The use of masks is indissolubly connected with the style and character of Greek tragedy. It is said to have added resonance to the actor’s voice; and this was a point of great importance in the vast theatres of the ancients.[728] Also without masks it would have been impossible for one actor to play several parts, or for men to play the parts of women. At the same time the practice had its inconvenient side. The Greek actor was deprived of any opportunity for displaying those powers of facial expression which are one of the chief excellences in modern acting. It was only by his gestures that he could emphasize the meaning of what he had to say: his features remained immovable. But niceties of facial expression would have been scarcely visible in the huge expanse of a Greek theatre. The tragic mask, on which were depicted in bold and striking lines the main traits in the character represented, was really much more effective, and could be seen by the most distant spectator. Then again it must have been difficult, if not impossible, for a Greek actor to delineate finely drawn shades of individual character. The masks necessarily ran in general types, such as that of the brutal tyrant, the crafty statesman, the suffering maiden, and so on. The acting would have to correspond. It would be difficult to imagine the part of Hamlet acted in a mask. But the characters of Greek tragedy were mostly types rather than individuals. The heroes and heroines were drawn in broad general outlines, and there was little attempt at delicate strokes of character-painting. The use of masks no doubt helped to give this particular bent to Greek tragedy. [Illustration: FIG. 16.]