
introduced all kinds of eccentric beings upon the stage, and among them
choruses of animals. These latter, however, were only a small proportion
of the whole, and it seems hardly justifiable to choose them out from
the rest as specially connected with the origin of comedy. As regards
the costume of these animal choruses, it would be highly interesting to
know how it was managed. There are five vase-paintings of the early fifth
century which depict such choruses dancing to the accompaniment of a
flute-player; though it is doubtful whether in any case the performance
is of a dramatic kind. One of these choruses consists of men disguised as
horses, with knights riding on their shoulders; and it has been suggested
that the chorus of Knights in Aristophanes was represented in this
way.[890] Two others depict men riding on ostriches or on dolphins.[891]
In these pictures, however, the whole conception is far too fanciful
and unreal to throw any light on the question of the costume actually
used in the theatre. In another vase the dancers are tall figures, with
heads like those of a cock, and bodies enveloped in long cloaks.[892]
A dress of this kind might have been employed upon the stage; but
unfortunately the cloaks conceal so much of the dancer’s person that the
evidence of the vase is not very instructive. The best painting for our
present purpose is one which represents a chorus of birds, and which is
here reproduced (Fig. 30).[893] The costume is clearly delineated. The
bodies of the choreutae are covered with a close-fitting dress, made in
rough imitation of feathers. Two long ends hang down from each side of
the waist, and a bunch of feathers is affixed to each knee. The arms
are provided with wings. A row of upright feathers is attached to the
crown of the head, and the mask is made with a long and pointed nose,
suggestive of the beak of a bird. From this painting we may obtain a
fairly clear idea of the manner in which animals were imitated in the
Old Comedy. We see that there was none of the realism one meets with
in a modern pantomime. The imitation was only carried so far as to be
generally suggestive of the animal intended. The body and legs were
left unfettered, to allow of free movement in the dance. At the same
time, to judge from the specimen before us, the costumes seem to have
been designed with a great deal of spirit and humour, and to have been
extremely well adapted to the purpose for which they were intended.
[Illustration: FIG. 30.]
§ 4. _Arrangement of the Chorus._
Except on rare occasions the dramatic choruses were drawn up in
formations of military regularity, both on their first entrance, and
during the progress of the play. They presented a perfectly symmetrical
appearance in the orchestra. In this respect they offer a contrast to
the choruses in a modern opera, and to the crowds which are introduced
upon the modern stage. As a rule no attempt was made to imitate the
fluctuating movements and haphazard grouping of an ordinary crowd. The
chorus marched into the orchestra, and took up its position before the
stage, with the regularity and precision of a body of soldiers. In all
dramatic choruses—tragic, comic, and satyric—the rectangular formation
was invariably adopted, as opposed to the circular arrangement of the
dithyrambic choruses.[894] This quadrangular formation was probably
of Doric origin.[895] Every dramatic chorus, when drawn up in this
way, consisted of a certain number of ‘ranks’, and a certain number of
‘files’. For instance, the tragic chorus, with its fifteen members,
contained five ranks of three men each, and three files of five men each.
Similarly the comic chorus, which was composed of twenty-four persons,
contained six ranks of four men each, and four files of six men each.
According to the Attic phraseology a chorus was said to be drawn up ‘by
ranks’ when the different members of the same rank stood one behind the
other. It was said to be drawn up ‘by files’ when the members of the
same file were one behind the other. Accordingly, when a tragic chorus
was drawn up ‘by ranks’, the men stood five abreast and three deep. When
it was drawn up ‘by files’, they stood three abreast and five deep. The
same regulations applied to the comic chorus. It might be arranged ‘by
ranks’, with the men six abreast and four deep; or ‘by files’, with the
men four abreast and six deep.[896] The arrangements throughout were
of this military character. In fact the training of a choreutes was
considered by many of the ancient writers to be an excellent preparation
for warlike service.[897]
[Illustration: FIG. 31.]
In the great majority of cases the chorus was supposed to consist of
persons from the neighbourhood, and therefore entered the orchestra
by the western passage. Their right side was towards the stage, and
their left side towards the spectators. As a consequence, the left side
of the chorus was much the most conspicuous and important, and the
best-trained choreutae were placed there.[898] The tragic chorus might
enter five abreast and three deep, or three abreast and five deep,
according as the formation was by ranks or by files. As a matter of fact
the arrangement by files was the one almost invariably adopted. There
are several technical terms in connexion with the tragic chorus, and
they all refer to a chorus which is supposed to be entering from the
western side, and to be drawn up three abreast and five deep. An oblong
formation of this kind would evidently be more convenient in the narrow
side-entrances, and would present a broader surface to the spectators
and to the stage. The diagram (Fig. 31) represents a tragic chorus
entering three abreast from the western parodos. The members of the first
file were called ‘aristerostatae’, or ‘men on the left’, and consisted
of the handsomest and most skilful of the choreutae. The middle file
was the least important of the three, as it was most out of sight of
the spectators. The worst choreutae were placed in this file, and were
called ‘laurostatae’, or ‘men in the passage’. The third file was the
one nearest to the stage. Occasionally, if the chorus wheeled completely
round, it came in full view of the spectators. It was therefore of
more importance than the middle file, and a better class of choreutae
were placed in it. They were called the ‘dexiostatae’, or ‘men on the
right’.[899] The six men who composed the front and hindmost ranks—nos.
