648 
PLAYHOUSE. 
that the fynod of Olympus, from Jove downwards, were 
themfelves but limitary deities, poffefting, indeed, a 
certain influence upon human affairs, but unable to Hem 
or divert the tide of fate or delliny, upon whofe dark 
bofom, according to the Grecian creed, gods as well as 
men were embarked, and both fweeping downwards to 
fome diflant yet inevitable termination of the pref'ent 
fyftem of the univerfe, which fhould annihilate at once 
the-race of divinity and of mortality. This awful cataf- 
trophe is hinted at not very obfcurely by Prometheus, 
who, when chained to his rock, exults, in his-prophetic 
view, in the deftruftion of his oppreffor Jupiter; and fo 
far did Efchylus, in particular, carry the introduction of 
religious topics into his drama, that he efcaped with fome 
difficulty from an accufation of having betrayed the 
Eieufinian ntyfteries. 
Where the fubjeft of the drama was not actually taken 
from mythological hiftory, and when the gods themfelves 
did not enter upon the fcene, the Grecian ftage was, as 
vve have already hinted, ufually trod by beings fcarcely 
lefs awful to the imagination of the audience ; the heroes 
namely, of their old traditional hiftory, to whom they at¬ 
tributed an immediate defcent from their deities, a frame 
of body and mind furpaffing humanity, and after death 
an exaltation into the rank of demigods. It mult be added, 
that, even when the aftion was laid among a lefs digni¬ 
fied fetof perfonages, (till thealtar wasprefent on the ftage; 
incenfe frequently fmoked ; and frequent prayers and 
obteltations of the deity reminded the audience that the 
fports of the ancient theatre had their origin in religious 
obfervances. It is fcarcely neceflary to ftate how widely 
the claffical drama, in this refpeft, differs in principle 
from that of the modern, which pretends to be nothing 
more than an elegant branch of the fine arts, whofe end 
is attained when it fupplies an evening’s amufement, 
whofe lefions are only of a moral defcription, and which 
is fo far from poffefling a religious character, that it has, 
with difficulty, efcaped condemnation as a profane, diffo- 
lute, and anti-chriftian, paftime. 
The ancients, we have feen, endeavoured by every 
means in their power, including the ufe of mafks and of 
bufkins, to difguife the perfon of the aftor; and'", at the 
expenfe of facrificing the expreffion of his countenance, 
and the grace, or at leaft the eafe of his form, they re¬ 
moved from the obfervation of the audience, every af- 
fociation which could betray the perfon of an individual 
player, under the garb of the deity or hero he was de- 
iigned toreprefent. To have done otherwife would have 
been held indecorous, if not profane. It follows, that, as 
the objeft of the Athenian and of the modern auditor 
in attending the theatre was perfeftly different, the 
pleafure which each derived from the reprefentation had 
a diftinft fource. Thus, for example, the Englifhman’s 
defire to fee a particular character is intimately connected 
with the idea of the after by whom it is performed. He 
dees not wifh to fee Hamlet in the abftraft, fo much as to 
fee how Kean performs that charafter, and to compare 
him perhaps with his own recolleftions of Garrick in tlie 
fame part. He comes prepared to ftudy each variation 
of the aftor’s countenance, each change in his accen¬ 
tuation and deportment; to note with critical accuracy 
the points which diferiminate his mode of afting from 
that of others; and to compare the whole with his own 
abftraft of the charafter. The pleafure arifing from this 
ipeciesof critical inveftigation and contraft is lo intimate- 
]y allied with our ideas of theatrical amufement, that we 
can fcarce admit the poflibility of deriving much fatisfac- 
tion from a reprefentation fuftained by an aftor whofe 
perfonal appearance and peculiar expreffion of features 
fhould be concealed from us, lioweverfplendid his declama¬ 
tion or however appropriate hisgefture and aftion. But this 
mode ofconftdering the drama, and the delight which we de¬ 
rive from it, would have appeared to the Greeks a foolifh 
and profane refinement, not very different in point of tafte 
from, the expedient of Snug the joiner, who intimated 
his identity by letting his natural vifage be feen under 
the mafic of the lion which he reprefented. It was with 
the direft purpofe of concealing the features of the in¬ 
dividual aftor, as tending to deftroy the effeft of his 
theatrical difguife, that the mafk and bufkin were firft in¬ 
vented, and afterwards retained in ufe. The figure was 
otherv.’ife fo as to reprefent the deity or demigod, accord¬ 
ing to the ftatue beft known, and adored with moll de¬ 
votion by the Grecian public. The mafk was by artifts 
who were eminent in the plaftic art, fo formed as to 
perfeft the refemblance. Thefeus, or Hercules, flood, 
before the audience, in the very form with which paintersr 
and ftatuaries had taught them to inveft the hero; and 
there was certainly thus gained a more complete fcenic 
deception than could have been obtained in our prefent 
mode. It was aided by the diftance interpofed betwixt 
the audience and the ftage; but, above all, by the in¬ 
fluence of enthufiafm afting upon the congregated 
thoufands, whofe imagination, equally lively and fuf- 
ceptible, were prompt to receive the impreffions which 
the noble verfe of their authors conveyed to their ears, 
and the living perfonification of their gods and demigods 
placed before their eyes. 
