Chapter XII: The Theatre (2)

All the arrangements already described show strong contrasts between ancient and modern theatres, and perhaps there is nothing which strikes us as so extraordinary as the Greek theatrical costume, and especially the appearance of actors in masks. It is impossible for us to understand this complete disregard of expression and change in representing feelings, and this perpetual stare of the unchanging mask. This curious custom has been explained in many different ways. It is a mistake to suppose that the Greek theatres were too large for the play of an actor’s expression to be observed, and that the coarse features of the mask were arranged with a view to this distance, in which their want of change would be less striking. Since they played in broad daylight, in the sharp clear light of a southern sky, the spectators, even in the most distant places, could have followed the play of the actor’s features, especially since the ancients had better eyes than our present generation. Nor is it correct to suppose that the masks were required in order that the funnel-shaped contrivance applied to its mouth should strengthen the sound; for the acoustics in the Greek theatres were usually so good that the very slightest word even whispered on the stage could be heard in the auditorium. Undoubtedly it would have been impossible without masks for the same actor to undertake many parts in quick succession; but at the same time we may ask whether they would have held so strictly to this system of dividing all the parts among three actors if they had not already possessed the masks, and thus the possibility of abiding within these limitations. The introduction of real characters, whose features were to be faithfully imitated was also facilitated by the masks, but good mimics could achieve this even without, as examples on the modern stage have shown. Consequently, none of these reasons really explain the use of masks; in reality they originated in the religious customs which were the origin of the drama, and afterwards were simply maintained with many other relics of its religious origin, as people had got accustomed to them and found them convenient. It had formerly been the practice at the Dionysia, whence the drama originated, for people to disguise their faces by smearing them over with husks of grapes, etc., or to cover them up completely, or disguise them with wreaths of ivy, etc. Instead of painting and covering them with leaves they gradually began to use pieces of linen, at first quite shapeless and destined only to cover the face and prevent recognition, but afterwards by imitating human features, these developed into masks. This custom continued, then, as sanctified by tradition, and, indeed, all the theatrical arrangements were regarded as a sacred ceremony in honour of Dionysus.

The theatrical masks, the material of which in later times, too, was linen, covered with plaster of Paris, or else wood, bark, etc., differed from our modern masks in covering not only the face, but the whole head of the actor. The actor who had put on the mask could, of course, only see through the slits for the eyes, and, indeed, it sometimes happened--and in the oldest period seems to have been common--that, instead of cutting out a slit for the whole eye, there was only one for the pupil, and the iris was represented on the mask itself, and coloured, so that the actor had the difficult task of looking only through the place for the pupil; still, as the dimensions of the masks were usually larger than those of a human face, this may have been larger than his own. Of course, the masks were completely painted over; the eyebrows, lips, cheeks, wrinkles, etc., were marked; the beard and hair were made of real hair, or wool, or some other succedaneum. Some of the tragic masks had a high bunch of hair above the forehead to increase the height; this was called the “superficies” (onkos), and its object was mainly to increase the height of the actor and make him appear of greater size--an object at which many other peculiarities of the tragic costume also aimed. The ears were not always visible. The mouth was usually open, very wide, with lips and sometimes artificial teeth. The object of the great width of the mouth opening was to enable the actor to declaim and sing unhindered. The comic masks (see below, Figs. 156 and 157), very often had a funnel-shaped mouth opening, which gave a very grotesque expression to the whole face, and may have been connected with some special technical object, or else merely destined to increase the comic effect. In putting on the masks they took hold of the chin, and drew them on from bottom to top; they were then fastened under the chin with strings, and the actor’s neck was almost completely covered by the mask and his clothing; hence the curious, we might almost say asthmatic, impression given by the pictures of ancient actors.