1, 6, 11, 5, 10, and 15 in the diagram—were styled ‘kraspeditae’,
or ‘fringe-men’.[900] Finally, the three files had different names,
according to their relative proximity to the spectators. The members of
the left file were called ‘front-line men’; the members of the middle
and right-hand files were called ‘second-line men’ and ‘third-line men’
respectively.[901]
The central position, no. 3 in the diagram, was occupied by the
coryphaeus, or leader of the chorus.[902] The post of the leader was an
extremely arduous one. While the dialogue was in progress, he had to
carry on conversations with the actors upon the stage. During the choral
odes he had to give the note to the choreutae, and superintend the dances
and manœuvres. At the same time his own dancing and mimetic gestures were
supposed to be a conspicuous feature in the performance. Demosthenes,
speaking of dithyrambic choruses, says that the loss of the coryphaeus
means the ruin of the chorus; and this must have been still more the
case in a dramatic performance.[903] On the other hand the possession
of a skilful leader would contribute very largely to the success of the
chorus and of the drama. The choreutae on each side of the leader, nos. 2
and 4 in the diagram, were called his ‘parastatae’, or ‘assistants’, and
were next in importance to the leader himself. The two choreutae on the
outside, nos. 1 and 5 in the diagram, were called the ‘third men’.[904]
As already remarked, the coryphaeus, together with the other four members
of the left file, constituted the pick of the whole chorus.
Concerning the formation in which the comic chorus entered the orchestra
there is not much information. Like the tragic chorus, it might enter
either by ranks or by files; that is to say, it might come in six abreast
and four deep, or four abreast and six deep. There can be no doubt that
the oblong formation of four abreast and six deep was the one usually
adopted. It would be more suitable from every point of view. Both the
tragic and the comic choruses were probably preceded into the orchestra
by the flute-player.[905] On certain rare occasions the formal entrance
in a rectangular body was dispensed with, and an irregular mode of
entrance was adopted, in order to produce a dramatic effect. The best
example is in the Eumenides of Aeschylus. When the Furies made their
second appearance, they came rushing into the orchestra one by one,
in hot pursuit of Orestes, and created a profound sensation by their
movements and appearance.[906] There is another instance in the Birds of
Aristophanes. The birds begin by entering one by one. The flamingo comes
first, and its appearance is criticized by the actors upon the stage.
The cock follows, and is similarly criticized. Then comes the hoopoe,
and after it the glutton-bird. These, as we have seen, were probably
musicians. Finally, the chorus of twenty-four birds come fluttering in
together, so as to block up the side-entrances.[907] In the Lysistrata
the chorus is divided into two halves, one consisting of men, the other
of women. The chorus of men enters first; the chorus of women follows
after an interval.[908] But instances of this kind were very rare and
exceptional. Usually the chorus entered in a rectangular body, with the
precision of a troop of soldiers.
In most cases the entrance of the chorus took place at the conclusion
of the ‘prologue’ or introductory scene upon the stage; and the march
in was accompanied by a chant, which was called the ‘parodos’, or
entrance-song.[909] However, in a considerable number of plays there
was no parodos at all, but the chorus entered the orchestra in silence,
while the first act of the drama was in progress, and then commenced a
musical dialogue with the actors upon the stage. Instances of this mode
of entrance are to be found in such tragedies as the Electra of Sophocles
and the Orestes of Euripides.[910] A few plays do not conform to either
of these two conventional types. Occasionally, for instance, there is
no prologue, and the play begins with the parodos, as in the Supplices
and Persae of Aeschylus. This was no doubt the old-fashioned mode of
commencement, derived from the times when the drama was still entirely
lyrical. Then again, in the Eumenides the parodos is sung on the second
entrance of the Furies, after their arrival at Athens. In the Supplices
of Euripides the chorus are seen kneeling upon the stage in supplication
when the play commences. There they remain in silence during the
performance of the prologue, and then proceed to sing an ode, in place
of the usual parodos, from their position on the stage. In the Clouds it
appears that the chorus chant the first two odes behind the scenes, and
then enter the orchestra silently. The Rhesus commences with a dialogue
in anapaests between Hector and the chorus.
The next point to be considered is the position taken up by the chorus
after entering the orchestra. On most occasions, as already stated, the
chorus came in by the western side, drawn up in rectangular formation,
with the stage on its right hand and the spectators on its left. It
advanced half-way into the orchestra, then came to a halt, and each
member of the chorus turned round to the right, so as to face the stage.
