[Sidenote: The Audience] As it is perfectly patent that every practical
playwright must cater to his public, the audience is an essential feature
in our discussion. The audience of Plautus was not of a high class.
Terence, even in later times, when education had materially progressed,
often failed to reach them by over-finesse. Plautus with his bold brush
pleased them. Surely a turbulent and motley throng they were, with the
native violence of the sun-warmed Italic temperament and the abundant
animal spirits of a crude civilization, tumbling into the theatre in the
full enjoyment of holiday, scrambling for vantage points on the sloping
ground, if such were handy, or a good spot for their camp-stools. In view
of the uncertainty as to the actual site of the original performances,
this portraiture is "atmospheric" rather than "photographic." (See
Saunders in TAPA. XLIV, 1913). At any rate, we have ample evidence of the
turbulence of the early Roman audience. (Ter. Prol. _Hec._ 39-42, and
citations immediately following). Note the description of Mommsen:[46]
"The audience was anything but genteel.... The body of spectators cannot
have differed much from what one sees in the present day at public
fireworks and gratis exhibitions. Naturally, therefore, the proceedings
were not too orderly; children cried,[47] women talked and shrieked, now
and then a wench prepared to push her way to the stage; the ushers had on
these festivals anything but a holiday, and found frequent occasion to
confiscate a mantle or to ply the rod."[48]
Impatient if the play be delayed, and voicing their disapproval by lusty
clapping, stamping, whistling and cat-calls, they are equally ready with
noisy approval if the dramatic fare tickle their palate.[49] The
_tibicen_, as he steps forth to render the overture, is greeted
uproariously as an old favorite. The manager perhaps appears and announces
the names of those taking part, each one of whom is doubtless applauded or
hissed in proportion to his measure of popularity. Differences of opinion
as to the merits of an individual actor may culminate in the partisans'
coming to blows.[50] Horace (_Ep._ II. I. 200 ff.) comments on the
turbulence of the audiences of his day too; while under the Empire
factions for and against particular actors grew up, as in the circus.[51]
Late-comers of course often disturbed the Prologus in his lines. The
continual reiteration that we find in such prologues as the _Amph._,
_Cap._ and _Poen._ was naturally designed as a safeguard against such
disturbance. Yet these prologues were undoubtedly composed, as Ritschl has
shown (_Par._ 232 ff.), shortly after 146 B.C., and the turbulence of the
original audience must have been far greater.
To win the favor of such a crowd, which would groan if instead of the
expected comedy a tragedy should be announced,[52] what methods were
necessary? Slap-sticks, horse-play, broad slashing swashbuckling humor,
thick colors daubed on with lavish brush!
By Cicero's time the public had attained to such a degree of
sophistication that the slightest slip on the part of the wretched actor
was greeted by a storm of popular disapproval. "Histrio si paulum se movit
extra numerum, aut si versus pronuntiatus est syllaba una brevior aut
longior, exsibilatur, exploditur," says Cicero.[53] The actor dare not
even have a cold, for on the slightest manifestation of hoarseness, he was
hooted off, though favorites such as Roscius might be excused on the plea
of indisposition.[54] The Scholiast Cruquius to Hor. _Ser._ I. 10.37 ff.
notes: "Poemata ... in theatris exhibita imperitae multitudinis applausum
captare."
It is evident from all this that, while the Roman public had made
considerable advances in education, their demonstrative temperament had
not cooled. It seems eminently fair to deduce that the far ruder and less
cultivated audiences of Plautus' day were even more violent in their
manifestations of pleasure and displeasure, but that their criterion of
taste was solely the amount of amusement derived from the performance and
that they bothered themselves little about niceties of rhythm. To the
Roman, the scenic and histrionic were the vital features of a production.
Again we reiterate, only the bold brush could have pleased them.
That the plays of Plautus attained a permanent position in ihe theatrical
repertoire of Rome is of course well known; but he wrote primarily for his
own age, and in a difficult environment. Not only did he have to please a
highly volatile and inflammable public, but he must have been forced to
exercise tact to avoid offending the patrician powers, as the imprisonment
of Naevius indicates. Mommsen has an apt summary:[55] "Under such
circumstances, where art worked for daily wages and the artist instead of
receiving due honour was subjected to disgrace, the new national theatre
of the Romans could not present any development either original or even at
all artistic."
