§ 4 Costume of the Tragic Actors
The dress of the actors in tragedy was always entirely distinct from that of the chorus. The chorus consisted originally of satyrs, the half-human followers of Dionysus. Later on it came to be composed in most cases of ordinary citizens, and was dressed accordingly. But the actors represented from the first the gods and heroes of the old mythology. For them a different costume was required. The practice of the Greeks in regard to this costume was totally opposed to all modern notions upon the subject. Historical accuracy and archaeological minuteness in the mounting of a play were matters of complete indifference to the Greeks. Accordingly, when bringing these heroic characters upon the stage, they never made any attempt to produce an accurate imitation of the costume of the Homeric period. At the same time they were not content that the heroes and gods of their tragedy should appear upon the scene in the garments of ordinary life. Such an arrangement would have been inconsistent with the ideal character of Greek tragedy. A special dress was therefore employed, similar to that of common life, but more flowing and dignified. The garments were dyed with every variety of brilliant colour. The bulk of the actor was increased by padding his chest and limbs, and placing huge wooden soles under his feet. Masks were employed in which every feature was exaggerated, to give superhuman dignity and terror to the expression. In this way a conventional costume was elaborated, which continued for centuries to be the regular dress of the tragic actors. All the leading characters in a Greek tragedy were dressed in this fashion, with only such slight variations and additions as the particular case required.
The origin of this tragic costume is a subject about which very little is known. According to the later Greek tradition it was invented almost entirely by Aeschylus.716 But this is probably an exaggeration. Aeschylus was no doubt mainly instrumental in developing and improving the costume, and giving it a definite shape. But that the whole idea of it was his own creation is hardly credible. Most likely it had existed, though in a less elaborate form, long before his time. As for its origin, the most plausible view seems to be that it was derived from the old traditional garb of the Bacchic cultus, worn by Dionysus himself and by his chief attendants.717 Several indications point in this direction. In early works of art Dionysus and his followers often appear in a long flowing robe, not unlike that of the tragic stage. They also wear a tall hunting boot, which was sometimes called the cothurnus, and which may have been the prototype from which the tragic cothurnus was developed. The custom of disguising the features with a mask or some similar device was always a regular institution in the mummeries connected with the Bacchic worship. The old comic actors, before the invention of the theatrical mask, used to smear their faces with wine, or cover them with fig-leaves. Masks were regularly worn in the processions of Dionysus down to the latest times. The Latin peasantry, at their Bacchic festivals, used to cover their faces with masks made out of the bark of trees.718 All these facts are in favour of the conclusion that the tragic dress, with its mask, its cothurnus, and its flowing robe, was not so much the invention of the fifth century as a development from the old festal costume.719 This theory has also the advantage of ascribing a parallel origin to the dresses of the chorus and those of the actors. While the chorus, in the older drama, appeared in the guise of satyrs or rustic votaries of Dionysus, the actors, whose part was more dignified, assumed the garb of Dionysus himself and of his chief attendants. One ancient tradition asserts that the tragic dress was copied in later times by the hierophants and torch-bearers at the Eleusinian mysteries.720 Some scholars have twisted this tradition round, and suggested that it was from the hierophants and torch-bearers that the first notion of the tragic dress was borrowed. But neither view can be regarded as probable. That the two costumes were not dissimilar seems to be proved by the existence of the tradition referred to. But it is unlikely that the garb used at the performances in honour of one deity should have been borrowed from the cultus of another. The resemblance may be better explained by the supposition that both costumes were ancient religious dresses, used in the worship of Dionysus and Demeter respectively.