By this manœuvre the whole chorus was made to look towards the stage, and
the arrangement by files was converted into one by ranks. For instance,
the tragic chorus, which had entered three abreast and five deep, now
stood before the stage five abreast and three deep. The coryphaeus and
principal choreutae stood in the back line, and retained their position
nearest to the spectators, and furthest away from the stage. This
position they kept throughout the performance.[911] In a similar manner
the comic chorus, after entering the orchestra four abreast and six
deep, would halt in front of the stage, go through the manœuvre just
described, and convert itself into a body standing six abreast and four
deep. There is no information as to the position of the coryphaeus in the
comic chorus. But there can be no doubt that, like the tragic coryphaeus,
he stood in the back row, as near as possible to the spectators.
While the actors were upon the stage, and the dialogue was in progress,
the chorus continued to stand with their backs towards the spectators,
and their faces towards the stage, so as to follow the course of the
action.[912] This was their normal position during the play, and,
although it may seem strange to our modern ideas, it was a necessary
consequence of the peculiar circumstances under which the Greek drama
was developed. When the stage was empty, the pauses between the acts
were filled up by the choral odes called stasima. There is no reliable
information as to the position and movements of the chorus during the
performance of the stasima. As the singing was accompanied by dancing,
the choreutae must have been moving to and fro. But in the absence of
evidence it seems useless to venture on conjectures as to the exact
nature of the evolutions. One thing may be regarded as certain, that
during the performance of the stasima the chorus did not continue to
face towards the empty stage, and turn their backs upon the audience.
Such a position would have been quite unnatural and unmeaning. In the
Old Comedy there was a peculiar sort of interlude called the parabasis,
which came during a pause in the action, and consisted of a series of
lyrics and addresses, delivered by the chorus, and dealing with ordinary
topics of the day. While reciting the first part of the parabasis the
chorus wheeled completely round so as to face the spectators. Hence the
name ‘parabasis’, which means ‘a turning aside’. The latter part was
antistrophical in form, and during its delivery the chorus separated into
two divisions, which stood facing one another. The different portions of
the parabasis were then given by each division in turn.[913]
Sometimes, though not often, in the course of a play the chorus left the
orchestra for a short period, and made a second entrance later on.[914]
The instances of the practice which occur in the Eumenides and the Ajax
were necessitated by the change of scene in those plays.[915] There is
another example in the Helena of Euripides. Helen and the chorus retire
into the palace, to inquire about the fate of Menelaus from Theonoe. In
their absence Menelaus enters the stage, and recounts his adventures
to the audience. Then Helen and the chorus return, and the recognition
gradually takes place.[916] Similar temporary departures of the chorus
are to be found in the Alcestis and the Ecclesiazusae; but they seem to
have been of very rare occurrence.[917] At the end of the play the chorus
retired by the passage from which it had entered, and was preceded by
the flute-player.[918] In the Seven against Thebes the chorus leave the
orchestra in two divisions, one following the body of Polyneices, the
other that of Eteocles. But in most cases they probably marched but in
the same rectangular formation in which they had entered.
§ 5. _The Delivery of the Choral Part._
As regards the delivery of the words, the chorus, like the actors, was
not confined to one manner only, but used song, speech, and recitative
by turns, according to the varying character of the metre. The lyrical
portions of the drama were almost invariably sung. The ordinary iambic
trimeters were spoken. The systems of anapaestic dimeters, and the
iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic tetrameters were delivered in recitative
to the accompaniment of the flute.[919] A question now arises which is
of great interest and importance in connexion with the choral part of
the performance. It is obvious to any reader of a Greek play that many
of the speeches and songs assigned to the chorus were not intended to be
delivered by the whole of the chorus, but by individual members. This
fact is patent to every one. But when any attempt is made to settle the
exact character of the distribution the greatest diversity of opinion
prevails. Attempts have been made to portion out the choral odes
between different members and sections of the chorus on the strength of
indications supplied by the metre, or by the sense of the words.[920]
But it is plain that inferences based on evidence of this kind must be
very uncertain in character. As a matter of fact different investigators
have arrived at the most contradictory conclusions. Hence in the present
state of our knowledge any detailed account of the matter is out of
the question. It will be necessary to be content with certain general
conclusions, which are based on actual evidence, or are so plausible in
themselves as to be very widely accepted.
First, then, as to the part taken by the chorus as a whole. In ordinary
circumstances the parodos and the stasima appear to have been sung by
the whole chorus together. The parodos, as already explained, was the
song of the chorus on its first entrance. The stasima were the long and
important odes inserted between the successive divisions of the play, in
order to fill up the pauses in the action. It is natural in itself to
suppose that these portions should have been sung by the whole chorus,
and the supposition is borne out by the statements of Aristotle.[921]
Sometimes there were exceptions. For example, the chorus in the Alcestis,
on its first entrance, is divided into two half-choruses, which sing
successive passages of the parodos alternately. In the Ion the parodos
is obviously sung by subdivisions or by individuals, and not by the
whole chorus. In the Frogs a long speech by the coryphaeus is inserted
in the middle of the parodos. In the Lysistrata the chorus is divided
throughout the play into two half-choruses, one of men, the other of
women.[922] But in the majority of cases the parodos and the stasima were
given by the whole body of the chorus. Not infrequently, in the middle of
the dialogue, small odes were inserted which resembled stasima in their
general character, but differed from them in point of brevity, and from
the fact that they came in the course of the dialogue, and not during
a pause in the action. They were often songs of triumph or exultation,
occasioned by sudden developments in the plot; and were accompanied by
a lively dance.[923] These short odes were no doubt sung by the whole
chorus, in the same manner as the stasima. It has been suggested that the
strophes and antistrophes in the stasima were delivered by half-choruses
in succession, and that the epode was given by the whole chorus. But
there is no real evidence in support of this hypothesis, and epodes are
only rarely to be met with in dramatic choruses.