It is fcarcely neceflary to add, that while thefe obferva- 
tions plead their apology for the mafic and the bufkin of 
the ancients, they leave, where it flood before, every ob- 
jeftion to thofe awkward and unfeemly difguifes, con- 
fidered in themfelves, and without reference to the pecu¬ 
liar purpofe and tendency of the ancient theatre. In faft, 
the exquifite pleafure derived from watching the elo¬ 
quence of feature and eye, which we admire in an ac- 
complifhed aftor, were not, as fome have fuppofed, 
facrificed by the ancients for the affumption of thefe 
difguifes. They never did, and, according to the plan of 
their theatres, never could, poffefs that fource of enjoy¬ 
ment. 7 'he circuit of the theatre was immenfe, and the 
eyes of the thoufands whom it contained were fo far re¬ 
moved from the ftage, that, far from being able to enjoy 
the minute play of the aftor’s features, the mafic and 
bufkin were neceflary to give diflinftion to his figure, 
and to convey all which the ancients expefted to fee, his 
general refemblance, namely, to the charafter he repre¬ 
fented. 
The Grecian aftors held a high rank in the republic, 
and thofe efteemed in the profefiion were richly recom¬ 
pensed. Their art was the more dignified, becaufe the 
poets themfelves ufually reprefented the principal charac¬ 
ter in their own pieces; a circumflance which corroborates 
what we have already ftated concerning the comparative 
inferiority of talents required in a Grecian aftor, who was 
only expefted to move with grace and declaim with truth 
and juftice. His difguife hid all perfonal imperfections, 
and thus a Grecian poet might afpire to become an aftor, 
without that extraordinary and unlikely union of moral 
and phyfical powers, w'hich would be neceflary to qualify 
a modern dramatift to mount the ftage in perfon, and 
excel at once as a poet and as an aftor. 
Sophocles, who obtained from his countrymen the 
title of the Bee of Attica, rivalled Efchylus when in the 
poffeflion of the flage, and even carried away the prize. 
His fuccefs occafioned the veteran’s retreat to Sicily, 
where he died, commanding that his epitaph fliould make 
mention of his (hare in the viftory of Marathon, but 
fhould contain no allufion to his dramatic excellencies. 
Sophocles judicioufly avoided the dizzy and terrific path 
which Efchylus had trod with fo firm ,and daring a ftep. 
It was his objeft to move forrow and conipaftion, rather 
than to excite indignation and terror. He ftudied the 
progrefs of aftion with more attention than Efchylus, and 
excelled in that modulation of the (lory by which intereft 
is excited at the beginning of a drama, maintained in its 
progrefs, and gratified at its conclufion. His fubjefts 
therefore are of a nature more melancholy, but lefs 
fublime, than thofe of his predeceffor. He was the mod 
fortunate of the Greek tragedians. He attained the age of 
ninety- 
