others, and from which many of the audience at once knew what piece was
about to be performed(601). The chief musical instruments employed in the
theatre were the _tibiæ_, or flutes, with which the comedies of Terence
are believed to have been represented. The _Andria_ is said to have been
acted, “Tibiis paribus, dextris et sinistris;”—the _Eunuch_, “Tibiis
duabus dextris;”—the _Heautontimorumenos_, on its first appearance,
“Tibiis imparibus;” on its second, “Duabus dextris;”—the _Adelphi_,
“Tibiis sarranis;”—the _Hecyra_, “Tibiis paribus,”—and the _Phormio_,
“Tibiis imparibus.” It thus appears, that the theatrical flutes were
classed as “dextræ et sinistræ,” and also as “pares et impares,” and that
there were likewise “Tibiæ Serranæ,” or “Sarranæ,” to which, it is
believed, the Phrygiæ were opposed. There has been much dispute, however,
as to what constituted the distinction between these different sets of
pipes. Scaliger thinks, that the “Tibiæ dextræ et sinistræ” were formed by
cutting the reed into two parts: that portion which was next to the root
making the left, and that next to the top the right flute.—whence the
notes of the former were more grave, and those of the latter more
acute(602). Mad. Dacier, however, is of opinion, that flutes were
denominated right and left from the valves, in playing, being stopped with
the right or left hand. There is still more difficulty with regard to the
“Tibiæ pares et impares.” Some persons conjecture, that the Tibiæ pares
were a set of two or more pipes of the same pitch in the musical scale,
and Impares such as did not agree in pitch(603). The opinion, that flutes
were called Pares when they had an even, and Impares when an odd number of
valves, is not inconsistent with this notion; nor with that adopted by
Dempster(604), that the difference depended on their being equal or
unequal distances between the valves. It may be also reconciled with the
idea of Salmasius, that when the same set of flutes were employed, as two
right or two left, a play was said to be acted Tibiis paribus; and, when
one or more right with one or more left were used, it was announced as
performed Tibiis imparibus. This idea, however, of Salmasius, is
inconsistent with what is said as to the _Andria_ being acted with equal
flutes right and left; unless, indeed, we suppose, with Mad. Dacier, that
this is to be understood of different representations, and that the flutes
were of the same description at each performance, but were sometimes a set
of right, and at other times a set of left flutes.
As to the Tibiæ Serranæ, some have supposed that they were so called from
Serra, since they produced the sharp grating sound occasioned by a
saw(605); some, that they were denominated Sarranæ from Sarra, a city in
Phœnicia, where such flutes are believed to have been invented(606); and
others, that they derived their name from Sero to lock; because in these
flutes, there were valves or stops which opened and shut alternately(607).
It is only farther known, that the Tibiæ Serranæ belonged to the class
called Pares, and the Phrygiæ, to which they were opposed, to that styled
Impares.
All flutes, of whatever denomination, were extremely simple in the
commencement of the dramatic art at Rome. Their form was plain, and they
had but few notes. In progress of time, however, they became more complex,
and louder in their tones(608).
Several chorded instruments were also used in the orchestra, as the lyre
and harp, and in later times an hydraulic organ was introduced. This
instrument, which is described in the _Organon_ of Pub. Optatianus,
emitted a sound which was produced from air created by the concussion of
water. Cornelius Severus, in his poem of _Ætna_, alludes to it, under the
name of _Cortina_—
“Carmineque irriguo magni Cortina Theatri
Imparibus numerosa modis canit arte regentis,
Quæ tenuem impellens animam subremigat undam(609).”
3. _The Stage_. The front area of the stage was a little elevated above
that part of the orchestra where the musicians were placed, and was called
the _Proscenium_. On the proscenium a wooden platform, termed the
_pulpitum_, was raised to the height of five feet(610). This the actors
ascended to perform their characters; and here all the dramatic
representations of the Romans were exhibited(611), except the Mimes, which
were acted on the lower floor of the proscenium. Certain architectural
proportions were assigned to all these different parts of the theatre.