In the second place some of the words assigned to the chorus were
actually delivered by the coryphaeus. There is no direct testimony to
this effect, but the matter hardly admits of doubt. On a great many
occasions the chorus drops the tone of lyrical exaltation, and converses
with the persons on the stage in an easy and familiar manner. It plays
the part of an ordinary actor. In all such cases it is evident that
the chorus must have been represented by the coryphaeus alone. The
dialogues between the actors and the coryphaeus were a peculiar and
distinctive feature of the old Greek drama. They were, in fact, a direct
survival from the early period, when there was only a single actor upon
the stage, and when the dramatic element in a play was necessarily
confined to conversations between the actor and the chorus. In addition
to the dialogues just mentioned, there are several other portions of
the chorus which may be assigned to the coryphaeus with a fair amount
of certainty. Such are the anapaests with which the approach of a new
personage is announced at the end of a choral ode in tragedy. These
anapaests, being delivered in recitative, would make a gentle transition
from the song of the chorus to the speech of the actors. Then again, it
is probable that in comedy all the anapaestic tetrameters were spoken by
the coryphaeus, including the speech to the people at the commencement
of the parabasis, and speeches such as that which is inserted in the
parodos of the Frogs.[924] In comedy also the coryphaeus had frequently
to address words of exhortation and remonstrance to the rest of the
chorus.[925] As regards the anapaests at the beginning and the end of
a play, the question is far more doubtful. It was the old fashion in
tragedy for the entrance song of the chorus to commence with a series of
anapaests. The custom is retained in the Persae, Supplices, and Agamemnon
of Aeschylus, and the Ajax of Sophocles. Most Greek plays also conclude
with a few anapaests. It has been suggested that the verses in each case
were delivered by the coryphaeus alone; but the suggestion is hardly a
plausible one. If chanted in combination by the whole body of the chorus
they would make its entrance and departure much more impressive. It need
hardly be remarked that, when the chorus was divided into half-choruses,
the part generally taken by the coryphaeus was in this case taken by the
leaders of the two halves. For example, throughout the Lysistrata the
chorus of men and the chorus of women were represented in the dialogue
by their respective leaders. In the Seven against Thebes the concluding
anapaests would be spoken by the leaders of the hemichoria. It is also
highly probable that the two sets of trochaic tetrameters, which come at
the end of the parabasis, were recited, not by the half-choruses, but by
their leaders.
Thirdly, certain portions of the chorus were occasionally spoken or sung
by individual choreutae. The best known example is in the Agamemnon,
during the murder of the king, when the chorus stands outside the palace,
debating helplessly as to what it ought to do, and each of the old men
pronounces his opinion in turn. There is another instance in the lyrical
ode at the commencement of the Eumenides. The Furies wake up, find that
Orestes is gone, and reproach Apollo in a series of brief, detached
sentences, each being sung by one member of the chorus.[926] The above
examples admit of no doubt. Whether the practice was a common one, and
whether the choral parts were frequently distributed among individual
choreutae, is a matter of great uncertainty. It is manifestly unsafe to
infer that it was done in all cases where the choral passage is full of
mutual exhortations and addresses, and the language is broken up into
disconnected sentences. For example, in the parodoi in Aristophanes the
members of the chorus often address one another by name, and exhort
one another to greater activity. But it does not therefore follow, as
has been supposed, that these passages were delivered in portions by
individuals. A chorus might be perfectly well chanted by the whole body,
though written in vivid and dramatic style.[927] It is hardly safe
therefore to distribute choral passages among individual choreutae except
on very strong evidence. The extent to which the practice prevailed in
the ancient drama must be regarded as an open question.
Fourthly, the division into half-choruses was not infrequent.[928] It
might be done in two ways. In the first place the chorus throughout
the whole play might be composed of two separate divisions, differing
from one another in point of age, sex, or position. The chorus in the
Lysistrata, consisting of one body of men, and one body of women, is an
example. In the second place the chorus might be divided temporarily
into half-choruses, either because of the special requirements of the
play, or merely for purposes of singing and recitation. There are several
certain examples in tragedy. In the Ajax of Sophocles the sailors
hasten off, some to the east and some to the west, in search of Ajax.
