gow (1912) on the use of masks in roman comedy (art)

7/27/2019 Gow (1912) on the Use of Masks in Roman Comedy (Art)

1/14

On the Use of Masks in Roman Comedy

Author(s): A. S. F. GowSource: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 2 (1912), pp. 65-77Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295942

Accessed: 28/07/2010 19:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Roman Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/295942?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sprshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/295942?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.By A. S. F. GOW.

Since the appearanceof C. Hoffer's dissertationDe personarumusu in P. Terenti comoediis Halis Saxonum, I877) the view thatmaskswere not worn at the original performancesof the plays ofPlautus and Terence has become universally accepted. Thisdissertationis usually cited by recent writers,1 who have for themost part been content to accept Hoffer's conclusions in theirentirety,and the only independent investigatorssince the publicationof the dissertationhave also arrivedat very similar conclusions.2That these views are false canperhapshardly be proved; thatthey areheld with a confidencewhich is not justifiedby the evidenceis, however, demonstrable; and the presentpaperis to be regardedas a plea for reconsiderationof a question which has passed aschose ugee for thirty years. I proposeto reviewthe evidence underthree heads. First, the direct external evidence contained inancient statements as to the origin of masks; second, the indirectevidence of the plays themselves and of Donatus's commentariesupon Terence; third, a priori considerationsas to the probabilityof maskshaving been used in early times.I. There are three main statements as to the introductionof masks in Roman comedy. We will consider first that ofDiomedes3 :

antea itaque galearibus non personis utebantur, ut qualitas coloris indiciumfaceret aetatis, cum essent aut albi aut nigri aut rufi. personis vero uti primuscoepit RosciusGallus, praecipuushistrio, quod oculis eversiserat nec satis decorusin personisnisi parasitus pronuntiabat.

This passage s apparentlydivorcedfromits context and it is corruptin itself,4 but the generalsense is clear. Accordingto this statementRoscius ntroducedthe mask n orderto concealhis squint.That Roscius squinted, we knew already from Cicero,5 and1 Friedlaender (in Mommsen and Marquardt,2 4 For eversis, perversis is usually read. The bestvol. vi, p. 546), Oehmichen (in Iwan Miiller's Hand- suggestion for the last clause seems to be that of

bucb, v, 3, p. 250), L. C. Purser (s. v. Persona in Hoffer who reads qui, quod . . decorus, in, etc. ISmith's Dict. Ant.). A. Muller (Griech. Buihnenalt. suggest that we should read in the first sentencep. 288) accepts Hoffer's view without naming him. aut albi aut nigri vel rufi, since the distinction in2 I. van Wageningen (Scaenica Romana, pp. 33, colour between red andbl ack is not, even byff.), O. Navarre (s. vv. Histrio and Persona n Darem- convention in comedy, a criterion of age.berg & Saglio's Lexicon). 5 Nat. Deor. i, 79.3 De Art. Gramm. iii, 9, 7, (p. 489, Keil: Kaibel,C.G.F. p. 59).


3/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

the same authority also informs us elsewhere that he sometimesplayed in a mask:sed in ore sunt omnia, in eo autem ipso dominatus est omnis oculorum: quomelius nostri illi senes qui personatum ne Roscium quidem magno opere lauda-bant.1

Cicero here tells us simply that the elder generation did not caremuch for an actor even of Roscius'sability when he played in amask. We are not entitled to infer with Hoffer that the groundof their dislike was that they had been invariably accustomed tosee plays performed without masks,nor even that an increase inthe practice of wearing masksrobbed the younger generation ofcriteria ordistinguishingbetween the merits of maskedand unmaskedactors. To the informationwe derive from Cicero, Diomedes addsthat the introduction of masks was ascribed to Roscius. Thisstatement cannot be consideredvery important. It conflicts withother ancient evidence to be discussedpresentlyand may well havearisen from the fact that Roscius was known to have had theinducement of a squint for wearing masks.2 Indeed Diomedes'sstatement containsnothing, except the mention of galearia,3whichmight not be constructed conjecturally from the two passagesofCicero.The second traditional account of the invention of masks iscontained in Donatus, de Comoedia4:

personati primi egisse dicuntur comoediam Cincius [et] Faliscus, tragoediamMinucius [et] Prothymus.Cincius Faliscus is otherwise unknown, but Minucius Prothymusis probably the person mentioned in the didascalia o the Adelphiin the manuscriptsof the Calliopian recension5 and in one orperhaps wo of the Donatan prefacesto the plays. These prefacesare of great importanceand must be considered n connexion withthe passagefrom the de Comoedia. They run as follows:Eunuch.praef. i, 6.