The whole space or area behind the pulpitum was called the _Scena_,
because the scenery appropriate to the piece was there exhibited. “The
three varieties of scenes,” says Vitruvius, “are termed tragic, comic, and
satyric, each of which has a style of decoration peculiar to itself. In
the tragic scene columns are represented, with statues, and other
embellishments suitable to palaces and public buildings. The comic scene
represents the houses of individuals, with their balconies and windows
arranged in imitation of private dwellings. The satyric is adorned with
groves, dens, and mountains, and other rural objects.” The rigid adherence
of the ancients to the unity of place, rendered unnecessary that frequent
shifting of scenes which is required in our dramas. When the side scenes
were changed, the frames, or painted planks, were turned by machinery, and
the scene was then called _versatilis_, or revolving: When it was
withdrawn altogether, and another brought forward, it was called
_ductilis_, or, sliding. There were also trapdoors in the floor of this
part of the theatre, by which ghosts and the Furies ascended when their
presence was required; and machines were disposed above the scene, as also
at its sides, by which gods and other superior beings were suddenly
brought upon the stage.
At the bottom of the scene, or end most remote from the spectators, there
was a curtain of painted canvass, which was first used after the tapestry
of Attalus had been brought to Rome(612). It was dropped when the play
began, remained down during the performance, and was drawn up when the
representation concluded. This was certainly the case during the existence
of the republic; but I imagine that an alteration took place in the time
of the emperors, and that the curtain, being brought more forward on the
scene, was then, as with us, raised at the commencement, and dropped at
the end of the piece:—
“Mox ubi ridendas inclusit pagina partes,
Vera redit facies, dissimulata perit(613).”
At each side of the _scena_ there were doors called _Hospitalia_, by which
the actors entered and made their exits.
That part of the theatre which comprehended the stage and scene was
originally covered with branches of trees, which served both for shelter
and ornament. It was afterwards shut in with planks, which were painted
for the first time in the year 654. About the same period the scene was
enriched with gold and silver hangings, and the proscenium was decorated
with columns, statues, and altars to the god in whose honour, or at whose
festival, the stage plays were represented.
II. In turning our attention to the _actors_ who appeared on the
_pulpitum_ of the Roman stage, the point which first attracts our notice
is that supposed separation of the dramatic labour, by which one performer
gesticulated while the other declaimed. This division, however, did not
take place at all in comedy, or in the ordinary dialogue (_Diverbia_) of
tragedy; as is evinced by various passages in the Latin authors, which
show that Æsopus, the chief tragic actor, and Roscius, the celebrated
comedian, both gesticulated and declaimed. Cicero informs us, that Æsopus
was hissed if he was in the least degree hoarse(614); and he also mentions
one remarkable occasion, on which, having returned to the stage after he
had long retired from it, his voice suddenly failed him just as he
commenced an adjuration in the part he represented(615). This evinces that
Æsopus declaimed; and the same author affords us proof that he
gesticulated: For, in the treatise _De Divinatione_, he introduces his
brother Quintus, declaring, that he had himself witnessed in Æsopus such
animation of countenance, and vehemence of gesture, that he seemed carried
beside himself by some irresistible power(616). Roscius, indeed, is
chiefly talked of for the gracefulness of his gestures(617), but there are
also passages which refer to the modulation of his voice(618). It may
perhaps, however, be said, that the above citations only prove that the
same actor gesticulated in some characters, and declaimed in others; it
seems, however, much more probable that Æsopus went through the whole
dramatic part, than that he appeared in some plays merely as a
gesticulating, and in others as a declaiming, performer.