Generally speaking, we may distinguish three kinds of masks, according to the three kinds of drama--tragic, comic, and satyric; and it is not difficult among the numerous representations of masks on ancient works of art to distinguish between these three kinds, especially since the expression is, as a rule, decisive. In the tragic masks we see calm solemnity, deep grief,

or wild passion; every feeling is expressed on a large and usually dignified scale. The comic masks, on the other hand, always incline to caricature; and those used for the satyric drama, since they were meant for satyrs, naturally represent the physiognomy of animals. But, besides these general indications, there were a large number of gradations--some of them very finely marked--which proves to us that the old makers of masks, which was a special branch of trade, thoroughly understood their work and also human physiognomy. In olden times they seem to have made the masks specially for each drama, so that they might correspond exactly to the characters. This was the case in tragedy as well as in the older comedy, Aeschylus, to whom in particular innovations and inventions in this domain are ascribed, required quite new masks for his “Eumenides,” which had never before appeared on the stage; as did Aristophanes and the other poets of the older comedy for their fantastic characters--Frogs, Clouds, Birds, etc., as also for the real personages represented in their comedies, such as Euripides, Socrates, Cleon, and could only use the already existing masks for the usual typical figures of citizens and citizens’ wives, slaves, etc., as well as for the mythological personages, Hercules, Dionysus, etc. The newer Attic comedy, with its typical characters, very seldom required specially-constructed masks, and it thus became the custom for the properties of every stage or acting company to include a considerable supply of character masks of every kind, which in most cases were sufficient for the demand. Consequently, to speak simply of tragic or comic masks is to express ourselves rather superficially; for though an actually comic mask--that is, one whose absurdity excites to laughter--could never be used in a tragedy, yet there were serious masks which might be used in a comedy; and it would be wrong to suppose that all the persons in a comedy for instance by Menander, appeared in masks which could be designated as specially comic.

Among the typical masks they distinguish between sex, age, and differences of figure; thus there was a mask called “the young girl,” another “the thin old woman,” “the fat old woman,” etc.; then they distinguished according to the colour or cut of the hair: there was the “curly-headed youth,” the “short-haired maiden,” the “fair man,” the “grey satyr,” or by the beard: the “man with a long beard,” the “beardless satyr,” or by the complexion: the “brown man,” the “fair woman with flowing hair,” and even by the shape of the nose, as the “satyr with a pug-nose.” Other masks were characterised by the social position they were to represent, such as “the old housewife,” “the countryman,” “the old hetaera,” “the soldier,” “the lady’s maid with elaborate coiffure,” or according to special peculiarities of mind or character; “the worthy young man,” “the talkative old woman.” Even varying moods of mind or feelings were represented by the masks, and it is probable therefore, that when an important change took place in any one person, the actor changed his mask behind the scenes. The writers also supply various instances to show the different means by which special traits of character were represented. One of these tokens was the colour of the complexion; a brown complexion characterised healthy men, living much out of doors, or devoting themselves to physical exercise; a white complexion was given to women and to delicate or effeminate youths; pale or yellowish to invalids, or those whose mind was disordered or suffering, as for instance unhappy lovers. The colour and expression of the eyes was also important; they distinguished between dull, piercing, dark, gloomy, sad, etc., and all this was not represented by the actor, but was already indicated in the mask. The eyebrows, too, were of importance; when they were drawn up high they indicated, in comedy, pride and boastfulness, and were thus allotted to parasites, soldiers, etc.; narrow eyebrows indicated seriousness or a sad state of mind. No less important for the character of the mask was the treatment of the forehead, nose, etc. To explain all this we give, in Figs. 154 and 155, the front and side view of a tragic terra-cotta mask, whose wide-open mouth, staring eyes, brows drawn upwards, and wrinkled forehead indicate fear and terror. A contrast to these is the comic mask (Figs. 156 and 157), with the funnel-shaped mouth opening, the pug-nose, squinting eyes, and eyebrows drawn down towards the middle. Similar is the mask worn by the comic actor in Fig. 158, who in other respects appears in the costume of ordinary life--that is, in the short slave’s dress--and the mask of the comic actor in Fig. 159 is a similar caricature.

Besides the regular masks, from which the actors chose those that suited their part, unless the poet had already prescribed what they were to wear, others were in later times adapted for extraordinary situations--for personages of quite abnormal figure, allegorical characters, etc.--and these could not be used for ordinary performances. Tragedy especially was often obliged to bring unusual masks on the stage; and the comedy of Southern Italy, which treated mythological subjects in grotesque fashion, may have occasionally required quite special masks. Thus, on the Pompeian wall-painting (Fig. 160), which, doubtless, was copied from a Greek picture, the masks relate to the legend of Andromeda; the one on the left belongs

to a youth with a brown complexion, whose winged cap and harp resting on the ground mark him out as Perseus; this is a special mask, and so is that of the monster in the middle, while that of Andromeda above on the right, and the others on the right below, which are not quite distinct, may easily have formed part of the ordinary supply.