[Sidenote: The Actor] This brief discussion of the relation between public
and playwright will suffice for our purposes. In the course of it we have
insensibly encroached upon the next topic: the relation of public and
actor. Who after all is the chief factor in the success or failure of a
drama, in spite of the oft misquoted adage, "The play's the thing?" The
actor! The actor, who can mouth and tear a passion to tatters, or swing a
piece of trumpery into popular favor by the brute force of his dash and
personality. That this was true in Plautus' day, no less than in our own,
is plainly indicated by the personal allusion inserted in the _Bac._
(214-5):
Etiam Epidicum, quam ego fabulam aeque ac me ipsum amo,
Nullam aeque invitus specto, _si agit Pellio_.
The servile status of the ancient actor is an index to the energy of his
performance, if to nothing else. Failure meant a beating, success a drink
at least.[56] Augustus humanely abrogated the whipping of actors, but an
attempt was made in Tiberius' time to renew the practice.[57] On the other
hand, there seem to have been prizes awarded to successful actors,[58] as
well as to the poet;[59] but this practice surely arose after Plautus'
lifetime. At any rate, whatever was the nature of the reward, in his day
the large emoluments won by Roscius and other popular favorites were
impossible.[60] The effort demanded by the elaborate education of the
actor,[61] in which naturally gesticulation was the most vital element,
was out of all proportion to the precarious reward. A rigid course of
training was prescribed and strenuous exercises were required, for both
actor and orator to keep the voice in proper form.[62] Indeed, Quintilian
advises the budding orator to take instruction in voice production and
gesticulation from the comic actor.[63] For the comic actor was at all
times recognized as livelier and more vivid in his performance than the
tragedian.[64] The two were usually sharply differentiated.[65]
Specialization arose, too, and we hear of actors who confined their
efforts to feminine roles,[66] though naturally every performer was cast
for parts to which his physique was best suited.[67]
It is doubtful whether such an elaborate system had been developed in
Plautus' time, but this much is certain: the comedian was on the stage
lively, energetic and constantly spurred on by the fear of punishment from
the _dominus gregis_ and the violent disapproval of a fickle, tempestuous
and withal exacting public. Polybius[68] relates that the visit of a
troupe of Greek actors to Rome was a failure because of their over-staid
deportment, until, learning the desires of the volatile Italians, they
improvised a vastly more vivid pantomime depicting a mock battle, with
huge success. Assuredly the early Roman comedian must have acted with
greater abandon and clownish drollery, if not with the elaborate
histrionic technique of the later actor.[69] We have heard Dr. Charles
Knapp relate that the performance of the _Ajax_ of Sophocles by a troupe
of modern Greek players went with amazing and incredible rapidity and
vivacity. It is all of a piece. We must inevitably associate vivid
temperament with the sons of the Mediterranean in all ages. Yet we have
just seen that the Greeks of old were too self-contained for their Italian
brethren.
[Sidenote: The Histrionism] With this brief discussion of the condition,
incentive and motive of the Plautine actor, let us pass on to a more
detailed consideration of his methods and technique. Naturally by far the
most important part of this was gesture. Here again, while some of our
evidence is somewhat unreliable, practically every shred of extant
testimony indicates an extreme liveliness and vivacity. In the
rhetoricians frequent warning is issued to the forensic neophyte to avoid
the unrestraint of theatrical gesticulation. Cicero says (_De Or._ I. 59.