There was thus no division in the ordinary dialogue, or _diverbium_, as it
was called, and it was employed only in the monologues, and those parts of
high excitement and pathos, which were declaimed somewhat in the tone of
_recitativo_ in an Italian opera, and were called _Cantica_, from being
accompanied either by the flutes or by instrumental music. That one actor
should have recited, and another performed the corresponding gestures in
the scenes of a tragedy, and that, too, in parts of the highest
excitement, and in which theatric illusion should have been rendered most
complete, certainly appears the most incongruous and inexplicable
circumstance in the history of the Roman Drama. This division did not
exist on the Greek stage, but it commenced at Rome as early as the time of
Livius Andronicus, who, being _encored_, as we call it, in his monologues,
introduced a slave, who declaimed to the sound of the flute, while he
himself executed the corresponding gesticulations(619). To us nothing can
seem at first view more ridiculous, and more injurious to theatric
illusion, than one person going through a dumb show or pantomime, while
another, who must have appeared a supernumerary on the pulpitum, recited,
with his arms across, the corresponding verses, in tones of the utmost
vehemence and pathos(620). It must, however, be recollected, that the
Roman theatres were larger and worse lighted than ours; that the mask
prevented even the nearest spectators from perceiving the least motion of
the lips, and they thus heard only the words without knowing whether they
proceeded from him who recited or gestured; and, finally, that these
actors were so well trained, that they agreed precisely in their
respective parts. We are informed by Cicero, that a comedian who made a
movement out of time was as much hissed as one who mistook the
pronunciation of a word or quantity of a syllable in a verse(621). Seneca
says, that it is surprising to see the attitudes of eminent comedians on
the stage overtake and keep pace with speech, notwithstanding the velocity
of the tongue(622).
So much importance was attached to the art of dramatic gesticulation, that
it was taught in the schools; and there were instituted motions as well as
natural. These artificial gestures, however, of arbitrary signification,
were chiefly employed in pantomime, where speech not being admitted, more
action was required to make the piece intelligible: And it appears from
Quintilian, that comedians who acted with due decorum, never, or but very
rarely, made use of instituted signs in their gesticulation(623). The
movements suited to theatrical declamation were subdivided into three
different sorts. The first, called _Emmelia_, was adapted to tragic
declamation; the second, _Cordax_, was fitted to comedies; and the third,
_Sicinnis_, was proper to satiric pieces, as the Mimes and _Exodia_(624).
The recitation was also accounted of high importance, so that the player
who articulated took prodigious pains to improve his voice, and an almost
whimsical care to preserve it(625). Nearly a third part of Dubos’ once
celebrated work on Poetry and Painting, is occupied with the theatric
declamation of the Roman actors. The art of framing the declamation of
dramatic pieces was, he informs us, the object of a particular study, and
indeed profession, at Rome. It was composed and signified in notes, placed
over each verse of the play, to direct the tones and inflection of voice
which were to be observed in recitation. There were a certain number of
accents in the Latin language, and the composer of a declamation marked
each syllable requiring to be accented, the grave or the acute accent
which properly belonged to it, while on the remaining syllables, he noted,
by means of conventional marks, a tone conformable to the tenor of the
discourse. The declamation was thus not a musical song, but a recitation
subject to the direction of a noted melody. Tragic declamation was graver
and more harmonious than comic, but even the comic was more musical and
varied than the pronunciation used in ordinary conversation(626). This
system, it might be supposed, would have deprived the actors of much
natural fire and enthusiasm, from the constraint to which they were thus
subjected; but the whole dramatic system of the ancients was more
artificial than ours, and something determinate and previously arranged,
as to quantities and pauses, was perhaps essential to enable the
gesticulating actor to move in proper concert with the reciter. The whole
system, however, of noted declamation, is denied by Duclos and Racine, who
think it impossible that accentuated tones of passion could be devised or
employed(627).
Both the actor who declaimed, and he who gesticulated, wore _masks_; and,
before concluding the subject of the Roman theatre, it may not be improper
to say a few words concerning this singular dramatic contrivance, as also
concerning the attire of the performers.
