Ancient Greek Theater Performances: Contests, Actors, Masks, Costumes | Early European History And Religion

ANCIENT GREEK THEATER PERFORMANCES AND CHORUSES

Ancient Greek drama competition

Dramatic performances in Athens and often elsewhere in Greece were a part of the worship of the wine-god Dionysos, and in consequence attendance in the theater at Athens was a religious duty as well as a pleasure. The audience was composed of the citizens, both men and women, and visitors from other states and cities. In early times the playwright acted in his own play, but later the profession of actor was distinct from that of poet. Women’s parts were taken by men. [Source: “The Daily Life of the Greeks and Romans”, Helen McClees Ph.D, Gilliss Press, 1924]

Plays were performed by daylight in the open air, in theaters so constructed that most of the audience was at a considerable distance from the actors. These circumstances naturally had a great effect upon the conventions of the theater and the manner of acting, as effects must be broad, characters must be typical rather than individual, and facial play was impossible. Early in the history of the Greek drama masks for the actors were introduced, and continued in use for both tragedy and comedy. They were usually made of linen stiffened with clay and painted, though cork and wood were also used. The pupils of the eyes were perforated so that the actor could see, and the mouth was always open.

Early Greek dramas featured a chorus — a group of actors who described and commented upon the main action of a play with song, dance, and recitation. According to Encyclopedia Britannica: Greek tragedy had its beginnings in choral performances, in which a group of 50 men danced and sang dithyrambs—lyric hymns in praise of the god Dionysus.

The chorus-members were usually free citizens; strangers were jealously excluded. Their task was by no means a light one; bodily dexterity was required for the dances, and good musical training, good delivery and comprehension of the poetic text were necessary in order to give a satisfactory representation of the poet’s work before the keenly critical Attic public. It is, therefore, natural that a good choragus (leader of a chorus) took considerable trouble to procure a good chorus, the rather as the choragia was a contest in which not only the poet but also the choragi contended for the prize. Besides those already mentioned, the choragi had also other duties: to procure the requisites, such as decoration for the side-scenes, perhaps even to supply sacrificial animals if they were required in the play. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

Drama Contests in Ancient Greece

Playwrights competed in fairly frequent contests, meaning they had to be prolific as well as talented. For each competition dramatists were required to write a play about three-fourths of the length of Hamlet. Awards were given out based on the decision of a panel of ten judges. At the Greater Dionysian Festival awards were given in three categories: 1) tragedy, 2) comedy and 3) dithyramb.

As the competitions evolved dithyrambs were replaced with theatrical dramas and there were separate categories for tragedy and comedy. The chorus was incorporated into the dramas and to entertain the audience between the acts. Later the chorus played increasingly insignificant roles and was essentially phased out. Early on many of the actors were amateurs. As time went on professionals began to dominate.

A large annual dramatic and lyrical festival and competition honoring Dionysus was held in the city Dionysia in Athens. It began with a religious procession, culminating in songs, choral dances and sacrifices. The main events featured choral songs called dithyrambs. Dithyrambs were performed by a "circular chorus" of 50 men and boys who sang and danced around an altar in the orchestra area of a theater.

Tribal choruses competed against one another in festivals sponsored by wealthy citizens. The first prize was a bull and a tripod dedicated to Dionysus, second prize was an amphora of wine, and third prize was a goat. At this point in time music, poetry and drama were essentially the same thing and the subjects of the poem-songs were the Greek myths and episodes from the “ Iliad” and “ Odyssey. Fertility festivals started dying out around this time because the harvests and rains they promised to deliver failed to arrive. [Source: "The Creators" by Daniel Boorstin,μ]

Each of the ten Athenian tribes sponsored two dithyramb choruses: one made up of men and other of boys. A wealthy patron paid for the costuming and training for the chorus members and a poet — who composed a poem for the events and choreographed the dances — and a trainer and flutist. It is thought the chorus members circled an altar in the theater and did some dance steps as they did. The chorus also sang and danced during interludes between the dramatic plays.

The contest are said to go back a long time. There is one story of Homer facing off against his younger rival Hesoid, with Hesoid taking first prize because his book “Work and Days” , a long poem about farming, was deemed more “useful” than the “Iliad”.

How Ancient Greek Poetry Competitions Were Conducted and Judged

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. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

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.

