I am currently reading Ian Kelly’s biography of Giacomo Casanova (whom we are doing injustice by remembering him mainly as a seducer - he was a gifted polymath), and of course the author tries to capture the spirit of carnival in 18th century Venice. There is a reference that surprised me: “There was mandatory mask-wearing, for an entire city, day and night, from October to Ash Wednesday, with a brief break for Christmas…”
Now I have read elsewhere before that mask-wearing in public, even when doing everyday business, was not uncommon in Venice. I also see that modern-day concepts of individual freedom and a sphere of privacy which the state is not supposed to interfere with are not really applicable to ancien régime Europe, which had a much looser concept of freedom. Yet, I don’t really see the point of a legal requirement like this. Why would a state stipulate a mask-wearing duty in everyday life? Or is the author exaggerating here, meaning simply that mask-wearing in public was legal and common, but not mandatory?
You may be overinterpreting the word “mandatory”. It could have been societally mandatory - i.e. the “done thing” and you could be scorned for not doing it - but not a legal requirement. Is there any more context to the quote?
Also, I think masts would only be mandatory if one were a boat.
I didn’t notice that the OP was written by Schnitte. While the image of people walking around wearing masts is amusing, it’s an understandable mistake when one’s native language is not English.