Whatever may have been the origin of the tragic costume, there is no doubt that the form of it which eventually prevailed upon the Greek stage dates from the time of Aeschylus. His creative genius revolutionized every department of Greek tragedy. It was he who transformed it into an essentially dramatic species of art, and gave it the characteristics of grandeur and terror. It was necessary to make a corresponding improvement in the dresses of the actors, and this reform also was effected by Aeschylus. The type of costume which he gradually developed was so well adapted to its purpose, that it continued unchanged in its principal characteristics throughout the remaining history of Greek tragedy. Subsequent generations, while making various small additions and alterations, never altogether abandoned the original design. Our knowledge of the subject is derived partly from the descriptions of Pollux and others, partly from works of art. Few of these works, unfortunately, are of early date. There is the Naples vase, belonging to the end of the fifth century, and depicting the performers in a satyric play. The two actors who take the heroic parts in this performance (Fig. 22) are dressed more or less closely in the tragic style. There is also a votive relief (Fig. 15) from the Peiraeeus, of the early fourth century, in which three tragic actors are depicted in stage costume, two of them with their masks in their hands.721 But the work in this relief is so bare and devoid of detail, that it adds little to our knowledge. The Andromeda vase, of the same date, exhibits Andromeda chained to a rock, with Perseus and other figures on each side of her, and dressed in a costume which was evidently suggested by that of tragedy, though it is not a complete theatrical dress.722 Numerous vases from Magna Graecia, belonging mostly to the fourth century, represent scenes out of tragedies.723 But these too are not portrayed as theatrical scenes; and the costumes of the characters, though often resembling those of the tragic stage, cannot be regarded as regular actors’ costumes. Still, all these paintings are valuable, as exhibiting in a general way some of the main features of the tragic dress. Apart from examples of the above kind, the works of art on which we have to depend are all of late date, and mostly of Italian origin.724 But Greek tragedies were commonly performed in Italy even in imperial times; and Roman tragedy was in all respects a mere reproduction of the Greek. Hence delineations of tragic scenes and figures, though Italian in origin, present the characteristics of the Greek stage. It would be unsafe to depend upon them for points of minute detail. But they correspond in the main with the descriptions of Pollux, and it is possible to obtain from them a fairly trustworthy picture of the general appearance of the Greek actors. The accompanying figure of a tragic actor (Fig. 16) is copied from an ivory statuette found in the ruins of a villa near Rieti.725 On comparing together these various representations, which range in date over a period of five or six hundred years, it is interesting to find that they all bear a strong family resemblance to one another. The pictures of the tragic actor, whether found on Greek vases, Etruscan mosaics, or wall-paintings of Cyrene and Pompeii, obviously belong to one common type. In spite of considerable differences in point of detail they portray the same general conception. This fact confirms the ancient tradition, that the costume of the tragic stage, in all its more important features, was definitely settled by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century.
The contrast between the ancient and the modern actor is marked by nothing so conspicuously as by the use of masks. These masks, or similar devices, were a regular feature in the old Dionysiac worship, and were probably inherited as such by the tragic stage, and not invented of set purpose. With the growth of tragedy they soon acquired a new character. Thespis, the earliest of tragic actors, is said at the commencement of his career to have merely painted his face with white lead or purslane. Later on he employed masks; but these were of a very simple character, consisting merely of linen, without paint or colouring. Choerilus introduced certain improvements which are not specified. Phrynichus set the example of using female masks.726 Aeschylus was the first to employ painted masks, and to portray features of a dreadful and awe-inspiring character. Though not the inventor of the tragic mask, as some ancient writers assert, he was the first to give it that distinctive character from which in later times it never varied except in detail.727 After the time of Aeschylus there is no further mention of any radical alterations or improvements in the manufacture of masks.
The use of masks is indissolubly connected with the style and character of Greek tragedy. It is said to have added resonance to the actor’s voice; and this was a point of great importance in the vast theatres of the ancients.728 Also without masks it would have been impossible for one actor to play several parts, or for men to play the parts of women. At the same time the practice had its inconvenient side. The Greek actor was deprived of any opportunity for displaying those powers of facial expression which are one of the chief excellences in modern acting. It was only by his gestures that he could emphasize the meaning of what he had to say: his features remained immovable. But niceties of facial expression would have been scarcely visible in the huge expanse of a Greek theatre. The tragic mask, on which were depicted in bold and striking lines the main traits in the character represented, was really much more effective, and could be seen by the most distant spectator. Then again it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for a Greek actor to delineate finely drawn shades of individual character. The masks necessarily ran in general types, such as that of the brutal tyrant, the crafty statesman, the suffering maiden, and so on. The acting would have to correspond. It would be difficult to imagine the part of Hamlet acted in a mask. But the characters of Greek tragedy were mostly types rather than individuals. The heroes and heroines were drawn in broad general outlines, and there was little attempt at delicate strokes of character-painting. The use of masks no doubt helped to give this particular bent to Greek tragedy.