They return after a time from opposite sides of the orchestra, bringing
word that they have not found him. In the Orestes, while Helen is being
attacked within the palace, Electra keeps watch outside, and posts the
chorus in two divisions at each end of the orchestra, to guard against
surprise.[929] The examples in the Alcestis and the Seven against Thebes
have already been referred to. In comedy the practice was not at all
uncommon, if the testimony of certain manuscripts is to be accepted.
Various choral passages in the comedies of Aristophanes are distributed
between half-choruses, including the two odes at the end of the
parabasis, and other lyrical pieces of an antistrophic character.[930]
A suggestion has been made that the divisions into ranks and files were
utilized for musical purposes; that in tragedy, for instance, successive
passages were delivered in turns by ranks of three men, or files of five
men; and that the ranks and files of the comic chorus were used in the
same manner. This is pure conjecture. It may or may not have been the
case; but there is no evidence one way or the other. As to the musical
duets it is impossible to speak with certainty. Whether they were mostly
given by the whole chorus, or by halves, or smaller subdivisions, or
by individual choreutae, or by the coryphaeus, is a matter concerning
which there is no trustworthy information.[931] Such indications as are
supplied by varieties in metre, grammar, or subject, are too vague and
uncertain to lead to any definite conclusion. Unless, therefore, further
evidence of a distinct character is discovered, this particular question
will have to be regarded as an unsettled problem.
§ 6. _The Dancing._
In the ancient Greek drama, as in modern opera, the three sister arts
of Music, Poetry, and Dancing were all brought into requisition.
But there was this difference—in the Greek drama the poetry was the
principal feature of the performance; the music and the dancing were
subordinate. Moreover, dancing was seldom introduced by itself as a
mere spectacle; it was mainly used in combination with singing, to
interpret and add vividness to the words of the song. The music, the
poetry, and the dancing were blended together into one harmonious whole,
each part gaining an advantage by its combination with the other two.
Most, if not all, of the choral songs were accompanied by dances of one
sort or another. To the Greek mind there was an inseparable connexion
between song and dance, and the notion of choral singing unaccompanied
by dancing would have appeared strange and unusual. The two arts had
grown and developed simultaneously, as appears from the fact that many
of the technical terms in metrical phraseology referred originally to
the movements of the dance. For instance, the smallest division of a
verse was called a ‘foot’. A verse of two feet was styled a ‘basis’, or
‘stepping’. The words ‘arsis’ and ‘thesis’, which denoted the varying
stress of the voice in singing, originally referred to the raising
up and placing down of the foot in marching and dancing. These terms
show how closely the two arts of dancing and singing were associated
together in ancient Greece. A choreutes who was unable to accompany a
song with expressive dance-movements was looked down upon as an inferior
performer.[932] Dancing therefore, as might have been expected, played
a most important part in tragedy, comedy, and the satyric drama. It was
held among the Greeks in the greatest estimation, and there was none of
that feeling of degradation about it which was common among the Romans.
A man might dance in public without any loss of dignity, provided the
dance was of a graceful and becoming character. Sophocles himself, the
great tragic poet and fellow general of Pericles, was not ashamed to
appear in a dance in one of his own tragedies.[933]
At the same time it should be remembered that dancing in ancient Greece
was a very different thing from dancing in modern times. It included
a great deal more. The word ‘dancing’ in English necessarily implies
movement with the feet. It would be impossible in English to say that a
man was dancing, if he continued to stand in the same position. But in
Greek dancing this was not necessarily the case. The word ‘orchesis’,
which we translate as ‘dancing’, had in reality a much wider meaning.
Greek dancing originated, according to Plato, in the instinctive tendency
of mankind to accompany speech and song with explanatory movements of
the body.[934] It was essentially a mimetic performance. It included,
not only all such motions as are denoted by dancing in the modern sense
of the word, but also every kind of gesture and posture by which various
objects and events can be represented in dumb show. Its principal
function was to interpret and illustrate the words of poetry. For this
purpose nothing could be more important than appropriate gesticulation.
Hence in Greek dancing the movements of the hands and arms played a
larger part than the movements of the feet. The same was the case
in Roman dancing also. A few quotations will illustrate this fact.
Telestes, the celebrated dancer employed by Aeschylus, was said to be
able to ‘depict events with his hands in the most skilful manner’.[935]
Demetrius the Cynic, after witnessing the performance of a celebrated
dancer, exclaimed that he ‘spoke with his hands’.[936] Ovid, in his Art
of Love, when advising a lover to show off his best qualities before
his mistress, tells him to sing if he has a good voice, to dance ‘if
his arms are flexible’.[937] The flourishes and gesticulations with
which a professional carver cut out a hare were called ‘dancing’ by the
ancients.[938] Quintilian, speaking of the gestures used in oratory,
gravely says that there ought to be a considerable difference between the
orator and the dancer; that the gestures of the orator should represent
the general sense of the words, rather than the particular objects
mentioned.[939] The bare fact of his comparing an orator with a dancer is
a proof of the vital difference between ancient and modern dancing, and
the importance of mere gesticulation in the former.
