On the Use of Masks in Roman Comedy Author(s): A. S. F. Gow Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 2 (1912), pp.

65-77 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable 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 at http://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 support@jstor.org.

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

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

By A. S. F. GOW.

Since the appearanceof C. Hoffer's dissertationDe personarum usu in P. Terenti comoediis(Halis Saxonum, I877) the view that maskswere not worn at the original performancesof the plays of Plautus and Terence has become universally accepted.' This dissertation is usually cited by recent writers,1 who have for the most part been content to accept Hoffer's conclusions in their entirety, and the only independent investigatorssince the publication of the dissertationhave also arrived at very similar conclusions.2 That these views are false can perhaps hardly be proved; that they are held with a confidencewhich is not justified by the evidence is, however, demonstrable; and the present paper is to be regarded as a plea for reconsiderationof a question which has passed as chosejugee for thirty years. I propose to review the evidence under three heads. First, the direct external evidence contained in evidence of the plays themselves and of Donatus's commentaries upon Terence; third, a priori considerationsas to the probability of maskshaving been used in early times. I. There are three main statements as to the introduction of masks in Roman comedy. We will consider first that of
Diomedes3
:

ancient statements as to the origin of masks; second, the indirect

antea itaque galearibus non personis utebantur, ut qualitas coloris indicium faceret aetatis, cum essent aut albi aut nigri aut rufi. personis vero uti primus coepit Roscius Gallus, praecipuushistrio, quod oculis eversis erat nec satis decorus in personis nisi parasitus pronuntiabat.

This passageis apparentlydivorced from its context and it is corrupt in itself, 4 but the generalsense is clear. Accordingto this statement Rosciusintroduced the maskin order to conceal his squint. That Roscius squinted, we knew already from Cicero,5 and
1 Friedlaender (in Mommsen and Marquardt,2 vol. vi, p. 546), Oehmichen (in Iwan Miiller's Handbucb, v, 3, p. 250), L. C. Purser (s. v. Persona in Smith's Dict. Ant.). A. Muller (Griech. Buihnenalt. p. 288) accepts Hoffer's view without naming him. 2 I. van Wageningen (Scaenica Romana, pp. 33, ff.), O. Navarre (s. vv. Histrio and Personain Daremberg & Saglio's Lexicon). 3 De Art. Gramm. iii, 9, 7, (p. 489, Keil: Kaibel, C.G.F. p. 59). 4 For eversis, perversis is usually read. The best suggestion for the last clause seems to be that of Hoffer who reads qui, quod . . decorus, in, etc. I suggest that we should read in the first sentence aut albi aut nigri vel rufi, since the distinction in colour between red andbl ack is not, even by convention in comedy, a criterion of age. 5 Nat. Deor. i, 79.

66

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

the same authority also informs us elsewhere that he sometimes played in a mask:
sed in ore sunt omnia, in eo autem ipso dominatus est omnis oculorum:

melius nostri illi senes qui personatum ne Roscium quidem magno opere laudabant.1

quo

Cicero here tells us simply that the elder generation did not care much for an actor even of Roscius's ability when he played in a mask. We are not entitled to infer with Hoffer that the ground of their dislike was that they had been invariably accustomed to see plays performed without masks, nor even that an increase in the practice of wearing masks robbed the younger generation of criteriafor distinguishingbetween the meritsof maskedand unmasked actors. To the information we derive from Cicero, Diomedes adds that the introduction of masks was ascribed to Roscius. This statement cannot be considered very important. It conflicts with other ancient evidence to be discussedpresently and may well have arisen from the fact that Roscius was known to have had the inducement of a squint for wearing masks.2 Indeed Diomedes's statement contains nothing, except the mention of galearia,3 which might not be constructed conjecturally from the two passages of
Cicero.

The second traditional account of the invention of masks is

contained in Donatus, de Comoedia4:
personati primi egisse dicuntur comoediam Cincius [et] Faliscus, tragoediam Minucius [et] Prothymus.