At festivals the State engaged a number of protagonists, deuteragonists, and tritagonists, corresponding to the number of poets contending; thus, if there were three poets competing, they required nine actors, supposing the same actors continued to perform throughout the whole tetralogy, of which we cannot be certain. The lot assigned to each of the poets one out of the three classes; still, we know that some poets always had the same protagonist, who appeared in all their plays, and for whom, in fact, they sometimes wrote a special part; therefore, it must have been customary for poets who had already been victorious to ask for a particular protagonist without drawing lots, and this custom probably became the rule afterwards. We cannot, however, say how the two others were chosen.

What Was Necessary to Stage a Drama in Ancient Greece

During the Gold Age of Greece, productions of dramas was often paid for by wealthy citizens; attendance was often required for religious reasons; and the state paid the price of admission for the poor. But often the equipment and performance of plays was not the duty of the State; the poet undertook the expenses, and tried to cover them by entrance money. But when the theatrical representation became a regular part of the Dionysiac festivals, the State took the matter in its own hands, and arranged things in such a way that the expenses for the chorus were undertaken by some wealthy citizen as a liturgy, while the rest of the expenses were defrayed by the State. This liturgy was called Choragia, because originally the person who defrayed the expenses also trained and led the chorus. For the various choric performances required at the many festivals — since besides tragic and comic choruses there were also cyclic and other choral representations — each tribe chose its “choragus,” and this was done a year in advance, because the preparations required a great deal of time. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

If a poet wanted to perform one of his dramas at a festival, he need not consider how to procure the necessary actors, but only how to get his chorus. For this purpose he addressed himself to that archon whose duty it was to make the arrangements for the festival in question, and begged him to assign him a choragus. It appears to have been in the power of this official to accept or refuse the play. Probably the poets handed in the manuscript of their plays. The only limitations in applying were that the poet must be a citizen, and of unstained reputation; and in comedy, on account of its political character, he must be of a certain age — thirty years, according to most of the statements. If the archon accepted the drama, he assigned the poet one of the choragi, either by election or lot. It was by no means a matter of indifference whether this was required for tragedy or comedy; for at the time when they competed with tetralogies, tragedy involved at least as much expense as did comedy with its larger chorus. It is probable, therefore, that the choragi were sometimes assisted by the State, especially as in later times, when the glory of Athens had departed, and its citizens were no longer so rich, it became more and more difficult to find people ready to undertake these great expenses; and in later times it was not unusual for several choragi together to undertake a chorus.

The first duty of the choragus was to collect the necessary number of persons and to pay those who were not bound to appear unpaid. He had also to choose and pay a chorus teacher, who had to train the chorus, and usually undertook the place of chorus-leader at the performance. In former times, when this instruction of the chorus was not a profession as it was later on, and the poet often helped in the training, the choragus frequently trained the chorus himself, and even appeared as their leader at the performance; but in later times this was unusual. The choragus had also to procure, or if necessary hire, a place for the training of the chorus, to keep the members during the time of training, and to provide them with festive garments and wreaths for the performance. It rested with him to spend a large or a small amount for this last purpose, but a choragus who equipped a comic chorus economically, risked being made the subject of the poet’s sarcasm on some future occasion, and in the allotment of prizes, too, the appearance of the chorus would be considered, as well as the manner in which it performed its task.

In later times, when the chorus had lost its importance, and the expenses were less considerable, the choragus had also to supply the dresses of the actors, though this was never the case in the best period of the drama. In fact, as we may learn from the inscriptions, a complete change in the choragia took place in the Hellenistic period. It became the custom for the people to choose presidents of contests, whose duty it was to provide for the musical competitions at the Dionysia and other festivals. They had to attend to the regular and suitable performance of the contests, to supply certain sacrificial animals, etc.; this was often a very expensive undertaking, and, like all officials, they had to make a statement concerning their office at the conclusion of its duration. This institution in a way placed the choragia in the hands of the people, who transferred their duties to the presidents, and these had then to equip all the choruses, which were no longer so numerous as they had been formerly. This innovation was necessitated by the fact that the number of rich families of whom these pecuniary sacrifices could be demanded, had become very small, and these now supplied the presidents. This change in the arrangements of the choragia seems to have taken place under the rule of Demetrius of Phalerum, towards the end of the fourth century B.C.