acta plane ludis Megalensibus L. Postumio L. Cornelio aedilibus curulibus,agentibus etiam tunc personatisL. Minucio Prothymo6 L. Ambivio Turpione.1 De Orat. iii, 2zI. 4 vi, 3-5 Egere L. Atilius Prenestinus, Minutius Pro-2 Whether a mask would be efficacious in hiding Egere L. Atilius Prenestinus, Minutius Pro-a squint might be doubted. Cicero implies in the 6 The MSSfth e preface the Eunucus givepassage wvehave considered that it would: else- 6 The MSS. of the preface to the Eunucbus givepassage we have considered that it wold: lse- umidio or Munidio and Prothymo, Prothinio,where (de Orat. i 93)he speaksas if the expression Prochimo and Prothino; those of th. de Comoedia,of the eyes was still visible through a mask. Prothimus, Protinthus, Prothintus and Protimius.3 This comes perhaps from Varro (cf. Charisius, Presumably the same person is meant: I shall inp. 80, Keil). The galearia seem to have been the following pages call him Prothymus (Wolff'swigs. It is probable that something has fallen out correction of the de Comoedia). If the identity isbefore this statement in Diomedes: at least the not admitted, the de Comoediabecomes useless forextant context furnishes no explanation of the our enquiry as we have no other information as toword itaque. the person there named.

66


4/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.Adel. praef. i, 6.

haec sane acta est ludis scaenicisfunebribus L. Aemili Pauli agentibusL. Ambivioet L. qui cum suis gregibus etiam tur personatiagebant.Beforethese passagescan be discussed,a word or two is necessaryas to the nature of the Donatan prefaces. Dziatzko2 has shownthat the didascaliae to Terence's plays in the Codex Bembinus,those in manuscriptsof the Calliopianrecension and the Donatanprefaces preserve, n a mutilated and misunderstood orm, extractsfrom accountsnot only of the first but of subsequentperformancesof the plays. Most of these extant notices present confusedstatements in which facts relating to more than one performanceare combined. Dziatzko also shows, not indeed conclusively, butwith considerableprobability,that when two actoresare mentioned,a confusion has taken place between two different performancesand that in the original source only one actor was named for eachproduction. It seems further probable that the actorwho super-intended the productions in Terence's life-time was L. AmbiviusTurpio.To return to the Donatan prefaces. Donatus3 says that the

Eunuchuswas performed by Minucius Prothymus and AmbiviusTurpio who were masked,and the Adelphiby AmbiviusTurpio andanother actor, perhaps Minucius Prothymus, also masked, as wasthe cast. Now, supposing Dziatzko's conclusions to be correct,this meansthat Donatus is in each case confusingtwo performancesof these plays and it becomes extremely difficult to form anyconclusions as to the statement about masks. Two hypotheses arepossible: the actors may have been maskedat both performancesof the two plays, or Donatus may have found-in his authority astatement that masks were used at one of the two performancesin each case, and have made the statement in the prefacesmerelyowing to the confusion which led him to speakof two actoresfora single performance. In the latter case there is nothing to showwhether the statement was originally made of Turpio or ofProthymus. This much however is clear: whateverthe truth maybe, Donatus at any rate states that maskswere worn at the firstperformancesof the Eunuchus nd the Adelphi.The two passagesin the prefaces are commonly supposed tosupport a correction in the de Comoediawhere it is proposed toread:

The supplement is due in the first instance 3 In the following pages I shall refer to theto Wilmanns. has however Donatan commentaries as "Donatus," though Iequal claims to consideration. am aware that they contain much from other2 Rhein. Mus. xx (I865), pp. 570, if, xxi (i866), sources. The argument remains essentially thepp. 64, if. same even if the de Comoedia and the prefacesare by different hands.

67


5/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.personati primi egisse dicuntur comoediam Minucius Prothymus, tragoediamCincius Faliscus.