Cincius Faliscus is otherwise unknown, but Minucius Prothymus is probably the person mentioned in the didascaliato the Adelphi in the manuscripts of the Calliopian recension5 and in one or perhapstwo of the Donatan prefaces to the plays. These prefaces are of great importance and must be consideredin connexion with the passage from the de Comoedia. They run as follows: Eunuch.praef. i, 6.
acta plane ludis Megalensibus L. Postumio L. Cornelio aedilibus curulibus, agentibus etiam tunc personatis L. Minucio Prothymo6 L. Ambivio Turpione.
1 De Orat. iii, 2zI.

2 Whether a mask would be efficacious in hiding a squint might be doubted. Cicero implies in the it wold: would: elsepassage have considered considered that wve have lsepassage we that it where (de Orat. i 93)he speaks as if the expression of the eyes was still visible through a mask. 3 This comes perhaps from Varro (cf. Charisius, p. 80, Keil). The galearia seem to have been wigs. It is probable that something has fallen out before this statement in Diomedes: at least the extant context furnishes no explanation of the word itaque.

4 vi, 35 Egere L. Atilius Prenestinus, Minutius

Pro-

Prochimo and Prothino; those of th. de Comoedia, Prothimus, Protinthus, Prothintus and Protimius. Presumably the same person is meant: I shall in the following pages call him Prothymus (Wolff's correction of the de Comoedia). If the identity is not admitted, the de Comoedia becomes useless for our enquiry as we have no other information as to the person there named.

6 The MSS Eunucus give ofth of the e preface 6 The MSS. the Eunucbus give preface to the umidio or Munidio and Prothymo, Prothinio,

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

67

Adel. praef. i, 6.
haec sane acta est ludis scaenicis funebribus L. Aemili Pauli agentibus L. Ambivio et L. <Minucio Prothymol> qui cum suis gregibus etiam tur personati agebant.

Before these passagescan be discussed,a word or two is necessary as to the nature of the Donatan prefaces. Dziatzko2 has shown that the didascaliae to Terence's plays in the Codex Bembinus, those in manuscriptsof the Calliopian recension and the Donatan prefaces preserve,in a mutilated and misunderstoodform, extracts from accounts not only of the first but of subsequent performances of the plays. Most of these extant notices present confused statements in which facts relating to more than one performance are combined. Dziatzko also shows, not indeed conclusively, but with considerableprobability, that when two actoresare mentioned, a confusion has taken place between two different performances and that in the original source only one actor was named for each production. It seems further probable that the actor who superintended the productions in Terence's life-time was L. Ambivius To return to the Donatan prefaces. Donatus3 says that the Eunuchuswas performed by Minucius Prothymus and Ambivius Turpio who were masked,and the Adelphiby AmbiviusTurpio and another actor, perhaps Minucius Prothymus, also masked, as was the cast. Now, supposing Dziatzko's conclusions to be correct, this means that Donatus is in each case confusing two performances of these plays and it becomes extremely difficult to form any conclusions as to the statement about masks. Two hypotheses are possible: the actors may have been masked at both performances of the two plays, or Donatus may have found-in his authority a statement that masks were used at one of the two performances in each case, and have made the statement in the prefaces merely owing to the confusion which led him to speak of two actoresfor a single performance. In the latter case there is nothing to show whether the statement was originally made of Turpio or of Prothymus. This much however is clear: whatever the truth may be, Donatus at any rate states that masks were worn at the first and the Adelphi. performancesof the Eunuchus The two passages in the prefaces are commonly supposed to support a correction in the de Comoediawhere it is proposed to read:
The supplement is due in the first instance to Wilmanns. <Atilio Prenestino> has however equal claims to consideration. 2 Rhein. Mus. xx (I865), pp. 570, if, xxi (i866), pp. 64, if. 3 In the following pages I shall refer to the Donatan commentaries as "Donatus," though I am aware that they contain much from other sources. The argument remains essentially the same even if the de Comoedia and the prefaces are by different hands.

Turpio.

68

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

personati primi egisse dicuntur comoediam Minucius Prothymus, tragoediam Cincius Faliscus.