Poetry, Music and Dancing in Ancient Greek Drama

Actors in a Greek play from a Roman-era painting

The ancient drama, under which we include tragedy, satyric drama, and comedy, was a combination of three arts —poetry, music, and dancing. The last was, as a rule, confined to the chorus, and it very seldom happened that an actor in the play performed a dance, but the musical part belonged not only to the chorus but also to the actors; for though the usual dialogue consisted merely in recitation, yet there were long passages in the purely dramatic part which were not declaimed by the actors, but sung. Our modern writers express very different opinions about the mode in which the dialogues were recited.

It appears to us most probable that in comedy there was, as a rule, only speaking, without any musical accompaniment; while in tragedy continuous musical composition was introduced alternating with dramatic speech — that is, spoken recitation, accompanied by music — and even with simple declamation. Then there were also solo songs by the actors, of which the meter was lyric, and these bore some resemblance to the airs of our modern opera; they are less common in the older tragedy than in Euripides, with whom they sometimes take a disproportionately large place. There were also musical dialogues between the actors and chorus, in particular its leader. The instruments used for accompaniment were the lyre and cithara, and also the flute. The stringed instruments were used chiefly for striking a few notes like the chords struck at our recitations; the flute only indicated the chief notes, and accompanied the melody of the chorus and the solo song either at the same height or one or two octaves higher. Flute playing accompanied most of the choric songs; with the chorus entered a flute player, who always took his place on the thymele. In later tragedy the music, which had formerly been very simple, grew more elaborate and complicated; several flute players played at the same time, and with their shrill music very often drowned the singing; but the solo performances on the stage were accompanied by only a single flute.

The choregraphic element in the drama, which belonged especially to the chorus in tragedy, consisted chiefly in marching with various figures, much like our modern polonaise. The dances in comedy were much more lively and often of a lascivious character, and those of a satyric chorus were also of a burlesque nature. But, doubtless, the choric dancing consisted not merely in certain regular movements of the feet adapted to the music, but also in rhythmic motions of the whole body, and especially of the hands and arms, so that their dancing must have somewhat resembled our modern ballet. It is not easy to get any complete conception of it; the later hypotheses are by no means proved, and many strange statements have been made about the recitation of the chorus, the division of verses and words of the song among the semi-chorus, leaders, or individual members. In any case the task of the chorus was no easy one, since the members were not professional artists like the actors, but amateurs, who had to be specially trained for each performance. This was due to the institution of the Choragia.

Ancient Greek Actors

In Greek plays, there were no actresses; all roles were played by men, often wearing masks made of wood or cork. Actors worked long hours. Some trilogies were written to be performed in their entirety in one day. The first actor was a man named Hyprocites (the word hypocrite was first used around Chaucer's time).

Fat woman actor

In the earliest Greek dramas, a single actor, who represented various parts one after another, and entered into a dialogue with the leader of the chorus, and that Aeschylus added a second, and Sophocles a third. Originally the poet himself appeared as actor, and when there were several actors, as protagonist — that is he represented the chief part. When Sophocles, who had himself appeared a few times, abandoned this custom, it gradually fell into disuse, and the first actor, as well as the two others, was supplied to the poet by the State. As a rule, the actors were allotted to the poets by lot; it seems, however, that before the State undertook to pay an actor, he had to submit to examination, and that only those who had already appeared, and whose performances were well known, were excluded from this examination. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

The parts of the play were divided between these three actors; the chief part, which, as a rule, was the most difficult, fell to the protagonist; the next in importance — such as the one which was brought into the closest connection with the chief person, fell to the deuteragonist; the tritagonist undertook unimportant parts, such as messengers, heralds, etc., and these actors of the lowest class did not stand in particular estimation with the public. But as the plays contained more than three parts, each actor had to undertake several, and therefore, even while composing a play, the poet had to be careful that the actors, if they had to appear in another part, had sufficient time for change of costume, and that the absence of an actor who was to be used for another part should be in some way explained. There were, however, plays in which it was absolutely impossible to manage with three actors, and for these there was a contrivance about which the exponents of passages referring to it hold very different opinions, and, indeed, there seem to be mistakes or misrepresentations in the authors themselves. It is most probable that when a poet required more than the three actors assigned him by the State he applied to the choragus, and came to an agreement with him; he then supplied a fourth actor, or even a fifth, since it was only small parts that had to be thus undertaken, and, if necessary, the choragus also provided a second, or minor, chorus, such as was required in certain plays (parachorêgêma). There were also dumb personages, or statists, called also “spear-bearers,” since these parts were frequently merely standing parts. We do not know whether the State or the choragus paid for these. We have, in fact, little information about the payment given to the actors, which must have been, however, different in proportion to their performances; in the Macedonian period celebrated actors received very high pay.