From the opportunity which they so readily afforded, of personally
satirizing individuals, by representing a caricatured resemblance of their
features, masks were first used in the old Greek comedy, which assumed the
liberty of characterizing living citizens of Athens. It is most probable,
however, that the hint of dramatic masks was given to the Romans by the
Etruscans(628). That they were employed by the histrions of that latter
nation, can admit of no doubt. The actors represented on the Etruscan
vases are all masked, and have caps on their heads(629). We also know,
that in some of the satirical exhibitions of the ancient Italians, they
wore masks made of wood:
“Nec non Ausonii, Trojâ gens missa, coloni
Versibus incomptis ludunt, risuque soluto
Oraque corticibus sumunt horrenda cavatis(630).”
Originally, and in the time of L. Andronicus, the actors on the Roman
stage used only caps or beavers(631), and their faces were daubed and
disguised with the lees of wine, as at the commencement of the dramatic
art in Greece. The increased size, however, of the theatres, and
consequent distance of the spectators from the stage, at length compelled
the Roman players to borrow from art the expression of those passions
which could no longer be distinguished on the living countenance of the
actor.
Most of the Roman masks covered not merely the face, but the greater part
of the head(632), so that the beard and hair were delineated, as well as
the features. This indeed is implied in one of the fables of Phædrus,
where a fox, after having examined a tragic mask, which he found lying in
his way, exclaims, “What a vast shape without brains(633)!”—An observation
obviously absurd, if applied to a mere vizard for the face, which was not
made, and could not have been expected, to contain any brains. Addison, in
his _Travels in Italy_, mentions, that, in that country, he had seen
statues of actors, with the _larva_ or mask. One of these was not merely a
vizard for the face; it had false hair, and came over the whole head like
an helmet. He also mentions, however, that he has seen figures of Thalia,
sometimes with an entire head-piece in her hand, and a friz running round
the edges of the face; but at others, with a mask merely for the
countenance, like the modern vizards of a masquerade.
The masks of the regular theatre were made of chalk, or pipe-clay, or
terra cotta. A few were of metal, but these were chiefly the masks of the
Mimes. The chalk or clay masks were so transparent and artfully prepared,
that the play of the muscles could be seen through them; and it appears
that an opening was frequently left for the eyes, since Cicero informs us
expressly, that in parts of high pathos or indignation, the actor’s eyes
were often observed to sparkle under the vizard(634). From a vast
collection of Roman masks engraved in the work of Ficoroni, _De Larvis
Scenicis_, it appears that most of them represented features considerably
distorted, and enlarged beyond the natural proportions. A wide and gaping
mouth is one of their chief characteristics. The mask being in a great
measure contrived to prevent the dispersion of the voice, the mouth was so
formed, and was so incrusted with metal, as to have somewhat the effect of
a speaking-trumpet—hence the Romans gave the name of _persona_ to masks,
because they rendered the articulation of those who wore them more
distinct and sonorous(635). There are, however, a few figures in the work
of Ficoroni, carrying in their hands masks which are not unnaturally
distorted, and which have, in several instances, a resemblance to the
actor who holds them. M. Boindin, on the authority of a passage in
Lucian’s _Dialogue on Dancing_, thinks that these less hideous masks were
employed by dancers, or pantomimic actors, who, as they did not speak, had
no occasion for the distended mouth(636).
Roscius, who had some defect in his eyes, is said to have been the first
actor who used the Greek mask(637): but it was not invariably worn even by
him, as appears from a passage of Cicero.—“All,” says that author,
“depends upon the face, and all the power of the face is centred in the
eyes. Of this our old men are the best judges, for they were not lavish of
their applause even to Roscius in a mask(638).”