Donatus thought that maskswere worn at the first performances of the Eunuchus and the Adelphiand he also thought, probablywrongly, that Prothymus took part in those performances. This however is very inadequate ground for supposing him to have believed that Prothymus was the introducer of masks. Moreover when Donatus says " etiam tunc personatis" and " etiam tum personati" he must mean, not " maskedeven at that early date " (which would be iam turn 1), but "masked even at that late date."2 The proposed correctionof the de Comoedia then, when taken in conjunction with the preface, ascribes to Donatus surprise on finding the actor he supposed to have introduced masks still wearing them at the performanceof the Eunuchus,and it implies that Donatus believed masksto have been worn only for a few years. This view has nothing to commend it and, on the evidence, we must clearly leave the de Comoedia passage as it stands. The supposed Prothymus-traditionhas had a long vogue and the coincidence of the name in connexion with masks in the de Comoediaand the preface or prefaces lends it a certain cloudy speciousness. To make the issue quite clear, I will resume the argument. The conclusionusually drawn from these three passages is that Minucius Prothymus introduced masksinto Roman comedy at some period after the death of Terence. This conclusion depends upon the following assumptions: (I) Since the prefaces state that Turpio was masked,we must assume them to have been wrongly copied from authorities which, in both cases, only said
that the other actor was masked.3

in the de Comoedia.4 (3) Finally we must assume either that etiam tur and etiam tunccan mean "C at that early date," or that etiam is in both places an errorfor iam. These assumptionsreceive no support either from the passage of Diomedes already discussed5 or, as I shall shortly show, from the other ancient statement respecting
about Cincius Faliscus and his relations with Prothymus are necessary. 5 Two attempts have been made to reconcile 2 See Hand'sTursellinus, ii, 596, if. Diomedes and Donatus. Ribbeck (Rom. Trag. Leo (I.c.), supposes that Roscius 3 Leo (Rhein. Mus. xxxviii, p. 343) wished to p. 66I), followed by company. This account for the statements of the prefacesby the was the chief actor in Prothymus's fourth assumption is however rendered improbable of that was misled miniatures Donatus by hypothesis of the company. he wasusing. He by the fact that the managerchief actor masked actorsin the manuscripts been the (Rhein. makesno attempt to explain why only two of the seems himself to have Van Mus. xx, p. 590: cf. Cic. Of. i, II4). playsshouldhave been so decorated,and Donatus's first was the Roscius that suggests Wageningen about them since we know nothing manuscripts Roman actor to wear a mask, Prothymus being a as we for more shall a suitable afford, ground see, Greek. If Prothymus is really the man's name or less ingeniousguessing. (it is, as has been said, a conjecture), this hypothesis 4 This is perhapsnot absolutely necessary. At may be accepted by those who believe in the least Friedlaenderand'.Ribbeck seem to accept the Prothymus-tradition and think it worth while to manuscript reading. In this case assumptions reconcile it with Diomedes's statement.

(2) We must assume a corruption

1 Which Hoffer rather half-heartedly proposed to read.

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

69

the introduction of masks. On these grounds we must, I think, refuse to admit them and accept for what they are worth the statements before us. So far, therefore, we have from Donatus a statement that masks were worn at the first performancesof the Eunuchusand Adelphi, an implied statement that they were then going out of use and the name of an otherwise unknown Cincius Faliscus as the original introducer. The further statement that Prothymus introduced masks into tragedy may or may not be true; Prothymus is not known outside these three passagesand there would be no great difficulty in supposing that he introduced into tragedy a practice with which he was familiarin comedy. This however is a question which we need not discuss here.l The third direct statement as to the introduction of masks is contained in Festus's comment on the word personata,which runs as follows:
personata fabula quaedam Naevi2 inscribitur quam putant quidam <actam> primum a personatis histrionibus. sed cum post multos annos comoedi et tragoedi personisuti coeperint3, veri similius est eam fabulam propter inopiam comoedorum actam novam per Atellanos qui proprie vocantur personati quia ius est iis non cogi in scaena ponere personam quod ceteris histrionibus pati necesse est.