Donatus thought that maskswere worn at the first performancesofthe Eunuchus ndthe Adelphiandhe alsothought, probablywrongly,that Prothymus took part in those performances. This howeveris very inadequate ground for supposinghim to have believedthatProthymuswas the introducer of masks. Moreover when Donatussays" etiam tunc personatis" and " etiam tum personati" he mustmean, not " maskedeven at that early date " (which would be iamturn1), but "masked even at that late date."2 The proposedcorrectionof the de Comoediahen, when takenin conjunctionwiththe preface, ascribesto Donatus surpriseon finding the actor hesupposed to have introduced masks still wearing them at theperformanceof the Eunuchus,and it implies that Donatus believedmasks o have been wornonly for a few years. This view hasnothingto commend it and, on the evidence, we must clearly leave thede Comoediapassageas it stands.The supposed Prothymus-traditionhas had a long vogue andthe coincidence of the name in connexion with masks in the deComoediaand the preface or prefaces lends it a certain cloudyspeciousness. To make the issue quite clear, I will resume theargument. The conclusionusuallydrawnfrom these three passagesis that Minucius Prothymusintroduced masks nto Roman comedyat some period after the death of Terence. This conclusiondepends upon the following assumptions: (I) Since the prefacesstate that Turpio was masked,we must assumethem to have beenwrongly copied from authorities which, in both cases, only saidthat the other actor was masked.3 (2) We must assume a corruptionin the de Comoedia.4 (3) Finally we must assume either that etiamtur andetiamtunccan mean "Ct that earlydate," or that etiamis inboth placesan errorfor iam. These assumptionsreceiveno supporteither from the passage of Diomedes alreadydiscussed5 or, as Ishall shortly show, from the other ancient statement respecting

1Which Hoffer rather half-heartedly proposedto read.2 SeeHand'sTursellinus,i, 596,if.3 Leo (Rhein.Mus. xxxviii, p. 343) wished toaccount for the statementsof the prefacesby thehypothesishatDonatuswas misledbyminiaturesofmasked ctors n the manuscripts ewasusing. Hemakesno attemptto explainwhy only two of theplaysshouldhavebeen so decorated,and Donatus'smanuscriptssince we know nothing about themafford,as we shall see, a suitablegroundfor moreor less ingeniousguessing.4This is perhapsnot absolutelynecessary. Atleast Friedlaenderand'.Ribbeck eemto accept themanuscript reading. In this case assumptions

about Cincius Faliscus and his relations withProthymus are necessary.5 Two attempts have been made to reconcileDiomedes and Donatus. Ribbeck (Rom. Trag.p. 66I), followed by Leo (I.c.), supposes that Rosciuswas the chief actor in Prothymus's company. Thisfourth assumption is however rendered improbableby the fact that the manager of the company.seems himself to have been the chief actor (Rhein.Mus. xx, p. 590: cf. Cic. Of. i, II4). VanWageningen suggests that Roscius was the firstRoman actor to wear a mask, Prothymus being aGreek. If Prothymus is really the man's name(it is, as has been said, a conjecture), this hypothesismay be accepted by those who believe in theProthymus-tradition and think it worth while toreconcile it with Diomedes's statement.

68


6/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.the introduction of masks. On these grounds we must, I think,refuse to admit them and accept for what they are worth thestatements before us.So far, therefore,we have from Donatus a statement that maskswere worn at the first performancesof the Eunuchusand Adelphi,an implied statement that they were then going out of use andthe name of an otherwise unknownCincius Faliscusas the originalintroducer. The further statement that Prothymus introducedmasks into tragedy may or may not be true; Prothymus is notknown outside these three passagesand there would be no greatdifficulty in supposingthat he introduced into tragedy a practicewith which he was familiar n comedy. This however is a questionwhich we need not discusshere.lThe third direct statement as to the introduction of masksiscontained in Festus's comment on the word personata,which runsas follows:

personata fabula quaedamNaevi2 inscribitur quam putant quidam primum a personatishistrionibus. sed cum post multos annos comoedi et tragoedipersonisuti coeperint3, veri similius est eam fabulampropter inopiam comoedorumactam novam per Atellanos qui proprie vocantur personati quia ius est iis noncogi in scaena ponere personam quod ceteris histrionibus pati necesse est.This statement if analysedyields the following results:(I) A certain play by Naevius, a dramatistolder than Plautus,who died probably before Terence was born, was called personata.Some personsheld that it was so called becauseit was the first playto be acted in masks.