Masks were generally made of linen. Cork and wood were occasionally used.729 The mask covered the whole of the head, both in front and behind.730 Caps were often worn underneath, to serve as a protection.731 The white of the eye was painted on the mask, but the place for the pupil was left hollow, to enable the actor to see.[732] The expression of the tragic mask was gloomy and often fierce; the mouth was opened wide, to give a clear outlet to the actor’s voice. One of the most characteristic features of the tragic mask was the onkos,733 a cone-shaped prolongation of the upper part of the mask above the forehead, intended to give size and impressiveness to the face, and used where dignity was to be imparted. It varied in size according to the character of the personage. The onkos of the tyrant was especially large; that of women was less than that of men. A character was not necessarily represented by the same mask throughout the piece. The effects of misfortune or of accident had often to be depicted by a fresh mask. For instance, in the Helen of Euripides Helen returns upon the stage with her hair shorn off, and her cheeks pale with weeping. Oedipus, at the end of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, is seen with blinded eyes and blood-stained face. In such cases a change of mask must have been necessary. There are a few occasions in the extant tragedies where a change of facial expression seems to be demanded by the circumstances, but was rendered impossible by the mask. Thus in the Electra of Sophocles, the heroine is unable to show her joy at her brother’s return, and the poet has to get over this as best he can. He makes Orestes bid her show no signs of joy for fear of arousing suspicion, while she declares that there is no risk of this, for hatred of her mother has become too engrained in her for her expression to change suddenly, and her joy itself will bring tears and not laughter.734
The number and variety of the masks used in tragedy may be seen from the accounts in Pollux. For the ordinary tragic personages there were regular masks of a stereotyped character. Pollux enumerates twenty-eight kinds.735 His information was derived from Alexandrian sources, and his list represents the number of masks which were employed on the later Greek stage for the ordinary characters of tragedy. It is not likely that in the time of Sophocles or Euripides the use of masks was reduced so completely to a system as in the later period; but the descriptions in Pollux will give an adequate idea of the style of the masks used in earlier times. Of the twenty-eight masks described by Pollux six are for old men, eight for young men, three for attendants, and eleven for women. The principal features by which the different masks are discriminated from one another are the style of the hair, the colour of the complexion, the height of the onkos, and the expression of the eyes. To take a few examples. The strong and powerful man, such as the tyrant, has thick black hair and beard, a tall onkos, and a frown upon his brow. The man wasted by disease has fair hair, a pale complexion, and a smaller onkos. The handsome youth has fair ringlets, a light complexion, and bright eyes. The lover is distinguished by black hair and a pale complexion. The maiden in misfortune has her hair cut short in token of sorrow. The aged lady has white hair and a small onkos, and her complexion is rather pale. Attendants and messengers are marked by special characteristics. One of them wears a cap, another has a peaked beard, a third has a snub nose and hair drawn back. One sees from these examples how completely Greek tragedy was dominated by conventional rules, in this as in all other respects. As soon as a personage entered the stage, his mask alone was enough to give the spectators a very fair conception of his character and position.
The twenty-eight tragic masks enumerated by Pollux were used for the ordinary characters of tragedy, and formed a regular part of the stock of the Greek stage-manager. But special masks were required when any unusual character was introduced. Pollux gives a long list of such masks.736 In the first place there were numbers of mythological beings with strange attributes. Actaeon had to be represented with horns, Argo with a multitude of eyes. Evippe in the play of Euripides had the head of a mare. A special mask of this kind must have been required to depict Io with the ox-horns in the Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus. A second class of special masks was needed to represent allegorical figures such as Justice, Persuasion, Deceit, Jealousy. Of this kind are the figures of Death in the Alcestis of Euripides, and Frenzy in the Hercules Furens. Lastly, there were personifications of cities, rivers, and mountains. Five specimens of ancient tragic masks are given in figs. 17, 18. The first is the mask of a youth, the fifth that of a man; the second and third are probably masks of women. The fourth is an example of one of the special masks, and depicts Perseus with the cap of darkness upon his head.737