Equally strange and different from the modern was the rest of the costume of the Greek stage. Speaking of tragic equipment, we may characterise the contrast between that day and our own by saying that Greeks, in the choice of their tragic costume, aimed at the type, while we desire to indicate the individual. In theatrical costume, as in art, we wish to represent everything with historical truth; the history of costume and fashion is a subject of special study for modern stage managers. Ancient tragedies very seldom

dealt with historical subjects, but usually with legends; therefore a costume must, as it were, be invented for the characters. Art could assist them but little, since it generally represented the gods and heroes in the nude; but the theatre, which at the same time was a religious institution in which all the co-operators were participants in the celebration, sought its effects chiefly by splendour of costume. Thus was developed the ordinary tragic dress, which belonged neither to actuality nor to the past, but was an ideal costume most closely resembling the garments of religious festivities. There were also certain special means adopted for increasing the height of the actor beyond reality, but we must not suppose that this was required by the great distance at which the actors were seen; these attempts at magnifying were rather caused by the desire to make the actors appear super-human, heroic personages, excelling the men of the day in physical power and dignity, just as the wonderful deeds of the Homeric heroes exceeded the weak actions of their descendants. The requirements of costume in comedy were somewhat different; for gods and heroes the same costume was used as in tragedy, but slaves or persons of ordinary life were also introduced, and these could not be clad in solemn garments. It is difficult to find a fixed standard in comedy, since we must take into account not only the difference between the older and the newer comedy, but also the comedy outside Attica--for instance, that of the Sicyonians, the Tarentines, etc.--which had its peculiar character, and, doubtless, also peculiar dress, just as the “Arlecchino” of the Venetian popular comedy appears in a different dress from the Florentine “Stenterello,” and the Neapolitan “Pulcinella,” although originally they were all three the same person. A special costume was not required for the satyric chorus, since all that was necessary here was to imitate as well as possible what was represented by works of art. In stage costume, as in that of real life, we must distinguish between upper and lower garments. The lower garment of the tragic actor, as well as of the chorus, both in male and female parts, was the long chiton, which was worn in Attica before the time of Pericles, and traced its origin to Ionia; this dress was maintained on the stage because it was especially a festive garment, and, like these festive garments, the theatrical dresses were many-coloured, richly adorned with embroidery or borders, and often very costly, if a rich choragus desired to equip his chorus splendidly. As a rule, this chiton was girded in the old fashion, which we see also in the cithara players, immediately under the shoulders, thus forming a very high waist. They also wore long sleeves reaching down to the hands, a peculiarity of festive costume which had disappeared from real life. To increase the magnificence, the chiton often had a train, not only for women but even for men. The upper dress was either the himation and chlamys, common in ordinary life, or else garments peculiar to the stage, of which a number of names have come down to us, but no exact details of their shape and mode of wearing. Here, too, colour was the rule; black clothing was worn

by wretched and persecuted people. In their case, of course, the festive costume, which would have formed too sharp a contrast with their parts, was discarded; Philoctetes, Telephus, etc., did not appear in royal splendour, but in simple garments or even in rags. We may remember the description given in the “Oedipus at Colonus” of the appearance of the unhappy exiled prince; and Aristophanes’ jokes show us that Euripides aimed specially at attracting the pity of the spectators by wretched beggars’ dress. The dress of the women, generally speaking, was similar; perhaps there was a difference in the mode in which the upper garment was put on. Subordinate personages in tragedy--messengers, satellites, slaves, etc.--wore the short chiton; paidogogoi appeared in the barbaric dress already described; and thus variety in the appearance of the actors was produced, while the ceremonious dress was reserved for the most important personages. The ivory statuette of an actor, of which two sides are represented in Figs. 161 and 162, gives an excellent notion of the tragic costume. He wears a long chiton, with sleeves (painted blue in the original) decorated with three broad stripes, descending from the girdle to his feet, and with horizontal stripes round his sleeves. The mask, with the high superficies, bears an expression of wild anger; the size of the slits for the eyes is remarkable, and we can see through them the eyes of the actor, as well as a piece of the face immediately round them. As a rule, only the pupil so appears in Greek masks, and therefore the editor (C. Robert) surmises that this points to a Roman custom of the Imperial age. This statuette is also interesting for the shape of the “cothurnus,” the usual foot-gear of the tragic actor. The cothurnus was a tolerably high shoe, but made to fit either foot;