(2) Festus (or his authority) demurs to this view on theground that maskswere not used until a later period.(3) We are thereforegiven an alternativeexplanation-namelythat it was so called because it was acted by Atellani who wereknown as personati.Now this account would be all very well were it not for theexplanation appended to the name personatiwhich was given tothe Atellani. They were called personati,we are told, because,unlike other theatrical performers, they were not compelled inscaena ponere personam4; but, if this is true, then the second1 The assumption that the practice with regard 3 CoeperuntMS. Mueller wished to read postto masks was identical in tragedy and comedy, is multos annos acta sit quam . . . coeperunt, whichtacitly made by Hoffer and others but seems restores consistency to the passage. Hoffer's

unjustifiable. objection on the score of sense, as our examination2It should be said that Naevius's name is due of the Donatus' passages shows, cannot be main-to emendation: the manuscript apparently has tained, but for the purpose of this enquiry I willquaedamnf ut. The correction seems practically confine my attention to the reading accepted bycertain, and I shall assume that it is right. The Hoffer himself.passage as it stands in the manuscript is useless for 4 The distinction appears to be based on someour purpose since it supplies no evidence as to right of spectators to compel actors to remove theirdate. masks, but nothing else is known of it.

69


7/14


explanation is open to precisely the same objection which led tothe rejection of the first. The propounderof this view certainlyheld that this distinction between actors and Atellani went backto the days of Naevius; otherwise the play in question could nothave been called personataon account of this difference betweenactors of comedies and Atellani. But if in those days actors werenot maskedat all, obviouslythe Atellani could receiveno soubriquetbased on the difference of conditions under which they andcomedianswore masks.Hoffer says that Atellani were called personati n the time ofNaevius becausethey alone wore masks at that time. Afterwards,when comediansalso wore them, the Atellani were so called becausethey were not compelled ponere personam. It does not howeverseem very probable, even if Atellani had originally worn maskswhen comediansdid not and had thence been called distinctivelypersonati,that after comedians assumed the mask the same nameshould have been attached to the Atellani, not in its original sensebut to indicate a new and much less fundamentaldistinction. Norcan it well be maintained that the explanation of the namepersonatihere given is an attempt to account for a title the meaningof which had been forgotten after the introduction of masks ntocomedy. If Atellani had worn masks when comedians did not,Festus has not forgotten the fact but is here insisting upon it; itis most improbable hat he should,with an obvious alternativeunderhis eyes, have preferredor even allowed to stand an explanationof the word personatiboth inconsistent with his own remarksandless plausible n itself.The passage s very puzzling and one would hesitate to expressany very confident opinion upon it. The simplest explanation(supposingthe text to be rightl) seems to me to be as follows:we have in the gloss, not a view plus a criticism,but two views plusa copula. Festus gives two current explanations of the namepersonataand he states his reason for preferringthe secondwithoutperceivingthat that reason s groundfor rejectingboth.2 However,be this as it may, it is difficult to see how the passageas a wholecan be made to support the belief that maskswere not introduceduntil after the death of Terence.Here the direct evidence ends. Its results may be summed upas follows:(I) Cicero tells us that Roscius sometimes wore a mask.

1 As has been said above, the passage becomes complete. In this case we have one view for andperfectly lucid if we retain coeperunt and insert one against the use of masks in early times and aacta sit quam after annos. statement as to the name personati which, if2 An alternative view would of course be that the pressed, would favour the view that they wereexplanation of the name personati is an addition to worn. In any case an oversight has occurred, butthe original statement, though without some such that involved by the explanation suggested in theexplanation the statement would be very in- text seems to me more readily explicable.

70


8/14


Diomedes adds that he was said to have introduced the mask,andstates that wigs preceded masks on the Roman stage.(2) Donatus says that the actors at the first performances ofthe Eunuchus and Adelphi wore masks. He uses language implyingthat he considered this a late, not an early, example of their use.He ascribes the introduction of masks to an unknown CinciusFaliscus.(3) Festus tells us that a play by Naevius was called personata.He gives two explanations of the name, of which one certainly, andthe other probably, implies that masks were worn in early times.He himself seems to have thought that they were introduced later.So far the balance of evidence is certainly against the acceptedview that masks came in after the death of Terence. We mustnow turn to the indirect evidence of the plays themselves and ofDonatus's commentary on Terence.1 Under this heading we havechiefly to consider two arguments which have been adduced toprove that masks were not, worn in early comedy.II. Hoffer has founded an argument against the existence ofmasks in early times upon the use of the word vultus in Terence.Syllogistically the argument runs: Any reference to expression, andparticularly to change of expression, is impossible if the actors were

masked: such references occur in Terence: therefore actors werenot masked in his time. The answer to this argument is that themajor premise is inadmissible. The convention by which grotesquemasks are allowed to replace the human face on the stage is not onlyremarkable in itself but is also a convention with which we areabsolutely unfamiliar. It is therefore impossible to decide whetherreferences to facial expression would seem ridiculous or not.