The different characters who chiefly appeared on the Roman stage—the
father, the lover, the parasite, the pander, and the courtezan, were
distinguished by their appropriate masks. A particular physiognomy was
considered as so essential to each character, that it was thought, that
without a proper mask, a complete knowledge of the personage could not be
communicated. “In tragedies,” says Quintilian, “Niobe appears with a
sorrowful countenance—and Medea announces her character by the fierce
expression of her physiognomy—stern courage is painted on the mask of
Hercules, while that of Ajax proclaims his transport and phrensy. In
comedies, the masks of slaves, pimps, and parasites—peasants, soldiers,
old women, courtezans, and female slaves, have each their particular
character(639).” Julius Pollux, in his _Onomasticon_, has given a minute
description of the mask appropriate to every dramatic character(640). His
work, however, was written in the reign of the Emperor Commodus, and his
observations are chiefly formed on the practice of the Greek theatre, so
that there may have been some difference between the various masks he
describes, and those of the Roman stage, towards the end of the republic.
The matron, virgin, and courtezan, he informs us, were particularly
distinguished from each other by the manner in which their hair was
arranged and braided. The mask of the parasite had brown and curled hair:
That of the braggart captain had black hair, and a swarthy
complexion(641); and it farther appears from the engravings of masks in
Ficoroni, that he had a distended or inflated countenance. The masks,
likewise, distinguished the severe from the indulgent father—the Micio
from the Demea—and the sober youth from the debauched rake(642). If, in
the course of the comedy, the father was to be sometimes pleased, but
sometimes incensed, one of the brows of his vizard was knit, and the other
smooth; and the actor was always careful, during the course of the
representation, to turn to the spectators, along with the change of
passion, the profile which expressed the feeling predominant at the
time(643). Julius Pollux has also described the dresses suited to each
character: The youth was clad in purple, the parasite in black, slaves in
white, the pander in party-coloured garments, and the courtezan in flowing
yellow robes(644).
It would introduce too long discussion, were I to enter on the
much-agitated question concerning the advantages and disadvantages of
masks in theatric representations. The latter are almost too apparent to
be enlarged on or recapitulated. It is obvious to remark, that though
masks might do very well for a Satyr and Cyclops, who have no resemblance
to human features, they are totally unsuitable for a flatterer, a miser,
or the like characters, which abound in our own species, in whom the
expression of countenance is more agreeable even than the action, and
forms a considerable part of the histrionic art. Could we suppose that a
vizard represented ever so naturally the general humour of a character, it
can never be assimilated with the variety of passions incident to each
person, in the whole course of a play. The grimace may be proper on some
occasions, but it is too fixed and steady to agree with all. In
consequence, however, of the great size of the ancient theatres, there was
not so much lost by the concealment of the living countenance, as we are
apt at first to suppose. It was impossible that those alterations of
visage, which are hidden by a mask, could have been distinctly perceived
by one-tenth of the 40,000 spectators of a Roman play. The feelings
portrayed in the ancient drama were neither so tender nor versatile as
those in modern plays, and the actors did not require the same flexibility
of features—there were fewer flashes of joy in sorrow, fewer gleams of
benignity in hatred. Hercules, the Satyrs, the Cyclops, and other
characters of superhuman strength or deformity, were more frequently
introduced on the ancient than the modern stage, and, by aid of the mask,
were more easily invested with their appropriate force or ugliness. By
means, too, of these masks, the dramatists introduced foreign nations on
the stage with their own peculiar physiognomy, and among others, the _Rufi
persona Batavi_. Their use, besides, prevented the frequenters of the
theatre from seeing an actor, far advanced in years, play the part of a
young lover, since the vizard, under which the performer appeared, was
always, to that extent at least, agreeable to the character he assumed. In
addition to all this, by concealing the mouth it prevented the spectators
from observing whence the sound issued, and thus palliated the absurdity
of one actor declaiming, and the other beating time, as it were by
gestures. Finally, as the tragic actor was elevated by his _cothurnus_, or
buskin, above the ordinary stature of man, it became necessary, in order
to preserve the due proportions of the human form, that his countenance
also should be enlarged to corresponding dimensions.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I shall here close the first Volume of the HISTORY OF ROMAN LITERATURE, in
which I have treated of the Origin of the Romans—the Progress of their
Language, and the different Poets by whom their Literature was
illustrated, till the era of Augustus. At that period Virgil beautifully
acknowledges the superiority of the Greeks in statuary, oratory, and
science; but he might, with equal justice, (and the avowal would have come
from him with peculiar propriety,) have confessed that the Muses loved
better to haunt Pindus and Parnassus, than Soracte or the Alban Hill. From
the days of Ennius downwards, the literature and poetry of the Romans was,
with exception, perhaps, of satire, and some dramatic entertainments of a
satiric description, wholly Greek—consisting merely of imitations, and, in
some instances, almost of translations from that language. We may compare
it to a tree transplanted in full growth to an inferior soil or climate,
and which, though still venerable or beautiful, loses much of its verdure
and freshness, sends forth no new shoots, is preserved alive with
difficulty, and, if for a short time neglected, shrivels and decays.