The purpose, then, of ancient dancing was to represent various objects
and events by means of gestures, postures, and attitudes. In this kind
of mimicry the nations of southern Europe are particularly skilful,
as may be seen at the present day. The art was carried by the Greeks
to the highest perfection, and a good dancer was able to accompany a
song with such expressive pantomime as to create a visible picture of
the things described. Aristotle defines dancing as an imitation of
‘actions, characters, and passions by means of postures and rhythmical
movements’.[940] His language indicates very clearly the unlimited
capabilities of Greek dancing. Its general character will be well
exemplified by the following account from Plutarch’s Symposiaca. Dancing,
it is there stated, might be divided into Motions, Postures, and
Indications. Motions were of the greatest use in depicting actions and
passions. Postures were the attitudes in which each motion terminated.
For example, a dancer might halt in such a posture as to suggest Apollo,
or Pan, or a Bacchante. Indications were not mimetic at all, but
consisted in merely pointing out certain objects, such as the heaven, the
earth, the bystanders. Dancing might be defined as poetry without words.
The combination of poetry and dancing, of words and gestures, produced
a perfect imitation.[941] In the above account from Plutarch we have a
clear exposition of the Greek conception of dancing as the handmaid of
poetry. Its function was to delineate and to emphasize the creations of
the poet. This was the part which it played in the Greek drama. It is
most important, therefore, when speaking of dancing in connexion with
the old dramatic performances, to remember the essential difference
between the ancient and modern meaning of the words.
Some few facts have been recorded concerning the history of dancing in
connexion with the drama. In the earliest times it consisted mainly
of movements with the feet. The use of the hands and arms in dancing,
and the introduction of elaborate gesticulation, was a development due
to a later period.[942] In the old-fashioned dramas of Thespis and
his immediate successors dancing necessarily played a very important
part. Both tragedy and comedy were at that time mainly lyrical, and
the long choral odes were accompanied throughout by dances. The early
dramatists, such as Thespis, Phrynichus, Pratinas, and Cratinus, were
called ‘dancers’ as well as poets, because one of their principal
duties consisted in training their choruses in the art of dancing.[943]
Phrynichus, in an epigram of which two verses are still preserved, boasts
of having discovered more figures in dancing than there are waves in a
stormy sea.[944] The tragic dance of the sixth century, to judge from
the specimens given by Philocleon at the end of the Wasps, was of a
wild and lively character.[945] The tone of solemnity, by which it was
afterwards distinguished, was due to the innovations of Aeschylus. It was
probably in the time of Aeschylus that dancing in tragedy reached its
highest pitch of excellence. His long choruses gave ample opportunities
for the display of the dancer’s skill. Moreover, the training of the
chorus was personally superintended by Aeschylus, and he is said to have
himself invented a great number of postures and attitudes to be used
in dancing.[946] Towards the end of the fifth century the art appears
to have declined in significance, along with the general decrease in
the importance of the chorus. It began to lose something of its mimetic
character. Plato, the comic poet, who flourished at the end of the fifth
century, contrasts the mediocrity of the choral dancing in his day with
the excellence of that of a former period. In old times, he says, a good
dancer was a sight worth seeing; but the choreutae of the present day
stand in a row, like so many cripples, and bawl out their songs, without
any attempt at appropriate motions and gestures.[947] This deterioration
was a necessary consequence of the tendency to thrust the chorus more and
more into the background.
The general character of the dancing in the Greek drama has already
been described. As far as details are concerned our information is very
defective, and only slight indications are to be obtained from the
existing plays. It is probable that, when the parodoi commenced with
a series of anapaests, the chorus only marched in, without dancing.
But all parodoi written in lyrical metres were undoubtedly accompanied
with a dance. The iambic and trochaic tetrameters, in which many of
the parodoi in Aristophanes are written, seem to have been generally
intended for choruses which entered running, and with an appearance
of great haste.[948] The stasima, or long choral odes between the
acts, are said by many of the scholiasts to have been unaccompanied by
dancing, and to have been delivered by the chorus standing perfectly
still.[949] The statement is no doubt an error, due to false etymology.
The stasima, or ‘stationary songs’, were so called, not because the
chorus stood still during their delivery, but because it remained all
the time in the orchestra. They were therefore opposed to the parodoi,
which were delivered while the chorus was coming in, and to the exodoi,
which were delivered while it was going out.[950] That the stasima were
accompanied by dancing is proved by several references to dancing which
they contain.[951] A tradition has been preserved by one scholiast
concerning the manœuvres of the chorus in the stasima. It is said that
during the strophe they moved to the right, during the antistrophe
to the left; and that during the epode they remained standing in the
same position as at first.[952] This description, however, has probably
been applied to the drama by mistake. A manœuvre of the kind mentioned,
though suitable to the circular chorus of the dithyramb, would be out of
place in the rectangular formations of the dramatic choruses. Also it is
comparatively rare to find epodes in the stasima. As for the incidental
odes, which occur in the middle of the dialogue, many of those were
written in the lively hyporchematic style, to mark the joy of the chorus
at an unexpected turn of fortune. Some of the regular stasima were of
the same type.[953] The dances by which these odes were accompanied were
extremely brisk and energetic, in tragedy as well as in comedy.[954] The
exodoi, or concluding utterances of the chorus, were not usually attended
with dancing, but were delivered in recitative as the chorus marched
out. There is an exception in the Wasps and the Ecclesiazusae, which are
terminated by the chorus dancing out of the orchestra. But Aristophanes
himself remarks that this was an innovation.[955] There is no reason to
suppose that in tragedy the kommoi, or musical dialogues between actors
and chorus, were unaccompanied with dancing. But naturally, if this was
the case, the dance would be of a quiet and sober kind, consisting more
of appropriate gestures and motions than of dancing in the modern sense
of the word.