the tragic cothurnus was especially distinguished by very high cork soles, which considerably increased the height of the wearer. As may here be seen, the foot with the actual cothurnus is hidden under the dress, only the high soles are visible beneath it. When the height of the actor was thus increased by the superficies and cothurnus, it was necessary to give a larger appearance to the rest of the figure; for this purpose they stuffed themselves out with cushions, and wore gloves with long fingers, which seem to have been fastened to the sleeves, etc. The whole produced an effect that would hardly have suited our taste, but in reality was not nearly so strange as the costume of the heroes of Corneille and Racine, to whose court dress and long wigs the seventeenth century seems to have taken no exception. Of course, there were various necessary additions to this costume: arms for the warriors, a sceptre for the kings, a lion’s skin and club for Hercules, and a fawn skin for Artemis, etc. In comedy the women probably appeared in the costume of ordinary life. For the male characters, except the fantastic parts, the short chiton seems to have been commonest, especially for persons of the lower classes; and the slaves, who were never absent from the newer comedy, wore the “exomis,” the common workman’s dress. The skin garments of the country people were also worn, and knapsacks and knotty sticks completed their equipment. In later comedy special characters were marked out by the colour of the dresses: thus, the parasites wore black or green dresses; others, again, coloured dresses with cloaks; slaves, the white exomis; youths, the white chiton with purple border; cooks, unfulled garments, etc. Similarly the feminine characters were marked out; there was the old woman, the daughters of citizens, the rich heiresses, hetaerae, etc. In the comedy of Southern Italy, the costume of which is represented on many vase paintings, the actors of male parts usually wear a closely-fitting dress,

T. II PL XCIV.

FIG. 163.]

covering the legs as far as the ankles, and the arms down to the hand, and over this a tight-fitting tunic, leaving arms and legs free (compare Fig. 163). Here it is evident that the lower garment takes the place of our tricot; the arms and legs are supposed to be bare. If the object was to represent absolute nudity, the tunic was replaced by a close-fitting vest, usually provided with a false stuffing, on which the breasts and navel were marked. To this was sometimes added the comic phallus, a remnant of the old coarse popular jokes, in which the Older Comedy frequently indulged. But in the New Comedy it fell gradually into disuse, and was entirely absent from the representations of ordinary life, though introduced into farces which burlesqued the myths and tales of the heroes.

We give here several examples of pictures from ancient comedy. In Fig. 163, the meaning of which is not clear, the stage has on its left side a scaffolding covered in with a roof, to which a staircase leads; on the floor of this erection lie a bundle of beds or carpets, a cap, and a litter. Chiron, whose name appears on the plate, is climbing up the staircase with difficulty, and bending down leaning on his rough knotty stick; a slave is pushing him up from behind, while Xanthias, standing on the top of the stairs, seizes hold of his head as though to draw him up. In the background we see two not specially attractive nymphs, of whom only the upper part is visible; these again are designated in the inscription; the youth on the right, in the himation, and without a mask, is not one of the actors. Possibly this is a representation of the sick Chiron seeking healing at a sanctuary of the nymphs. The costume and the tricots, as well as the grotesque masks, are worthy of notice. The vase painting in Fig. 164 has not been satisfactorily

explained. It is evident that Hercules is engaged in some love adventure, as is proved by the lion’s skin in which the actor, who is jesting with a girl, is dressed, and the club which rests beside him. The figure on the right probably represents an old woman; on the left is a man contemplating the scene. With the exception of the girl and the woman in the middle, the masks are extreme caricatures; the costume of the two men resembles that in Fig. 163. Fig. 165, a Pompeian wall-painting, may be here compared, because it evidently imitates Greek prototypes, and the scene represented in the centre belongs to the later comedy. The one actor with a curious head-dress and a spear seems to be a sort of _Miles Gloriosus_, the man in a reverential position speaking to him a parasite. The three youths who stand near wear no masks, and it is therefore doubtful whether they are to be regarded as part of the representation in the character, perhaps, of statists, who may have appeared without masks. Two old men to the right and left of the central scene, seated on a somewhat lower plane, and leaning on their knotty sticks, with serious official mien, are doubtless theatrical police, who had to keep order during the performance. It is not easy to say what place in the theatre they were supposed to occupy.