251): "Nemo suaserit studiosis dicendi adulescentibus in gestu discendo
histrionum more elaborare." Quintilian echoes (I. 11. 3): "Ne gestus quidem
omnis ac motus a comediis petendus est.... Orator plurimum ... aberit a
scaenico, nec vultu nec manu nec excursionibus nimius." And in the _Auctor
ad Herennium_ we find (III. 15. 26): "Convenit igitur in vultu et pudorem
nec acrimoniam esse, in gestu et venustatem nec turpitudinem, ne aut
histriones aut operarii videamur esse."[70] That the nature and liveliness
of gesture on the stage was determined by the character portrayed, it is
almost needless to say.[71]
Cicero's analysis (_de Or._ III. 59. 220) of the difference between
theatrical and forensic gesture implies that the former illustrates
individual words and ideas, while the latter comprehends more broadly the
general thought and sentiment.[72] It is most unfortunate that we have
lost Cicero's treatise _De Gestu Histrionis_.[73]
By Cicero's time a more restrained mode of acting was evidently considered
good taste; witness _de Off._ (I. 36. 130): "Histrionum non nulli gestus
ineptus non vacant, et quae sunt recta et simplicia laudantur."[74] But
the passages cited above bear ample testimony to the vigor of histrionic
gesticulation even at this later and far more cultivated epoch. Again we
repeat, what must have been the energy and abandon of the original
Plautine actor?[75]
Apart from the rhetoricians, the most fruitful literary source of our
information on gesture is Donatus' commentary on Terence. The
trustworthiness of this has been the subject of much argument. Sittl[76]
accuses him of speaking merely from the standpoint of a professor of
rhetoric, as comedies of Terence were no longer given in the time of
Donatus. Weinberger in his "Beitrage zu den Buhnenaltherthumern aus Donats
Terenz-commentar,"[77] admonishes us to be very careful not to put too
high a value on the commentary. Van Wageningen[78] is of the opinion that
much of the work was inspired by Donatus' having seen in his own time
unmasked actors play. To this view color is lent by Donatus' note to
_And._ 716: "Sive haec <Mysis> personatis viris agitur, ut apud veteres,
sive per mulierem, ut nunc videmus."
If this is true, it makes Donatus' work of more significance to us, as it
would imply a harking back to the play of feature of the unmasked
performances of Plautus' day. But while it is certain that Donatus had
other sources than the Terentian text for his annotations,[79] it is
equally certain that practically everything he has to say relative to
gesture and stage business is readily to be deduced from the text and is
in the main interesting only as a compilation.[80] However, everything he
says continues to point persistently to lively gesture and action; and
this too in Terentian comedy, where the text makes far less rigorous
demands on the actor's muscles than in Plautus' works.
Donatus remarks occasionally that certain words must have been accompanied
by especially expressive gesture and byplay, evidently of feature, as
_vultuose, cum gestu_ and similar phrases are used to indicate this.[81]
His note to _And._ 722 is: "Haec scaena actuosa est: magis enim in gestu
quam in oratione est constituta." Of gestures emphatic and yet not foreign
to everyday life Quintilian notes (XI. 3. 123): "Femur ferire--et usitatum
et indignantis decet"; a movement plainly employed in _Mil._ 204 and
_Truc._ 601. But, says Quintilian further (ib.): "Complodere manus
scaenicum est et pectus caedere."[82]
One of the notable "hits" of the ancient stage is recorded by Donatus ad
_Phor._ 315: Ambivius (as Phormio) entered "oscitans temulenter atque
aurem minimo scalpens digitulo ... et labia lingens ut ebrius et ructans."
But Ambivius' potations resulted in an extremely spirited and lifelike
imitation of the parasite character and he was forthwith forgiven his
drunkenness.
Passing mention must be made of the Terentian Mss. illustrations, though
they add but little weight to the foregoing. For a complete list of their
sources and editions see Sittl, "GebArden der Griechen und RAmer," Chap.
XI, p. 203 ff.[83] But whatever be the exact date of the original, in our
extant copies the old traditional gestures are lost and the gesture of
everyday life supplied. In fact, in the analyses appended by Leo, van
Wageningen and Warnecke, in the works cited above, we arrive at little but
that the gestures natural to any Italian-born person in a like situation
are reproduced, such as "gestus abeuntis, cogitantis, parasiti," etc. It
is almost too much to make any of this a basis for argument as to
classical and pre-classical stage-craft. It is at least significant that
every character with hands free is gesticulating and the scene from _Eun._
IV. 6-7 is evidently full of vigorous action.
An old and discursive article[84] by T. Baden, containing a description
and analysis of the gestures and posture of a number of familiar figures
from comedy exemplified in some collections of statuettes (chiefly those
in Borgia's Museum of Baden's time), is open to the same objection as the
above. The gestures of slave, pander, parasite, etc., described in the
article are lively and expressive to be sure, but contain little to
differentiate them from those of daily life.