ri CrvvrETCrpaaL ;ir) crKvOpofCraL 2) TEKVOV'ov yap rrpeITELTOL o07oLTroLE Tac 6opsv.says Calonice to Lysistrata; yet we do not on this account denythat Lysistrata wore a mask.2 So far as a priori argument is admissibleon this point, it seems likely that an audience which accepted thelarge convention of masks would also accept as a matter of coursethe lesser convention which is its natural corollary. An audiencewhich allowed cantica to be sung not by the actor to whose partthey belonged but by a vocalist who stood by the musicians,3 can

1 This is a convenient place to mention Navarre's (de Fab. Atell. pp. 70, ff.), and it is held also bytheory. He says: "Dans la tragedie ainsi que van Wageningen. It is basedon an amplificationdans a comedie atines e masquene fut adoptequ' andmisrepresentationf Livy, vii, 2, and need notasseztard. Le fait s'explique,non pardes raisons be discussedn detail here. Navarreholds that thed'art mais par un prejuge de caste. Comme la introduction of masks was due to Roscius andjeunesse romaine qui bien longtemps avant l'intro- attributes this view, inaccurately, to Cicero.duction du drame grec se divertissait a jouer Ar Ly.7, f. cf . 655, A. 67l'atellane sous des masques entendait ne pas etre 2e. , Pherecrat fr. 158 K. and, for tragedy,confondue avec les histrions de metier, defense hesm , Pherecrat K. and,fortofficielle fut faite a ceux-ci de paraitre masques." (e.g.) Eur. A 77 Med.This theory seems to be the invention of Munk 3 Livy, vii, z.

71


9/14


obviously have not been very critical of such matters. To thiswe may add that Roman actorswere far more dependent on gestureand movement than anyone on our own stage. An actor, saysCicero,1 needs the physical training of an athlete and a dancer,and Quintilian2 tells us that with the hands:

poscimus, pollicemur, vocamus, dimittimus, minamur, supplicamus,abominamur,timemus, interrogamus, negamus: gaudium, tristitiam, dubitationem, confes-sionem, poenitentiam, modum, copiam, numerum, tempus ostendimus. nonconcitant, inhibent, probant, admirantur, verecundantur?It is unnecessary to quote many passages to prove this point,but, as Hoffer absurdly supposes blushes on the stage to be producedwith rouge,3 I will add one from Seneca 4

artifices scenici qui imitantur affectus, qui metum et trepidationem exprimunt,qui tristitiam repraesentant,hoc indicio imitantur verecundiam: deiciunt enimvoltum, verba submittunt, figunt in terram oculos et deprimunt. ruborem sibiexprimere non possunt: nec prohibetur hic nec adducitur.Thus an actor, even if prevented by a mask from exhibiting anyplay of facial expression, could express many moods by gesture andmovement.

These remarks make it unnecessary to consider in detail theinstances of allusion to facial expression adduced by Hoffer. Thestrongest is the scene in which Antipho rehearses before Geta themanner in which he is to meet Demipho5:A. quid si adsimulo ? satis est ? G. garris. A. voltum contemplamini: em,satine sic est ? G. non. A. quid si sic ? G. propemodum. A. quid sic ?G. sat est.

That this example is remarkable we may allow, but it must beinsisted that the a priori argument which converts it into evidenceagainst the use of masks is absolutely inadmissible.This is the only argument based on the extant plays used insupport of the current view of masks, and indeed it is not easy toextract information on the subject from the plays at all. Thereseem to be three considerations which are, or might become, relevantto our enquiry and they may be briefly mentioned here, thoughin none is the evidence sufficiently clear to justify our basing anargument upon them.First, it seems highly probable that if parts were habitually1 De Orat. iii, 22, 83. 3 Adducing Ter. Ad. 643 erubuit : salva res est2 1.0. xi, 3, 86; cf. ibid. xi, 3, III; xi, 3, 18I; as evidence against masks.Cic. de Orat. iii, 59, 220; Rhet. ad. Her. iii, i5, 4 Epist. xi 7.z6, 27. In the elaborate description of a slave'sgestures, attitudes, etc. in Plaut. Mil. 201, ff. the 5 Ter. Phorm. 2IO, f.face is barely mentioned.