END OF VOLUME I.
_James Kay, Jun. Printer,_
_S. E. Corner of Race & Sixth Streets_
_Philadelphia._
INDEX
Afranius, his Comedies, vol. i. p. 170.
Agriculture, advantages of Italy for, ii. 6–11.
Antias, Q. Valerius, Latin Annalist, ii. 74.
Antipater, Cælius, Latin Annalist, ii. 72.
Antonius, Marcus, character of his eloquence, ii. 117.
His death, 119.
Arcesilaus founds the New Academy, ii. 208.
Asellio, Sempronius, Latin Annalist, ii. 73.
Atellane Fables, i. 229.
Attius, his Tragedies, i. 214.
Brutus, his Historical Epitomes, ii. 107.
Cæcilius, his Comedies, i. 168.
Cæcina, his history, ii. 108.
Cæsar compared with Xenophon, ii. 94.
His Commentaries, 95–101.
His Ephemeris, whether the same work with his Commentaries,
101.
His Anticatones, 102.
His Analogia, 103.
Calvus, Licinius, his Epigrams, i. 322.
His orations, ii. 131.
Carmen Saliare, i. 43.
Carneades teaches the Greek philosophy at Rome, ii. 211.
Cato, the Censor, his work on Agriculture, ii. 12–16.
His Orations, 16.
His work De Originibus, 18.
On Medicine, 20–21.
Catullus, i. 271–320.
Cethegus, Marcus, an orator, ii. 110.
Cicero, his Orations, ii. 152.
Compared with Demosthenes, 192.
His works on Rhetoric, 193.
De Oratore, 195.
Brutus, 198.
The Orator, 199.
Topica, 200.
Rhetorica ad Herennium, inquiry concerning the author of, 202.
His philosophical works—De Legibus, 223.
De Finibus, 229.
Academica, 232.
Tusculanæ Disputationes, 236.
De Naturâ Deorum, 243.
De Officiis, 257.
De Senectute, 259.
De Republica, 263.
His Epistles, 278.
Columna Rostrata, inscription on the, i. 46.
Cotta, his style of oratory, ii. 122.
Crassus, Lucius, character of his eloquence, ii. 120.
His death, ibid.
Compared with Antony, 121.
Decemviral Laws, ii. 134.
Dialogue, remarks on this species of composition, ii. 194.
Eloquence, Roman, commencement of, ii. 109.
Ennius, his tragedies, i. 67.
Annals, 78.
Translation of Euhemerus, 94.
Etruscans, their origin, i. 20.
Their conquests, 26.
Religion, 29.
Arts, 35.
Eugubian Tables, i. 47.
Fabius Pictor, Latin Annalist, ii. 67–71.
Fratres Arvales, hymn of the, i. 43.