This statement if analysedyields the following results: (I) A certain play by Naevius, a dramatist older than Plautus, who died probably before Terence was born, was called personata. Some personsheld that it was so called because it was the first play to be acted in masks. (2) Festus (or his authority) demurs to this view on the ground that maskswere not used until a later period. (3) We are therefore given an alternativeexplanation-namely that it was so called because it was acted by Atellani who were
known as personati.

scaena ponere personam4; but, if this is true, then the second

1 The assumption that the practice with regard to masks was identical in tragedy and comedy, is tacitly made by Hoffer and others but seems unjustifiable. 2It should be said that Naevius's name is due to emendation: the manuscript apparently has quaedamnf ut. The correction seems practically certain, and I shall assume that it is right. The passage as it stands in the manuscript is useless for our purpose since it supplies no evidence as to date.

Now this account would be all very well were it not for the explanation appended to the name personati which was given to the Atellani. They were called personati, we are told, because, unlike other theatrical performers, they were not compelled in

3 Coeperunt MS. Mueller wished to read post multos annos acta sit quam . . . coeperunt, which restores consistency to the passage. Hoffer's objection on the score of sense, as our examination of the Donatus' passages shows, cannot be maintained, but for the purpose of this enquiry I will confine my attention to the reading accepted by Hoffer himself. 4 The distinction appears to be based on some right of spectators to compel actors to remove their masks, but nothing else is known of it.

70

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

explanation is open to precisely the same objection which led to the rejection of the first. The propounder of this view certainly held that this distinction between actors and Atellani went back to the days of Naevius; otherwise the play in question could not have been called personataon account of this difference between actors of comedies and Atellani. But if in those days actors were not maskedat all, obviouslythe Atellani could receive no soubriquet based on the difference of conditions under which they and comedianswore masks. Hoffer says that Atellani were called personatiin the time of Naevius because they alone wore masksat that time. Afterwards, when comediansalso wore them, the Atellani were so called because seem very probable, even if Atellani had originally worn masks when comedians did not and had thence been called distinctively personati,that after comedians assumed the mask the same name should have been attached to the Atellani, not in its original sense but to indicate a new and much less fundamentaldistinction. Nor can it well be maintained that the explanation of the name here given is an attempt to account for a title the meaning personati of which had been forgotten after the introduction of masksinto comedy. If Atellani had worn masks when comedians did not, Festus has not forgotten the fact but is here insisting upon it; it is most improbablethat he should, with an obvious alternativeunder his eyes, have preferred or even allowed to stand an explanation of the word personatiboth inconsistent with his own remarksand less plausiblein itself. The passageis very puzzling and one would hesitate to express any very confident opinion upon it. The simplest explanation (supposing the 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 plus a copula. Festus gives two current explanations of the name personataand he states his reason for preferringthe second without perceivingthat that reasonis ground for rejecting both. 2 However, be this as it may, it is difficult to see how the passage as a whole can be made to support the belief that maskswere not introduced until after the death of Terence. Here the direct evidence ends. Its results may be summed up as follows: (I) Cicero tells us that Roscius sometimes wore a mask.
1 As has been said above, the passage becomes perfectly lucid if we retain coeperunt and insert acta sit quam after annos. 2 An alternative view would of course be that the explanation of the name personati is an addition to the original statement, though without some such explanation the statement would be very incomplete. In this case we have one view for and one against the use of masks in early times and a statement as to the name personati which, if pressed, would favour the view that they were worn. In any case an oversight has occurred, but that involved by the explanation suggested in the text seems to me more readily explicable.

they were not compelled ponere personam. It does not however

ON

THE

USE

OF

MASKS

IN

ROMAN

COMEDY.

71

states that wigs preceded masks on the Roman stage.

(2)

Diomedes adds that he was said to have introduced the mask, and
Donatus says that the actors at the first performances of

the Eunuchus and Adelphi wore masks. He uses language implying that he considered this a late, not an early, example of their use. He ascribes the introduction of masks to an unknown Cincius Faliscus. (3) Festus tells us that a play by Naevius was called personata. He gives two explanations of the name, of which one certainly, and the 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 accepted view that masks came in after the death of Terence. We must now turn to the indirect evidence of the plays themselves and of Donatus's commentary on Terence.1 Under this heading we have chiefly to consider two arguments which have been adduced to prove that masks were not, worn in early comedy. II. Hoffer has founded an argument against the existence of masks in early times upon the use of the word vultus in Terence. Syllogistically the argument runs: Any reference to expression, and particularly to change of expression, is impossible if the actors were masked: such references occur in Terence: therefore actors were not masked in his time. The answer to this argument is that the major premise is inadmissible. The convention by which grotesque masks are allowed to replace the human face on the stage is not only remarkable in itself but is also a convention with which we are absolutely unfamiliar. It is therefore impossible to decide whether references to facial expression would seem ridiculous or not.
ri CrvvrETCrpaaL ; ir) crKvOpofCraL 2) TEKVOV'