While much of our evidence is still to come, we believe that we are
already justified in the deduction that the actor contemporary with
Plautus must have indulged in the extravagances of the players in the
Atellan farces and the mimes. The _mimus_ of the Empire, we know,
specialized in ridiculous facial contortions.[85]
We must not forget too the vivacity indicated by the comic scenes among
the Pompeian and Herculanean wall-paintings,[86] which have a close
kinship with the Terentian MSS. pictures. Nor must we lose sight of the
fact that all our pictorial _reliquiae_ portray the later masked
characters, and hence play of feature, which must have been a notable
concomitant of the original Plautine performance, is entirely obscured.
As our intention is fundamentally to get at the original intent of our
poet and his actors, a discussion of the mask is not in order. Whether we
agree with Donatus' statement that masks were first introduced for comedy
and tragedy by Cincius Faliscus and Minucius Prothymus respectively,[87]
or with Diomedes' explanation[88] that Roscius adopted them to disguise
his pronounced squint, it is certain that they were not worn in Plautus'
time, when wigs and make-up were employed for characterization.[89] In
fact, the early performances of Plautus, unless we except the original
Terentian productions, stand almost alone in the history of Graeco-Roman
comedy as unmasked plays. This would give opportunity for the practice of
lively grimace and facial play.
The text itself contains not infrequent descriptions of the outward
appearance of the characters, often pointing to grotesqueries of make-up
that rival those of the Old Comedy. From _As._ 400-1 we learn that Saurea
was:
Macilentis malis, rufulus, aliquantum ventriosus,
Truculentis oculis, commoda statura, tristi fronte.
In the _Mer._ Lysimachus is described as a veritable _thensaurus
mali_ (639-40):
Canum, varum, ventriosum, buculentum, breviculum,
Subnigris oculis, oblongis malis, pansam aliquantulum.
Curculio was one-eyed: "Unocule, salve" (Cur. 392). Pseudolus must have
been a joy to the groundlings _(Ps._ 1218 ff.):
Rufus quidam, ventriosus, crassis suris, subniger,
Magno capite, acutis oculis, ore rubicundo, admodum
Magnis pedibus. BA. Perdidisti, ut nominavisti pedes.
Pseudolus fuit ipsus.
His red slave's wig is thus made a feature in the characterization.
(Cf. Ter. _Phor._ 51). When Trachalio is looking for the procurer,
he inquires (_Rud._ 316 ff.):
Ecquem
Recalvom ad Silanum senem, statutum, ventriosum,
Tortis superciliis, contracta fronte...?[90]
The precise details of the histrionic technique and "stage business" in
vogue must remain more or less a mystery to us. Our limitations in this
respect are admirably enunciated by Saunders (TAPA. XLIV, p. 97): "One
must conclude then, that it is dangerous to dogmatize on this subject, as
on most others connected with the early Roman stage. Our evidence is too
slight and the period of time involved is too long...." We can, therefore,
deal in little but generalities. The Romans must have imitated and
developed their Greek and Etruscan models.[91] When Livius Andronicus
first fathered _palliatae_, he must have chosen the New Comedy not only as
the type of drama most available to him, but as wholly adaptable to his
audiences. When Plautus wrote, he had the machinery already built for him,
and he doubtless seized upon the _palliata_ form as the natural medium for
the exploitation of his talents. By Cicero's time considerable technical
equipment was required; the actor must be an adept in gesticulation,
gymnastic and dancing.[92] Appreciable refinement had been reached in
Quintilian's age, for he scores the comic actor who departs too far from
reality and pronounces the ideal player him who declaims with a measured
artistic heightening of everyday discourse.[93] It is noteworthy that this
practically coincides with the accepted standard of modern realistic
acting. But the Plautine actor could never have felt himself trammeled by
any such narrow and sophisticated restrictions, as we believe the evidence
accumulated above amply proves. At any rate, the delineation of different
roles must have been at all times strictly in character. The need of
feminine vocal tones, unless another jest is intended is indicated by
_Rud._ 233:
Certe vox muliebris auris tetigit meas.