During a large part of every Greek play the chorus had nothing to say
or sing, but merely stood watching the actors, and listening to the
dialogue. It would be absurd to imagine that they remained stolid and
indifferent during all this period. Chorus and actors were supposed to
form one harmonious group, and no doubt the chorus followed the events
upon the stage with a keen appearance of interest, and expressed their
sympathy with the different characters by every kind of gesture and
by-play. Occasionally the long descriptive speeches delivered from
the stage were accompanied with a mimetic dance on the part of the
chorus.[956] The events described by the actor were represented in dumb
show by the choreutae. In comedy it was a regular practice to introduce
descriptive speeches of this sort, the metres used being iambic or
anapaestic tetrameters, which were especially suitable for dancing
to. There is an example in the Clouds, where Strepsiades describes
his quarrel with Pheidippides. The various phases of the quarrel were
represented in dumb show by the chorus, keeping time with the recitative
of the actor.[957] Again, we are told that Telestes, the dancer employed
by Aeschylus, ‘danced the Seven against Thebes’ so successfully as to
bring the various events before the very eyes of the spectators. The
statement no doubt refers to the dumb show with which he accompanied the
long descriptive speeches that abound in that play.[958]
Each of the three different species of the drama had its own special kind
of dance. The tragic dance was called the ‘emmeleia’. It was grave and
majestic in its motions, and was one of the two dances approved of by
Plato, and admitted into his ideal republic.[959] Some of the postures or
figures in the tragic dance are mentioned by the ancient writers. One of
them represented a man in the act of thrusting with the sword; another
depicted a man in an attitude of menace, with clenched fist. The rest
are a mere list of names, of which the meaning is uncertain. But it is
plain from the existence of such lists that the art of tragic dancing was
reduced to a regular system, and that the various attitudes and postures
were taught in a methodical manner.[960] We can hardly be mistaken in
assuming that as a rule the movements of the tragic dance were slow and
deliberate, and more like walking than dancing in the modern sense.
The odes called ‘hyporchemata’, with their lively motions, were only
adopted in tragedy on special occasions, to show the excessive joy of
the choreutae.[961] The kommos at the conclusion of the Persae gives
us a vivid picture of the general style of a tragic dance. The Persian
Elders follow Xerxes on his way to the palace, bewailing the ruin of the
empire in mournful strains. At each fresh exclamation of grief they fall
into some new posture, first beating their breasts, then plucking their
beards, then rending their garments, then tearing their hair; and in this
manner they gradually make their exit from the orchestra.[962]
The comic dance was called the ‘kordax’. Its movements were coarse and
lascivious, and its general style was suggestive of the phallic songs
out of which comedy had been developed. It was a dance for drunken
people, and no one but a man without any sense of shame would dance it
when he was sober. It was considered vulgar and disgraceful by Plato,
and excluded from his commonwealth.[963] Aristophanes, in the Clouds,
takes credit to himself for having abandoned it in that play; but, as
the scholiast remarks, he frequently introduces it elsewhere.[964] In
the comic dances the wildest movements were admissible. The chorus, at
the end of the Wasps, when encouraging the sons of Carcinus to fresh
exertions, bid them ‘whirl round like tops, and fling their legs up into
the sky’. Occasionally the circular dance of the dithyrambic chorus was
adopted in comedy.[965]
The dance used in the satyric drama was called the ‘sikinnis’. It was
mainly a parody and caricature of noble and graceful dances, and was
very violent and rapid in its movements. One of the postures used in the
satyric dance was called the owl, and is variously explained by the old
grammarians as having consisted in shading the eyes with the hands, or in
turning the head to and fro like an owl.[966]
§ 7. _The Music._
The music of a Greek play was simple in its character, and altogether
subordinate to the poetry. As Plutarch remarks, it was a sort of
seasoning or relish, the words being the main attraction.[967] Any
comparison therefore between a Greek play and a modern opera, as far as
the music is concerned, must be entirely illusive. In the first place
all Greek choral singing was in unison. The use of harmony in choral
compositions was apparently unknown to the Greeks. Even in modern times
Greek Church Music has retained the practice of chanting in unison.