ov yap

v Tac 6opsv. cTOL o07oLTroLE rrpeITEL

says Calonice to Lysistrata; yet we do not on this account deny that Lysistrata wore a mask.2 So far as a priori argument is admissible on this point, it seems likely that an audience which accepted the large convention of masks would also accept as a matter of course the lesser convention which is its natural corollary. An audience which allowed cantica to be sung not by the actor to whose part they belonged but by a vocalist who stood by the musicians,3 can
theory. He says: "Dans la tragedie ainsi que dansla comedielatinesle masquene fut adoptequ' assez tard. Le fait s'explique,non par des raisons
1 This is a convenient place to mention Navarre's

van Wageningen. It is based on an amplification of Livy, vii, 2, and need not and misrepresentation in detail here. Navarreholds that the be discussed
introduction of masks was due to Roscius and attributes this view, inaccurately, to Cicero. Ar Ly.7, f. cf . 655, A. 67 2e. , Pherecrat fr. 158 K. and, for tragedy, K. and,fort hesm , Pherecrat Med. (e.g.) Eur. A 77 3 Livy, vii, z.

(de Fab. Atell. pp. 70, ff.), and it is held also by

d'art mais par un prejuge de caste. Comme la jeunesse romaine qui bien longtemps avant l'introduction du drame grec se divertissait a jouer l'atellane sous des masques entendait ne pas etre confondue avec les histrions de metier, defense officielle fut faite a ceux-ci de paraitre masques." This theory seems to be the invention of Munk

72

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

obviously have not been very critical of such matters. To this we may add that Roman actors were far more dependent on gesture and movement than anyone on our own stage. An actor, says Cicero,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, confessionem, poenitentiam, modum, copiam, numerum, tempus ostendimus. non concitant, inhibent, probant, admirantur, verecundantur ?

It

but, as Hoffer absurdly supposes blushes on the stage to be produced with 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 enim voltum, verba submittunt, figunt in terram oculos et deprimunt. ruborem sibi exprimere non possunt: nec prohibetur hic nec adducitur.

is unnecessary

to

quote

many

passages to prove this point,

Thus an actor, even if prevented by a mask from exhibiting any play of facial expression, could express many moods by gesture and movement. These remarks make it unnecessary to consider in detail the instances of allusion to facial expression adduced by Hoffer. The strongest is the scene in which Antipho rehearses before Geta the manner 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 be insisted that the a priori argument which converts it into evidence against the use of masks is absolutely inadmissible. This is the only argument based on the extant plays used in support of the current view of masks, and indeed it is not easy to extract information on the subject from the plays at all. There seem to be three considerations which are, or might become, relevant to our enquiry and they may be briefly mentioned here, though in none is the evidence sufficiently clear to justify our basing an argument upon them. First, it seems highly probable that if parts were habitually
1 De Orat. iii, 22, 83. 2 1.0. xi, 3, 86; cf. ibid. xi, 3, III; 3 Adducing Ter. Ad. 643 erubuit : salva res est as evidence against masks. 4 Epist. xi 7.

xi, 3, 18I; Cic. de Orat. iii, 59, 220; Rhet. ad. Her. iii, i5, In a slave's the of elaborate z6, 27. description gestures, attitudes, etc. in Plaut. Mil. 201, ff. the face is barely mentioned.