72


10/14


doubled, masks must have been worn.1 It is however impossibleto be sure whether this practice was in use on the Roman stage.On a priori grounds it is probable enough, since the first performancesof palliatae were on a small scale and parts may well have beendoubled to save expense. We have however no information as tothe number of actors in a company, and the only reference to doubledparts in the extant plays refers to the speaker of the prologue.2We are therefore hardly entitled to draw inferences as to thedoubling of actual characters in the play.The second consideration is this: No fewer than three ofPlautus's plays, Amphitruo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, turn onquestions of mistaken identity; the Amphitruo even involves twopairs of persons so alike that even the audience will need assistanceto distinguish them. "I," says Mercury in the prologue,3 "shallalways have these little wings on my hat, while my father, todistinguish him from Amphitruo, will have a golden lock in hishair." Shakespearian parallels, however, warn us to use thisargument cautiously; we must be content to notice that theproduction of these plays would be greatly facilitated by the useof masks and that Plautus's fondness for this form of plot impliesthat there was no great difficulty in staging them.

The third consideration, also to be used with the greatest caution,is this: There are in Plautus several minute descriptions of thefacial appearance of characters in the plays.4 What little evidencewe possess does not favour the view that Plautus wrote for a knowncompany and had definite actors in his mind. We ought thereforeto consider whether these descriptions could be complied with bythe use of paint and other "make-up," or whether they ratherimply the existence of stock masks.From these obscure questionings we may turn to the use of theword vultus in Donatus's commentary on Terence, for upon thisHoffer has built an argument against the use of masks in Terence'stime. Hoffer collects examples of comments such as this: "hoclaeto voltu pronuntiat Simo."5 He quotes an opinion of Schopento the effect that Donatus based his commentary on manuscriptsof the time of Terence on which he drew not only for variousreadings but for stage directions. These comments come then, he1It is perhapshardlynecessaryo point out that affixedo thenamesof charactersn manuscripts sthis assumption differs in kind from Hoffer's theatricaldirectionsas to the distributionof parts.assumption with regard to references to facial 3 11.42, f.

expression. If parts were habituallydoubled by 4The most strikingexamples are As. 400, f.anunmaskedctor, t is the abilityof the spectators Capt. 647, f. Pseud. 1218, f. Rud. 3I7, f. Navarre,to follow the play (owingto the difficultyof dis- with a strange nconsistency eeing that he deniestinguishingthe characters),not their toleranceof the use of masks o PlautusandTerence,wishestoconvention,whichI call in question. recognisen someof these descriptionsmasksmen-2Plaut. Poen. I26. See Steffen'sarticleon this tioned by Pollux. The evidence is however in-subject (Act.Soc.Phil.Lips. i, pp. o09,f.); Steffen sufficient o justify the identifications.is, however, n error n regarding he Greek etters 5adAnd. 552.

73


11/14


holds, from Terence's own stage-directions and prove that heexpected play of facialexpression n his comedies.This argument is of a kind easier to condemn on general thanto refute on particulargrounds. Nobody who has readthe Donatancommentariesis likely to be persuaded by it, but, for those whohave not, I will add a few considerationswhich should suffice toindicate its improbability. First, then, the manuscripts postulatedby this theory must have contained much more than mere stage-directions; they must have been elaborate prompt-books givingminute directions for the performanceof the plays. Such manu-scripts, supposing (what may well be doubted) that they everexisted, would clearlyhave been of high importancein constitutingthe text of the plays. But Donatus never claimsto use manuscriptsof decisive importance. His favourite phrase in introducing avariant reading is legitur et, and if he mentions his authority, itis the readingof quidamor of alii, of plurimaexemplariabonal orof codicesveteres, or he mentions other grammarians.3 More-over he does not give particularsas to how the plays are to bestaged; often he is even in doubt as to whom speechesare to beassigned4 and when earlier authorities have differed, he cannotdecide between them.5 Pretty prompt-books truly, which

informedhim how the words were to be pronouncedbut not whowas to pronounce them. Secondly, some of these comments areobviously not derived from any acting edition. Prompt-booksdonot say:haec ciavv&ra instantis dominae vultum habitumque demonstrant6

or still less:considera quo voltu hoc dicendum sit et intelliges et " militem" et " rivalem"et " recipiendum " et " ego " et " censeo " quanta significent.7

Commentsof this kind are obviously ntendedfor readers,not actors,and of readers Donatus clearly thinks when he sayshis locus actoris magis quam lectoris est8and

ABITE concitatius legendum est. 9

Probablyhe is writing, as in the lost commentaryon Virgil,l? forhis pupils, such as Munatius and Jerome, since a very natural wayof explainingthe precise force of a remark s to give the expression1 ad And. 978. 7 ad Eun. 1072.2 ad Eun. 307, Hec. 665. 8 ad Phorm. 211.3 ad And. 720, Eun. 46, Phorm. I90. 9 ad And. 28.4 e.g. ad Ad. 586. 10 The proem is preserved (Philologus, xxiv,5 e.g. ad Ad. 323, 727. P. 154).6 ad Eun. 82I.