We come now to the dress of the tragic actors. Nothing is known as to the appearance of this dress in the time of Thespis and his immediate successors. Our information refers solely to the tragic costume as modified and developed by Aeschylus in the course of the fifth century. The object of Aeschylus in these innovations was to add fresh splendour to the costume, and make it worthy of the colossal beings by which his stage was peopled. For this purpose he employed various devices. Among these was the cothurnus, or tragic boot, which was intended to increase the stature of the actors, and to give them an appearance of superhuman grandeur. It was a boot with a wooden sole of enormous thickness attached to it. The wooden sole was painted in various colours.738 According to some grammarians Aeschylus invented the boot altogether;739 others say his innovation consisted merely in giving increased thickness to the sole, and so raising the height of the actors.740 This latter view is probably the correct one. The original of the cothurnus, as already remarked, may very likely have been the hunting boot of the same name worn by Dionysius, which was a boot reaching high up the calf, but with soles of ordinary size. After the time of Aeschylus the tragic cothurnus continued to be a regular feature in theatrical costume down to the latest period of Greek and Roman tragedy.741 It varied in height according to the dignity and position of the wearers, a king, for instance, being provided with a larger cothurnus than a mere attendant. In this way the physical stature of the persons upon the stage was made to correspond to their social position. In the accompanying illustration (Fig. 19), representing a tragic scene, the difference between the cothurnus of the servant and that of the hero is very conspicuous.742 Whether the cothurnus was worn by all the characters in a tragedy, or only by the more important ones, is uncertain. There was another tragic boot called the ‘krepis’, of a white colour, which was introduced by Sophocles, and used by the chorus as well as by the actors. Possibly this may have been a boot more like those of ordinary life than the cothurnus, and may have been worn by the subordinate characters.743 The illustrations show that the cothurnus was rather a clumsy contrivance, and that it must have been somewhat inconvenient to walk with. The tragic actor had to be very careful to avoid stumbling upon the stage. Lucian says that accidents were not infrequent. Aeschines met with a misfortune of this kind as he was acting the part of Oenomaus at Collytus. In the scene where Oenomaus pursues Pelops he tripped up and fell, and had to be lifted up again by the chorus-trainer Sannio.744 The use of the cothurnus, combined with the onkos, or prolongation of the crown of the mask, added greatly to the stature of the tragic actor. To prevent his seeming thin in comparison with his height, it was found necessary to increase his bulk by padding. His figure was thus made to appear of uniformly large proportions.745
The garments of the tragic actor were the same as the ordinary Greek dress, but their style and colour were more magnificent. They consisted of an under-garment or tunic, and an over-garment or mantle. The tunic was brilliantly variegated in colour. Sometimes it was adorned with stripes, at other times with the figures of animals and flowers, or similar ornamentation. A special tunic of purple was worn by queens. The ordinary tragic tunic reached down to the feet. But the tunics worn by females upon the stage were sometimes longer than those worn by men, and trailed upon the ground, as the name ‘syrtos’ implies. On the other hand, it appears from various illustrations that shorter ones were occasionally provided for attendants and other minor characters. The tunic of the tragic actor was fastened with a broad girdle high up under the breast, and flowed down in long and graceful folds, giving an appearance of height and dignity. It was also supplied with long sleeves reaching to the waist. In ordinary life sleeves of this kind were considered effeminate by the European Greeks, and were mostly confined to the Greeks of Asia. The general character and appearance of the tragic tunic is well exemplified in the illustrations already given.746
The over-garments were the same in shape as those worn off the stage, and consisted of two varieties. The ‘himation’ was a long mantle passing round the right shoulder, and covering the greater part of the body. The ‘chlamys’ was a short cloak flung across the left shoulder. As far as shape was concerned all the tragic mantles belonged to one or the other of these two classes, but they differed in colour and material. Pollux gives a list of several of them, but does not append any description.747 The mere names prove that they were very gorgeous in colour. There were mantles of saffron, of frog-green, of gold, and of purple. Queens wore a white mantle with purple borders. These were the colours worn by tragic personages under ordinary circumstances. But if they were in misfortune or in exile, the fact was signified to the spectators from the very first by dressing them in the garb of mourning. In such cases the colours used were black, dun, grey, yellow, or dirty white.