5 Ter. Phorm. 2IO, f.

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

73

doubled, masks must have been worn.1 It is however impossible to be sure whether this practice was in use on the Roman stage. On a priori grounds it is probable enough, since the first performances of palliatae were on a small scale and parts may well have been doubled to save expense. We have however no information as to the number of actors in a company, and the only reference to doubled parts in the extant plays refers to the speaker of the prologue.2 We are therefore hardly entitled to draw inferences as to the doubling of actual characters in the play. The second consideration is this: No fewer than three of Plautus's plays, Amphitruo, Bacchides and Menaechmi, turn on questions of mistaken identity; the Amphitruo even involves two pairs of persons so alike that even the audience will need assistance to distinguish them. "I," says Mercury in the prologue,3 "shall always have these little wings on my hat, while my father, to distinguish him from Amphitruo, will have a golden lock in his hair." Shakespearian parallels, however, warn us to use this argument cautiously; we must be content to notice that the production of these plays would be greatly facilitated by the use of masks and that Plautus's fondness for this form of plot implies that 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 the facial appearance of characters in the plays.4 What little evidence we possess does not favour the view that Plautus wrote for a known company and had definite actors in his mind. We ought therefore to consider whether these descriptions could be complied with by the use of paint and other "make-up," or whether they rather imply the existence of stock masks. From these obscure questionings we may turn to the use of the word vultus in Donatus's commentary on Terence, for upon this Hoffer has built an argument against the use of masks in Terence's time. Hoffer collects examples of comments such as this: "hoc laeto voltu pronuntiat Simo."5 He quotes an opinion of Schopen to the effect that Donatus based his commentary on manuscripts of the time of Terence on which he drew not only for various readings but for stage directions. These comments come then, he
to point out that 1 It is perhapshardlynecessary this assumption differs in kind from Hoffer's
assumption with regard to references to facial

in manuscriptsas affixedto the namesof characters theatricaldirectionsas to the distributionof parts.

3

4 The most striking examples are As. 400, f. expression. If parts were habitually doubled by an unmasked actor,it is the ability of the spectators Capt. 647, f. Pseud. 1218, f. Rud. 3I7, f. Navarre, to follow the play (owing to the difficulty of dis- with a strangeinconsistencyseeing that he denies not their tolerance of the use of masksto Plautusand Terence, wishes to tinguishing the characters), masksmenrecognisein some of these descriptions convention,which I call in question. 2 Plaut. Poen. I26. See Steffen'sarticle on this tioned by Pollux. The evidence is however insubject (Act. Soc.Phil. Lips.ii, pp. o09, ff.); Steffen sufficientto justify the identifications. 5 ad And. 552. is, however,in errorin regardingthe Greekletters

11. I42,

f.

74

ON

THE

USE

OF

MASKS

IN

ROMAN

COMEDY.

holds, from Terence's own stage-directions and prove that he expected play of facial expressionin his comedies. This argument is of a kind easier to condemn on general than to refute on particulargrounds. Nobody who has read the Donatan commentaries is likely to be persuaded by it, but, for those who have not, I will add a few considerationswhich should suffice to indicate its improbability. First, then, the manuscriptspostulated by this theory must have contained much more than mere stagedirections; they must have been elaborate prompt-books giving minute directions for the performance of the plays. Such manuscripts, supposing (what may well be doubted) that they ever existed, would clearly have been of high importance in constituting the text of the plays. But Donatus never claims to use manuscripts of decisive importance. His favourite phrase in introducing a variant reading is legitur et, and if he mentions his authority, it is the reading of quidamor of alii, of plurima exemplariabonal or 2 or he mentions other grammarians.3 Moreof codices veteres, over he does not give particulars as to how the plays are to be staged; often he is even in doubt as to whom speeches are to be assigned4 and when earlier authorities have differed, he cannot decide between them.5 Pretty prompt-books truly, which informed him how the words were to be pronounced but not who was to pronounce them. Secondly, some of these comments are obviously not derived from any acting edition. Prompt-booksdo not say:
haec ciavv&ra instantis dominae vultum habitumque demonstrant6

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

Comments of this kind are obviouslyintended for readers,not actors, and of readers Donatus clearly thinks when he says and
his locus actoris magis quam lectoris est8 ABITE concitatius legendum est. 9

Probably he is writing, as in the lost commentary on Virgil,l? for his pupils, such as Munatius and Jerome, since a very natural way of explaining the precise force of a remarkis to give the expression
1 ad And. 978.
2

4 e.g. ad Ad. 586.