Consequently the general style of the music in a Greek drama must
have been exceedingly simple and severe compared with the intricate
combinations of modern music. In the second place, the music was fitted
to the words, instead of the words being subordinated to the music. Each
note of the music corresponded, in most cases, to a separate syllable of
the verse, and the time of the music was determined entirely by the metre
of the verse. The ode was chanted in unison, syllable after syllable,
by the whole body of the choreutae. The modern practice of adapting the
words to the exigences of the music, and making different parts of the
chorus sing different words at the same time, was altogether unknown.
Hence it is probable that the words of a Greek chorus were heard with
considerable distinctness by the whole audience. When all the singing
was in unison, and the notes of the music corresponded to the syllables
of the verse, there was no reason why this should not be the case. In
modern choral singing the poetry is so far sacrificed to the music that
even the general drift of the words cannot usually be distinguished
with much clearness. But this could never have been the case in the
ancient drama, where the lyrical portions of the play often contained
the finest poetry and the profoundest thoughts of the whole composition.
The choreutae were doubtless made to sing with great precision and
distinctness of utterance; and this training, combined with the simple
character of the music, would make it possible for the words of an
ancient chorus to be heard without difficulty. In the third place, the
instrumental accompaniment was limited in amount, and was never allowed
to predominate. As a rule it was given by a single flute or harp, and
was the same, note for note, as the melody. In lyrical, as opposed to
dramatic, poetry there was a tendency for the flute to overpower the
voices. Pratinas, in a lyrical fragment still preserved, complains of
this practice, saying that ‘the Muse has made Poetry the mistress: let
the flute play the second part; it is but the servant of Poetry’.[968]
These words, which only refer to a tendency in the lyrical poets of the
time, are significant as showing the Greek conception of the relative
position of instrument and voice in choral singing. In the Greek drama,
as already remarked, the instrumental portion of the music was altogether
subordinate; and the music as a whole was made subservient to the words
and the poetry.
Greek music was written in various Modes, as they were called, concerning
the nature of which there has been much conflict of opinion. It is
uncertain whether the Modes were distinguished from one another, like
the modern major and minor scales, by the order of the intervals in the
octave, or whether the difference was one of pitch, like the difference
between the keys in modern music.[969] These Modes, whatever their exact
character, were each of them associated with a particular kind of music.
Every Mode had a special kind of metre and of melody appropriated to
itself, and a composition in a given Mode was necessarily of a certain
well-defined character. The difference between the music of the several
Modes was very much the same as that between various kinds of national
music in modern times. For example, an air in the Phrygian Mode bore the
same sort of relation to one in the Lydian as a lively Swiss song bears
to a plaintive Irish melody. Of the various Modes used in Greek music the
tragic poets selected those which were most suited to their purpose. The
Dorian and the Mixolydian Modes were the two most commonly employed in
tragedy. The Dorian was majestic and dignified in style; the Mixolydian
was pathetic. The one was used in the solemn and profound choral odes,
the other in cases where deep emotion had to be expressed.[970] Besides
these two principal Modes, certain others were occasionally employed.
The old Ionic Mode was severe and sober, before the degeneracy of the
Ionic nation had altered its character. It was therefore well adapted to
tragedy, and was used by Aeschylus.[971] The music of the Phrygian Mode
was passionate and enthusiastic, and was first introduced into tragedy
by Sophocles.[972] The Hypodorian and the Hypophrygian Modes were only
employed in the songs of the actors upon the stage, and not in choral
odes. The reason was that the style of their music was better suited
to realistic acting than to choral singing.[973] Sometimes a few notes
of instrumental music were inserted by themselves, at intervals in the
choral songs, as a sort of refrain. The ‘phlattothrat’, which recurs in
the parody of Aeschylus’s lyrics in the Frogs, is an instance of such a
refrain, the instrument used being the harp. The flute was also employed
in the same way. Such refrains were called ‘diaulia’.[974]
During the latter part of the fifth century the character of Greek music
underwent a considerable change. The severity and simplicity of the music
of the Aeschylean period were succeeded by a style in which softness,
variety, and flexibility were the prominent features. The author of the
movement was the celebrated musician Timotheus.[975] His innovations
were regarded by the philosophers and old-fashioned critics as so many
corruptions of the art of music, and as a proof of the growing effeminacy
of the age.[976] In one of the comedies of Pherecrates the person of
Music is made to complain of the treatment she has received at the hands
of various composers, and ends her complaint by charging Timotheus with
having outraged and insulted her more than any one else had done, and
compares his florid melodies to the ‘intricate movements of ants in a
nest’.[977] The new kind of music was very generally adopted by the later
tragic poets, such as Euripides and Agathon, and is frequently ridiculed
by Aristophanes.[978] Euripides appears to have foreseen from the first
that the new style would soon become popular. On a certain occasion, when
a novel composition by Timotheus was loudly hissed in the theatre, he
told him not to be discouraged by his temporary want of success, as in a
few years he would be sure to have every audience at his feet.[979] The
prediction was verified by the result.