74


12/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.or gesture which accompaniesit. The comments which at firstsight appear to be intended for actors (e.g. vultu tristi ac superciliisarduis hoc dicendumestl) are probably meant for the assistanceof persons giving recitations of the plays2; for at recitations acertain amount of gesture and expressionwere appropriate.3The evidence for performanceson the stage in Donatus's timeis confined to a reference n Donatus'scommentaryon the Andria4:

sive haec [Mysis] personatis viris agitur ut apud veteres, sive per mulierem utnunc videmus.Female characters were therefore played in his day by women,not bymaskedmen,and in all probabilitythe use of maskshad beenentirelyabandoned. Thus Donatusmighthave writtenthe commentscontainingthe word vultusevenif his commentaryhad beenintendedfor actors, though there can be little doubt that he really wroteit for readers. That these comments descend from the time ofTerence or were originally written for Turpio and his contemporariesis in itself quite improbable; nor, if they had been, would theyhave had any great interest for Donatus's contemporaries; forthe stage-mannerof Turpiohad been out of date for two centuriesand more.5

III. We have now reviewed the available evidence, direct andindirect, bearing upon this subject. It remains to consider brieflythe general probability of masks having been worn in early times,and to outline as far as possible the history of their use.Greek comedy was introduced to Rome by Livius Andronicus.Livius was noted for his lack of originality and dependence on theoriginals which he translated6; there is therefore no inherentimprobability in supposing that he took-care to preserve the stagingof the Greek originals when he produced the Latin versions at Rome.Livius himself appears to have acted in a costume which calledfor some remark7 and the comedies were of course acted in Greekdress and hence called palliatae.Our evidence as to the costumes and masks of Greek andRoman comedy is lamentably inadequate, but if we compareDonatus's descriptions of the Roman costumes 8 with Pollux's accountof the Greek, 9 we find marked points of resemblance, and similaritiesmay also be detected between the descriptions of facial appearance1 ad Phorm. 184. qui iidem et poetae et semigraeci erant, Livium et2 For recitations of comedies cf. Plin. Epist. vi, Ennium dico quos utraque lingua domi forisque21, and perhaps v, 3. docuisse adnotatum est, nihil amplius quam Graccos3 Cf. Plin. Epist. ix, 34. interpretabantur aut si quid ipsi Latine composuis-4 ad And. 716. sent, praelegebant.5 ac. Dial. xx, nec magis perfert [sc. vulgus] in 7 Gloss. Salom. (Rhein. Mus.xxii, p. 446, xxiii,iudiciis tristem et impexam antiquitatem quam si pp. 676, . xxviii p. 419. Kaibel, C.G.F. p. 73).quis in scaena Roscii aut Turpionis Ambivii expri- pDe Co, viiip.mere gestus velit. De Com. vii.6 Cf. Suet. Gramm. i, antiquissimi doctorum, 9 iv, 119, IZo.

75


13/14

.ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.in Plautus (to which allusion has alreadybeen made) and the NewComedymasksenumeratedby Pollux.1 It is thereforequite possiblethat the Roman masksand costumes were takendirect or with veryslight modifications,from Greece. This point cannot be definitelyproved, nor is it of great importance for our present enquiry andI will not linger over it. Sufficienthas been said to show that thea priori probabilities,though no great weight can be attached tothem, are not unfavourableto the view already arrived at fromthe more direct evidence, that the use of masksgoes back to earlytimes in the history of Roman comedy. This view should, I think,be accepted, with such reservesas the scanty and conflictingnatureof the evidence demands.