And Quintilian admonishes the youth who is taking lessons from a comic
actor in voice-production not to carry his precepts so far as to imitate
the female falsetto, the senile tremolo, the obsequiousness of the slave,
the stuttering accents of intoxication or the intonations of love, greed,
fear.[94]
Where Donatus gives instructions as to the vocal expression with which
certain lines are to be delivered, as in the case of his comments on
gesture, they are almost painfully evident from the context. He cites for
instance irony[95], anger[96], exhaustion [97], amazement [98],
sympathy[99], pity[100]. He appears as the lineal ancestor of the modern
"coach" of amateur theatricals in somewhat naively remarking[101] that
upon leaving Thais for two days, Phaedria must pronounce "two days" as if
"two years" were written.
Another phase of the delivery of the dialogue that deserves passing
mention is song and musical accompaniment. Livy's anecdote[102] of the
employment by Livius Andronicus of a boy to sing for him while he
gesticulated is almost universally accepted as an exceptional instance,
prompted by the failing of Livius' voice through age[103]. We are now
fairly well informed of the tripartite diversion of the dialogue into
_canticum_ or song proper, recitative, and _diverbium_ or spoken
utterance[104], with the incidental accompaniment of the _tibia_. Though
there may be some dispute as to the apportionment of the various classes,
the general truth is established.[105] The important feature of this for
our purpose is that, if the ancient tragedy with its music and dancing was
rather comparable to modern grand opera than to drama proper, the song and
musical accompaniment of comedy lend it a strong flavor of the opera
bouffe and even of the musical comedy of to-day. In Part II we shall draw
numerous other parallels between this style of composition and the plays
of Plautus. West, in A.J.P. VIII. 33, notes one of the few comparisons to
"comic opera" that we have seen. Fay, in the Introduction to his ed. of
the _Most._ (ASec. 11), likens Plautine drama to "an opera of the early
schools."
One feature of the performance still remains to be discussed--the
"stage-business," that is, the movements of the actors apart from mere
gesticulation and dialogue. Much of this too will find a place in Part II,
in the treatment of special peculiarities, but in general we note here
that the text itself contains many indications that are as plain as
printed stage directions regarding the movements being made or about to be
made by the characters. Examples of the more significant follow: _Amph._
308: Cingitur: Certe expedit se; 312: Perii, pugnos ponderat. (Sosia
speaks aside of Mercury and similarly during the succeeding scene); 903:
Potin ut abstineas manum?; 955: Aperiuntur aedis. This motif is
commonplace and frequent; 958: Vos tranquillos video; 1130: quam valide
tonuit; _As._ 39: Age, age, usque excrea; _Bac._ 668: quod sic terram
optuere?; _Cap._ 557: Viden tu hunc, quam inimico voltu intuitur?; 594:
Ardent oculi;[106] 793: Hic homo pugilatum incipit; _Ep._ 609: illi
caperrat frons severitudine; _Mer._ 138: iam dudum spato sanguinem; _Mil._
1324: Nefle; _Most._ 1030: vocis non habeo satis. (He must have been
shouting); _Ps._ 458: Statum vide hominis, Callipho, quam basilicum; 955:
transvorsus ... cedit, quasi cancer solet: _Trin._ 623 f.: celeri
graducunt uterque: ille rcprehendit hunc priorem pallio.[107]
This practice of indicating business in the lines, of making the
play act, is common to all the older types of drama, Elizabethan as
well as classic. A single striking example from Shakespeare will
furnish a parallel, in the well-known lines from _Macbeth_:
The devil damn thee black, thou cream-faced loon,
Where gott'st thou that goose look? (V. 3).
The modern playwright robs his lines of their vividness and
throws the onus on the actor through the medium of his interpolated
direction, a custom which reaches its most exaggerated form
in the plays of Bernard Shaw, as mentioned above.