Coverings for the head were not usually worn by the Greeks except when they were on a journey. The same practice was observed upon the stage. Thus in the Oedipus Coloneus, Ismene arrives from Thebes wearing a ‘Thessalian hat’. Ladies also wore a ‘mitra’, or band for binding the hair. In the scene in the Bacchae, where Pentheus is dressed up as a female, one of the articles mentioned is the hair-band.748
Such was the tragic costume as settled by Aeschylus, and universally adopted upon the Greek stage. No stress was laid upon historical accuracy; no attempt was made to discriminate one rank from another by marked variety in the dress. The same garb in its main features was worn by nearly all the characters of a Greek tragedy. In some instances special costumes were invented for particular classes of men. Soothsayers such as Teiresias always wore a woollen garment of network, which covered the whole of the body. Shepherds were provided with a short leathern tunic. Occasionally also heroes in great misfortune, such as Telephus and Philoctetes, were dressed in rags.749 But the majority of the characters wore the regular tragic costume, with slight additions and variations; and the only means by which the spectators were enabled to identify the well-known personages of mythology, and to discriminate between the different ranks of the characters, was by the presence of small conventional emblems. For instance, the gods and goddesses always appeared with the particular weapon or article of dress with which their names were associated. Apollo carried his bow, and Hermes his magic wand. Athene wore the aegis.750 In the same way the well-known heroes of antiquity had generally some speciality in their costume which enabled the spectators to recognize them as soon as they came upon the stage. Hercules was always conspicuous by means of his club and lion’s skin; Perseus wore the cap of darkness, as depicted in the illustration already given.751 Kings in a similar manner were distinguished by the crown upon their head, and the sceptre in their hand. They also had a special article of dress, consisting of a short tunic with a swelling bosom, worn over the ordinary tunic.752 Foreigners were discriminated by some one particular attribute, rather than by a complete variety in their costume. For example, Darius wore the Persian turban; otherwise he was probably dressed in the ordinary tragic style.753 Warriors were equipped with complete armour, and occasionally had a short cloak of scarlet or purple wrapped round the hand and elbow for protection.754 Old men usually carried a staff in their hands. The staff with a curved handle, which occurs not infrequently in ancient works of art, was said to be an invention of Sophocles.755 Crowns of olive or laurel were worn by messengers who brought good tidings; crowns of myrtle were a sign of festivity.756 The above examples illustrate the mode in which the different characters and classes were discriminated upon the Greek stage by small varieties in their equipment. But in its main features the dress of the majority of the characters was the same, and consisted of the elaborate Aeschylean costume.
The tragic costume, after having been once elaborated, was retained for centuries without any important innovation. The tragic actor must have been an impressive, though rather unnatural, figure, upon the stage. His large stature and bulky limbs, his harsh and strongly-marked features, his tunic with its long folds and brilliantly variegated pattern, his mantle with its gorgeous colours, must have combined to produce a spectacle of some magnificence. We must remember that he was intended to be seen in theatres of vast dimensions, in which even the front rows of spectators were a considerable distance from the stage, while the more distant part of the audience could only discern general effects. For such theatres the tragic costume of the Greeks was admirably adapted, however unwieldy and unnatural it may have appeared on a closer inspection. Its magnificence and dignity were especially appropriate to the ideal figures which move in the dramas of Aeschylus and Sophocles. In the Frogs of Aristophanes Aeschylus is humorously made to declare that it was only right that the demigods of tragedy should wear finer clothes, and use longer words, than ordinary mortals. The tragedy of Euripides was altogether more human in tone, and a more ordinary costume would have been better suited to it. But the Greeks, with their strong feeling of conservatism in matters of art, clung to the form of dress already established. The result was not altogether satisfactory. The attempt to exhibit human nature pure and simple upon the Greek stage was bound to appear somewhat incongruous. It often happened that the speeches and actions of the heroes in Euripides were highly inconsistent with the superhuman grandeur of their personal appearance. In any case the step from the sublime to the ridiculous was a very short one in the case of the Greek tragic actor. The play had to be elevated in tone, and the performance of a high standard, to carry off the magnificence of the actor’s appearance. Otherwise his unwieldy bulk and gloomy features excited laughter rather than tears. Lucian is especially fond of ridiculing the tragic actors of the time. He laughs at their ‘chest-paddings and stomach-paddings’, ‘their cavernous mouths that look as if they were going to swallow up the spectators’, and the ‘huge boots on which they are mounted’. He wonders how they can walk across the stage in safety.757 In Philostratus there is an amusing story of the extraordinary effect produced upon a country audience in Spain by the appearance of a tragic actor before them for the first time. It is said that as soon as he came upon the stage they began to be rather alarmed at his wide mouth, his long strides, his huge figure, and his unearthly dress. But when he lifted up his voice and commenced his speech in the loud and sonorous clang of the tragic stage, there was a general panic, and they all fled out of the theatre as if he had been a demon.758 In order to give an idea of the style and character of Greek tragic acting, two representations of tragic scenes (Figs. 20 and 21) are inserted, the first of which obviously represents Medea hesitating about the murder of her children.759