Whether all the characterswere masked n earlytimes can hardlybe determined. If the play by Naevius called personatawas reallythe first play in which maskswere worn, then nothing preventsoursupposingthat all the cast wore masks. If however the use of masksis older than Naevius, it would be difficult to explain the nameexcept on the suppositionthat in this play, contrary to the usualpractice, all the actors were masked.2 Ribbeck3indeed held thata performance n which only part of the cast are masked s unthink-able, but this is merely another example of unjustifiableguessingat the extent of forgotten convention. When Aristophanesplayedthe part of Cleon in the Knightswithout a mask,we do not hearthat the " einheitlicherStil der Darstellung" was " aufs gr6blichsteverletzt ; nor do we know that when Roscius played in a mask,the rest of his company followed his example, nor that they leftoff maskswhen he played without one.4 We have moreover anexcellent illustration of masked and unmasked actors mingling onthe stage in modern times. Many of Goldoni's comedies containthe stock maskedcharactersof the old Commedia ell'Arte and thesemasksmay be seen to this day in Venice mingling with unmaskedcharacters.5The subsequent history of the mask cannot be very precisely

1 iv, 43, ff. As I have said, attempts to identifythese masks in Plautus's descriptions will be foundin Navarre's article persona in Daremberg andSaglio's Lexicon.2 Navarre, who regards this play as a solitaryexception in the early history of Roman comedy,ingeniously suggests that it contained attacks oninfluential Roman families and that the actors wereanxious to conceal their identities. We needevidence, however, that Naevius used the dramafor satirical purposes (see Gellius. N.A. iii, 3, 15,Augustin, C.D. ii, 9 and I2).

3 RSm. Trag. p. 66i.4 The phrase in the Donatan preface to theAdelphi: qui cum suis gregibus etiam turnpersonati agebant, might conceivably be held toimply that the masking of the whole cast was not

in the writer's opinion a necessary corollary to themaskingof the chiefperformers.5We mightsuppose hat maskswere worn n theearly productions,which were presumablyon asmall scale, only where necessary. If one is toguesswherethey were considered ssential,we mayconjecture that they were used for female parts,forpartswhereclosephysical esemblanceo anothercharacter s requiredand, if parts were doubled,for all but one of the parts played by one man.Fortheotherparts hewigsmentionedby Diomedeswould serve. The fact that Diomedes took thewigs for precursorsof maskshardlyadmits of dis-cussion. It is possiblethat the wigswere actuallyused before masks, f the latter were used first inNaevius'splay. It is however also possible thatsomeoneseeing wigs and masks ogether, took thewigsformererudimentarymasks.

76


14/14

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.traced. Donatus appears to have thought that it was going outat the time of the first performancesof Terence's plays. If he isright, the custom must have been revived by Roscius, a fact whichmaywell havebeen responsible or Diomedes'sstatement that Rosciuswas the first to use the mask. Rosciusat any rate played sometimeswith a mask and sometimes without, a practice possibly followedin tragedy by Aesopus.1 After his time masksseem to have beenin general use for at least two centuries. We have already seenfrom Donatus that in his time, that is to say in the fourth centuryA.D., female partswere played by women, not by maskedmen. Wemay therefore almost certainlyconclude that maskswere no longerused and had probably been driven out by the influence of th4all-prevailing mime. When this change took place cannot beprecisely ascertained. Quintilian speaks of masks as still in use2and of the actor Demetrius playing female parts.3 Juvenal alsospeaksof a man acting the parts of Thais, Doris and a matron.4This supplies us with a terminus post quem of about A.D. I20 whichmight be extended to about A.D. 200 if Lucian were admitted asevidence. Lucian often speaksof masks5and once of a man in afemale part6; he is however an untrustworthywitness, for he wasnot long resident in Rome and the practice of Athens, Antiochand other placeswas not necessarily hat of Italy. The only otherpossible evidence known to me is the archetype of the illuminatedmanuscriptsof Terence.7 The date of this archetypehas not beenconclusivelysettled but it does not seem to be earlier than thesecond century A.D. and may be a good deal later. However, aswe can hardlyassumethat maskswere still in use when the pictureswere made, it is hardly necessaryto pursue this enquiry further.The outline history of masks n Roman comedy here presentedis, of course, tentative; it contains many gaps, and even as to themain facts the evidence is not such as to inspire a confidentbelief.The purpose of this paper was however rather to criticise than toconstruct, and its main object will be fulfilled if this fresh scrutinyof the evidence awakensdoubts as to the accepted view or inducessomeone to bring forwardfresh evidence in its support.

1 That he used a mask is known from Fronto, 4 iii, 93, ff.p. I47, N. Cic. de Div. i, xxxvii, 80, is held, on 6 Anach. 23, Gallus, 26, De Salt. 29.inadequate grounds, to prove that he sometimes 6 De Salt. 28.acted unmasked. 7 The monumental evidence (frescoes, reliefs,2 1.0. xi, 3 74. statuettes, etc.) does not, so far as I am aware, help3 ibid. xi, 3, 178. to solve the chronological question.

77

gow (1912) on the use of masks in roman comedy (art)

Documents