[Sidenote: Thesis] We have now made a perceptible advance towards getting
an answer to our original questions: "What manner of drama is this?" and
"How was it done?" The comments of the most eminent critics on the former
question have left us rather bewildered by their diversity. Almost to a
man they have taken Plautus too seriously or else have arraigned him for
not conforming to their preconceived code of comedy, without questioning
whether it were Plautus' own or not. This has really nullified their
efforts to explain away the peculiarities and absurdities of his style.
Some _solvent_ of these difficulties is needed.
As to the second question, we have examined briefly the extant evidence
regarding the actor's employment of gesture and business, his delivery of
the dialogue, make-up and character delineation, and found a disappointing
paucity, but a general and irresistible trend towards liveliness, vivacity
and broad undiluted comedy that must have been the sort of dramatic fare
demanded by the primeval appetite of the Plautine audience. But again we
find ourselves falling short of a satisfying answer to our question.
Again, some _solvent_ is needed. As the last resort, we turn to the
evidence of the plays themselves and the unbounded realm of subjective
criticism.
From the earliest times gesture and business in Aristophanes and the Old
Comedy were marked by the riotous license of all the media of that notable
epoch[108] of comedy. From the broad spirit of its frank and vivid
burlesque not even the most stolidly Teutonic of humorless critics ever
thought of demanding a "picture of life." But with the abandonment of the
purpose of political propaganda, the consequent disappearance of the
chorus with its burlesque trappings (largely through motives of state
economy), and the establishment in the New Comedy of a type of dramatic
machinery that had a specious outer shell of reflection of characters and
events in daily life, the critics instantly seem to demand the standard of
dramatic technique of Aristotle and Freytag and condemn all departures
from this standard. In reality, we believe that the kinship of Plautus
with Aristophanes is much closer than has usually been realized.
Is, then, the change from Old to New Comedy as great as has been
represented? Does not the change consist rather in the outer form and in
the ideas expounded than in the spirit of the histrionism and mimicry? And
must not the vigor, from what we have seen, have been intensified in
Plautus? LeGrand alone seems to have caught the essence of this:[109] "Que
dire de la mimique? D'aprA"s les indications contenues dans le texte mAme
des comA(C)dies, d'aprA"s les commentaires--notamment ceux de Donat, d'aprA"s
les monuments figurA(C)s--en particulier les images des manuscrits, elle
devait Atre en general trA"s vive, souvent trop vive pour le goA"t des
modernes.... Et puis, ils s'addressaient a des spectateurs mA(C)ridionaux,
coutumiers dans la vie quotidienne d'une gesticulation plus animA(C)e que la
nAtre." And this is said as a combined estimate of New Comedy and
_palliatae_.
We are now prepared to advance a definite thesis, that shall gather up the
random threads of argument and suggestion scattered through the foregoing
pages and shall, we hope, provide a conclusive and final answer to both of
our original questions. If we can establish: that our author's sole aim
was to feed the popular hunger for amusement; that, while after leaving
much of his Greek originals practically untouched, he considered them in
effect but a medium for the provocation of laughter, but a vessel into
which to pour a highly seasoned brew of fun; that to this end his actors
went before the public, potentially speaking slap-stick in hand, equipped
by nature with liveliness of grimace and gesture and prepared to act with
verve, unction and an abandon of dash and vigor that would produce a riot
of merriment; that his dramatic machinery is hopelessly crippled and that
his evident intentions and effects are hopelessly lost unless interpreted
in this spirit: then we relegate Plautine drama to a low plane of broad
farce, where verisimilitude to life becomes wholly unnecessary because
undesirable; where the canons of dramatic art become inoperative; where,
contrary to what KArting says, we are not asked to believe that
"everything is happening in a perfectly natural manner"; where the poet
may stick at nothing provided the laugh be forthcoming; where all the
apparently absurd conventions of _palliatae_ cease to be absurd, vanish
into thin air and become unamenable to literary criticism, inasmuch as
they are all only part of the laugh-compelling scheme. This is the
_solvent_ that we propose. To establish this, let us proceed to an
examination of the internal mechanism of the plays.