In the Hellenistic period a complete transformation took place in acting. When the chorus was abolished, and the representation of dramas in consequence became easier, and took place at other festivals as well as the Dionysia, unions of actors were formed, calling themselves “Dionysiac artists,” concerning which the inscriptions give us a good deal of interesting information. A number of these companies combined together into sacred guilds, which had their seat in the large towns, and sent their members in companies into small towns and also into the provinces as far as Asia Minor, for festive representations. We are best acquainted with the arrangements of the Dionysiac artist company of Teos, an Ionic town on the coast of Lydia. These not only appeared in Asia Minor, but had also rights in Delphi, Thebes, and Thespiae. It numbered a great many members, not only actors, but also writers of tragedies, comedies, and satyric dramas, epic poems, and encomia; composers, musicians, dancers, machinists, decorators, wardrobe owners, etc. They also instituted a dramatic musical school, a kind of Conservatorium, in which pupils from various parts of Greece were trained, and usually in turn became members of the guild. It is very interesting to examine the details, management, inner organisation, and life of the members of these actors’ guilds in the Alexandrine period, but unfortunately space does not permit us to do so here.

Masks in Ancient Greek Drama

Dionysos mask

One of the greatest difference between ancient and modern theaters is the appearance of actors in masks. In 534 B.C. the idea of masks were introduced to help define the persona of the actor by an actor named Thespis who painted his face with white lead and hung flowers from his ears. Masks allowed actors to play many different characters. Chorus members of all dramatic genres wore masks and costumes of characters depicted.

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 theaters 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.[Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

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 theaters 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, 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.

Types of Masks in Ancient Greek Drama

peasant mask

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.

Expressiveness in Ancient Greek Masks

Masks "were carved and painted to depict exaggerated expressions of anger, fear, despair, etc. and were switched as the themes of the play required. The masks may have helped in the projection of voices to the uppermost rows.

4th or 3rd century BC mask from the Stoa of Attalos

The writers supplied indication 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 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, 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 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 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, 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.

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.

Costumes in Ancient Greek Drama

In regard to costuming, for the most part, actors wore typical clothing although the colours may have been brighter than usual. Actors routinely wore conspicuously short costumes with massive woolen phalluses hanging out the bottom. They also wore wore heavy wooden-soled boots and elaborate and expensive costumes paid for by wealthy citizens who tried to outdo each other in outrageousness and extravagance. After the performance was over the wealthy patrons got to keep the costume.μ

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 theater, 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. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

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.

Costumes and Props for Different Characters in Ancient Greek Drama

actor in a satyr costume

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 two images, 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.

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.

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, 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. 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.

Admission and Seating at Ancient Greek Drama Performances

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 theater fell down during a performance, and the new stone theater 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 theater 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. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

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 theater, 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 theater — 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 theater 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 theater 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 theater-goers, probably constituted the greater part of the feminine public. It also seems that boys were present. Slaves were allowed to visit the theater; 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 theater 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. [Source “The Home Life of the Ancient Greeks” by Hugo Blümner, translated by Alice Zimmern, 1895]

But this hypothesis is only probable if we assume, with Benndorf, that the citizens received not money but counters; if the spectators bought their theater 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.

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons, The Louvre, The British Museum

Text Sources: Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Greece sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Internet Ancient History Sourcebook: Hellenistic World sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; BBC Ancient Greeks bbc.co.uk/history/; Canadian Museum of History, Perseus Project - Tufts University; perseus.tufts.edu ; MIT Classics Online classics.mit.edu ; Gutenberg.org, Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, Smithsonian magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, Live Science, Discover magazine, Natural History magazine, Archaeology magazine, The New Yorker, Encyclopædia Britannica, "The Discoverers" and "The Creators" by Daniel Boorstin. "Greek and Roman Life" by Ian Jenkins from the British Museum, Wikipedia, Reuters, Associated Press, The Guardian, AFP and various books and other publications.

Last updated September 2024