We gain some information concerning the costume of the satyric drama from a very interesting vase painting, which cannot, however, for various reasons, be represented here, and which we propose, therefore, shortly to describe. This represents the personages taking part in a satyric drama before the commencement of the performance; a group in the centre of the top row does not belong to the performers: this represents Dionysus resting on a

couch with Ariadne, near him is a woman holding up a mask, probably a Muse, and the little _Eros Himeros_. To the right and left of this group, which must be regarded as the ideal scene, stand three actors, each holding his mask in his hand (the strings by which they were held are visible); next on the right is Hercules, who may be recognised by his lion’s skin, club, and quiver; near him is the “Papposilenus,” his whole body covered with skin, a panther’s skin thrown over his left arm, and holding a short staff; we do not know the name of the third actor on the left. The chorus of satyrs consists of eleven persons, of whom only one has as yet put on his mask. That one is practising a dance in preparation for the performance. Most of the chorus are dressed alike with only a little covering of skin round their loins, and the short satyr’s tail; one of them, however, has a little garment of some material with a pattern, and another wears an embroidered dress with himation; he might be taken for an actor if his mask did not bear the satyric type like the rest, the pug nose and the pointed ears. In the middle of the lowest row two musicians are represented: a splendidly dressed flute player seated, in front of him stands a cithara player. Further to the left sits a young man holding a roll in his hand, another roll lies on the ground, a lyre is visible behind him. In spite of his striking youthfulness, this young man is probably the teacher of the chorus or the poet himself. The actors are bearded men, the chorus beardless youths. Two tripods close by probably suggest the prize to be competed for.

We must now say a few words about the external details of the performance, the public, and the reception of the pieces. Originally, admission to theatrical representations was free, as to a religious festival in which the whole population were to take part. But when the crowd of spectators became greater this had its disadvantages, and very often quarrels for places ensued between citizens and strangers. We know little of the conditions in other places; but at Athens, when in 500 B.C. the old wooden theatre fell down during a performance, and the new stone theatre of Dionysus was erected, they took advantage of the occasion to levy an entrance fee, the amount of which is uncertain. Even at the beginning of the fifth century the income from this source seems to have belonged to a theatrical lessee, whose duty it was in consequence to keep the building in proper condition. He paid a fixed sum to the State, and in return received the entrance money. It is well known that Pericles, partly with a benevolent desire of making the theatre accessible for the poorer class of citizens, and partly also in order to increase his popularity by this democratic measure, introduced a law by which every citizen received the price of admission from the State. This was the “show-money” (θεωρικόυ), an institution which seems to have lasted for centuries, but the arrangements connected with it are by no means clear. In the first place, it was probably calculated for the poor people only; but the rich, too, made use of it, if only to escape from possible reproach of pride or haughtiness by some of the numerous informers who at that time existed at Athens. There was a special board entrusted with the distribution; the show-money was allotted to the citizens according to tribes by cashiers appointed by lot, whose duty it was to see that none received it without proper claim. It was therefore distributed in the separate tribes according to the registers of citizens in the demes. The statements of the ancients do not agree about the amount of the money; but the most probable of the newer hypotheses is that for one day it amounted to two obols, for the three days of the great Dionysia one drachma. The money was paid, on admission into the theatre, to the lessee, who either received it in person, or levied it by means of his controllers or cashiers; the same people took the fees from those who had not received the show-money, such as the resident foreigners, strangers, etc. It is very difficult to decide whether this was paid in coin or not; one hypothesis is that, instead of money, the citizens received tickets, which had the value of money, and simplified the paying out as well as the paying back; many such counters bearing theatrical emblems, have come down to us, and are supposed to have been admission passes. Still, weighty objections have been made to this hypothesis; and it is more probable that the citizens really received the actual money, with which they could do what they pleased; they either bought a ticket for the theatre--and very likely these counters were really entrance tickets--or spent it in any other way they pleased. It was not possible to control this; and herein, no doubt, lay the disadvantage of the institution, which has often been spoken of as injurious to the Attic democracy, since it was followed by similar institutions at other times, and consequently the unproductive expenses of the Attic budget extended more and more. A number of places in the theatre were given free, or were places of honour: thus, for instance, those reserved by the State for foreign envoys, the places for the priests and others who had a right to special seats; naturally, the expenses of these places had to be paid by the State to the theatrical lessee.