5

ad Eun. 307, Hec. 665. 3 ad And. 720, Eun. 46, Phorm. I90. e.g. ad Ad. 323, 727.

7 8 9

ad Eun.

1072.

ad Phorm. 211. ad And. 28.

10 The proem is preserved (Philologus, xxiv,

P. 154).

6 ad Eun. 82I.

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

75

or gesture which accompanies it. The comments which at first arduis hoc dicendumestl) are probably meant for the assistance of persons giving recitations of the plays2; for at recitations a certain amount of gesture and expressionwere appropriate.3 The evidence for performanceson the stage in Donatus's time is confined to a referencein Donatus's commentaryon the Andria4:
sive haec [Mysis] personatis viris agitur ut apud veteres, sive per mulierem ut nunc videmus.

sight appear to be intended for actors (e.g. vultu tristi ac superciliis

Female characters were therefore played in his day by women, not by maskedmen, and in all probability the use of maskshad been entirely abandoned. Thus Donatus mighthave written the comments containingthe word vultuseven if his commentaryhad been intended for actors, though there can be little doubt that he really wrote it for readers. That these comments descend from the time of
Terence or were originally written for Turpio and his contemporaries

and more.5 III. We have now reviewed the available evidence, direct and indirect, bearing upon this subject. It remains to consider briefly the 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 the originals which he translated6; there is therefore no inherent improbability in supposing that he took-care to preserve the staging of the Greek originals when he produced the Latin versions at Rome. Livius himself appears to have acted in a costume which called for some remark7 and the comedies were of course acted in Greek dress and hence called palliatae. Our evidence as to the costumes and masks of Greek and Roman comedy is lamentably inadequate, but if we compare Donatus's descriptions of the Roman costumes 8 with Pollux's account of the Greek, 9 we find marked points of resemblance, and similarities may also be detected between the descriptions of facial appearance
1 ad Phorm. 184. For recitations of comedies cf. Plin. Epist. vi, 21, and perhaps v, 3. 3 Cf. Plin. Epist. ix, 34. 4 ad And. 716. Dial. xx, nec magis perfert [sc. vulgus] in 5 ac. iudiciis tristem et impexam antiquitatem quam si in scaena Roscii aut Turpionis Ambivii expriquis mere gestus velit. 6 Cf. Suet. Gramm. i, antiquissimi doctorum,
2

is in itself quite improbable; nor, if they had been, would they have had any great interest for Donatus's contemporaries; for the stage-mannerof Turpio had been out of date for two centuries

qui iidem et poetae et semigraeci erant, Livium et Ennium dico quos utraque lingua domi forisque docuisse adnotatum est, nihil amplius quam Graccos interpretabantur aut si quid ipsi Latine composuissent, praelegebant. 7 Gloss. Salom. (Rhein. Mus.xxii, p. 446, xxiii, pp. 676, . xxviii p. 419. Kaibel, C.G.F. p. 73). viiip. pDe De Co, Com. vii. 9 iv, 119, IZo.

76

.ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

in Plautus (to which allusion has already been made) and the New Comedy masksenumeratedby Pollux. 1 It is therefore quite possible that the Roman masksand costumes were taken direct or with very slight modifications,from Greece. This point cannot be definitely proved, nor is it of great importance for our present enquiry and I will not linger over it. Sufficient has been said to show that the a priori probabilities, though no great weight can be attached to them, are not unfavourable to the view already arrived at from the more direct evidence, that the use of masksgoes back to early times in the history of Roman comedy. This view should, I think, be accepted, with such reservesas the scanty and conflicting nature of the evidence demands. Whether all the characterswere maskedin early times can hardly be determined. If the play by Naevius called personatawas really the first play in which maskswere worn, then nothing prevents our supposingthat all the cast wore masks. If however the use of masks is older than Naevius, it would be difficult to explain the name except on the supposition that in this play, contrary to the usual practice, all the actors were masked.2 Ribbeck3 indeed held that a performancein which only part of the cast are maskedis unthinkable, but this is merely another example of unjustifiable guessing at the extent of forgotten convention. When Aristophanesplayed the part of Cleon in the Knights without a mask,we do not hear that the " einheitlicher Stil der Darstellung" was " aufs gr6blichste verletzt ; nor do we know that when Roscius played in a mask, the rest of his company followed his example, nor that they left off maskswhen he played without one.4 We have moreover an excellent illustration of masked and unmasked actors mingling on the stage in modern times. Many of Goldoni's comedies contain the stock maskedcharactersof the old Commedia dell' Arte and these masksmay be seen to this day in Venice mingling with unmasked characters.5 The subsequent history of the mask cannot be very precisely
1 iv, 43, ff. As I have said, attempts to identify these masks in Plautus's descriptions will be found in Navarre's article persona in Daremberg and Saglio's Lexicon. 2 Navarre, who regards this play as a solitary exception in the early history of Roman comedy, ingeniously suggests that it contained attacks on influential Roman families and that the actors were anxious to conceal their identities. We need evidence, however, that Naevius used the drama for 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 the Adelphi: qui cum suis gregibus etiam turn personati agebant, might conceivably be held to imply that the masking of the whole cast was not

