This chapter examines the fidelity discourse as applied to Greek drama and how it has affected the ways in which adaptations have tended to be detrimentally regarded. The chapter challenges the premise that we have access to the original versions of these plays, and suggests ways in which we can approach adaptation as a positive act of creativity that has enabled the work to survive, rather than a kind of debasement of the canon. The chapter also shows how the fidelity discourse exerts a negative influence on the adaptation of Greek drama, by using examples drawn from the author's own work on adaptations with the Aquila Theatre public programming aimed at the veteran community in the United States. By briefly describing these performance projects, the chapter hopes to show how an informed approach to adaptation can produce new ways in which to increase engagement with and knowledge of ancient dramatic works.

In many ways the Greek dramatic mask embodied the very idea of ancient theatricality: it was closely associated with the rites of Dionysus; always worn by the performers of tragedy, comedy and satyr drama; highly effective at establishing an instant performative frame; and able to project easily recognisable affective states. In ancient Athens to act without a mask would have been unthinkable. Yet today the Greek dramatic mask and how it functioned in performance are widely misunderstood. In its most reductive form it has come to symbolise drama itself, such as the use of its comic and tragic incarnations as the logo for the actors’ union in the United States. In the West the mask is now widely regarded as a passive instrument of disguise and most often associated with the inactive neutral face of the mime.

In this chapter I will explore how the mask operating within the spatial conditions of the ancient theatre acted as a superb focaliser and a highly effective distributor for the way in which spectators perceived and reacted to affective and sensorimotor information. I also attempt to explain some of the thorniest ontological problems of the mask, including the question of its duality as both object and face, and its associated uncanny or ‘magical’ properties. Ancient commentators noted that drama had the power to ‘move the soul’ (psychagōgia) and was a highly emotional and compelling experience. I will argue here that this was due in large part to the cognitive qualities of the mask. I also revisit some of my earlier research into mask functionality, which was primarily based on neuroscience (Meineck 2011), and apply a theory based on material engagement to explore how the mask significantly enhanced bodily distributed cognitive mechanisms.

To understand the cognitive functionality of the mask we need to ask not what the mask was but how it was – that is, to move away from arguments about what the mask may have represented, and instead approach it as an enactive object in its own right.