The question whether women and children might visit the theatre is often asked. Undoubtedly women were allowed to be present at the tragedies, since there are sufficient passages to prove this. Now, tragedy was followed by the satyric drama, which was often exceedingly coarse both in language and gesture; obviously then the women must have sat this out, and this need not appear so very strange to us, since there does not seem to have been much prudery among the Greek women. Moreover, the satyric drama was only indecent now and then, and the jokes were vulgar according to our ideas, but not exactly frivolous, and no worse than modern operettas to which ladies are in the habit of going. The comedies were different, especially the older comedies, for the whole contents are often coarse, and situations occur in them which make it impossible for us to imagine that women or boys should have been present. Still, all indications seem to prove that they were seen by women, with this limitation, that respectable women who had regard for their reputation did not go to comedies; hetaerae, who are often alluded to as eager theatre-goers, probably constituted the greater part of the feminine public. It also seems that boys were present. Slaves were allowed to visit the theatre; some even earned money, and could therefore pay their own admission, others may have gone in attendance on their masters, or have received the money for their entrance in some other way; but it is unlikely that they sat among the citizens; probably there were special places allotted them; indeed it has been suggested that there were distinct seats for every class. The only places about which this is certain are the lowest rows, which were seats of honour for officials, priests, etc. Moreover, it is probable, but not quite certain, that the highest places were reserved for strangers. It has also been assumed that the women sat in the more distant places, or, at any rate, not in the front rows, and this seems probable; otherwise, there is no passage which proves for certain that the seats for the men at Athens were distinct from those of the women.

Another question is the manner in which the non-reserved places were allotted. It seems certain that they were not numbered, and, indeed, this would have been scarcely possible among so many thousands; but there may have been a general division of the theatre according to the wedges, and the separate divisions of each wedge, and these may have been indicated on the entrance counters. Benndorf has suggested that at Athens each wedge may have been assigned to the members of a particular tribe, and that on the counter given to each citizen the tribe in question was marked by some symbol. But this hypothesis is only probable if we assume, with Benndorf, that the citizens received not money but counters; if the spectators bought their theatre tickets from the lessee with the show-money, or at their own expense, it was impossible for there to be any division of places according to tribes, for this would have necessitated a fresh and very troublesome control of the registers of citizens. We must therefore assume that the counters bought of the theatrical lessee were marked according to wedges and division, and the spectators had to take their places accordingly but that, with the exception of a few classes of spectators, there was no compulsion to take a place in any special division.

Of the three musical contests celebrated at the greater Dionysia, each kind, namely, the tragedies with the satyric dramas, the comedies, and the cyclic choruses had their special judges. At the appointment of the choragi, which took place a long while before the festival, the Council of the Five Hundred, probably under the presidency of the Archon, in the presence of the elected choragi, elected these by ballot, and the lot once more decided which of them was to pronounce judgment. We know for certain that five judges were appointed for comedy, probably the same number was required for tragedy, although an exceptional case is mentioned, during a contest between Aeschylus and Sophocles, in which there were ten judges, a departure from the ordinary custom, which was required by the great excitement in the public and the fear that the judges might be influenced in their decision by it. The judges had to pronounce on three points: the work of the poet, the performance of chorus and choragus, and the acting. The reward for the victorious poet was a wreath of ivy; the choragus received permission to set up a public monument in token of his victory, and, as already mentioned, the choragi in the tragic choruses usually dedicated tripods, those of the comic choruses fillets, thyrsus wands, and other festive apparatus; their decisions were also commemorated by inscriptions. The prize of the actors probably consisted in additional gifts of money besides the fees that were legally due to them.