in the writer's opinion a necessary corollary to the

maskingof the chief performers. 5 We might were wornin the supposethat masks early productions, which were presumablyon a small scale, only where necessary. If one is to essential,we may guesswhere they were considered conjecture that they were used for female parts, to another for partswhereclosephysical resemblance characteris required and, if parts were doubled, for all but one of the parts played by one man. For the otherpartsthe wigsmentionedby Diomedes would serve. The fact that Diomedes took the wigs for precursorsof maskshardly admits of discussion. It is possiblethat the wigs were actually used before masks,if the latter were used first in Naevius's play. It is however also possible that someoneseeing wigs and maskstogether, took the masks. wigs for mere rudimentary

ON THE USE OF MASKS IN ROMAN COMEDY.

77

traced. Donatus appears to have thought that it was going out at the time of the first performancesof Terence's plays. If he is right, the custom must have been revived by Roscius, a fact which may well have been responsiblefor Diomedes'sstatement that Roscius was the first to use the mask. Roscius at any rate played sometimes with a mask and sometimes without, a practice possibly followed in tragedy by Aesopus.1 After his time masksseem to have been from Donatus that in his time, that is to say in the fourth century A.D., female partswere played by women, not by maskedmen. We may therefore almost certainly conclude that maskswere no longer used and had probably been driven out by the influence of th4 all-prevailing mime. When this change took place cannot be precisely ascertained. Quintilian speaks of masks as still in use2 and of the actor Demetrius playing female parts.3 Juvenal also speaks of a man acting the parts of Thais, Doris and a matron.4 evidence. Lucian often speaks of masks5and once of a man in a female part6; he is however an untrustworthy witness, for he was not long resident in Rome and the practice of Athens, Antioch and other places was not necessarilythat of Italy. The only other possible evidence known to me is the archetype of the illuminated manuscriptsof Terence.7 The date of this archetypehas not been conclusively settled but it does not seem to be earlier than the
However, as in general use for at least two centuries. We have already seen

This supplies us with a terminus post quem of about A.D. I20 which might be extended to about A.D. 200 if Lucian were admitted as

second century A.D. and may be a good deal later.

main facts the evidence is not such as to inspire a confident belief. The purpose of this paper was however rather to criticise than to construct, and its main object will be fulfilled if this fresh scrutiny of the evidence awakensdoubts as to the accepted view or induces someone to bring forward fresh evidence in its support.
1 That he used a mask is known from Fronto, Cic. de Div. i, xxxvii, 80, is held, on p. I47, N. inadequate grounds, to prove that he sometimes acted unmasked. 2 1.0. xi, 3 74. 3 ibid. xi, 3, 178.
4
6

is, of course, tentative;

we can hardly assumethat maskswere still in use when the pictures were made, it is hardly necessary to pursue this enquiry further. The outline history of masksin Roman comedy here presented
it contains many gaps, and even as to the

iii, 93, ff. Anach. 23, Gallus, 26, De Salt. 29. 6 De Salt. 28.

7 The monumental evidence (frescoes, reliefs, statuettes, etc.) does not, so far as I am aware, help to solve the chronological question.