TheAnatomyof DanceDiscourse
Graeco-RomanWorld
KARINSCHLAPBACH
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©KarinSchlapbach2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017941653
ISBN978–0–19–880772–8
Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface
Thisbookwaslonginthemaking,andlongisthelistofpeopleand institutionsIhavethepleasureandthedutytothank.
The firstideasforanasyetratherdifferentproject,comparing traditionalGreekandRomantoearlyChristianattitudestothe theatre,weredevelopedduringamarvellousyearasafellowofthe SocietyfortheHumanitiesatCornellUniversity,whereIenjoyed thekindnessandsupportofthemembersoftheDepartmentof Classics.ThankstoagenerousscholarshipgrantedbytheSwiss NationalScienceFoundationIwasabletocontinuemyresearchat theDepartmentofClassicsatUCBerkeleyandtheDepartmentof ByzantineandModernGreekStudiesatKing’sCollegeLondon, whereIfoundcongenialandhospitableenvironmentsformywork. AfterIarrivedasafacultymemberoftheDepartmentofClassicsand ReligiousStudiesattheUniversityofOttawa,theproject which underwentseveraltransformationsintheprocess benefitedfroma researchgrantawardedbytheSocialSciencesandHumanities ResearchCouncilofCanada,fromascholarshipoftheAlexander vonHumboldtFoundationwhichallowedmetospendfourproductivesummersatGeorg-August-UniversitätGöttingen,and finally fromayear-longfellowshipattheCenterforHellenicStudiesin WashingtonDC,whichofferedunparalleledconditionsforresearch andwriting.Withoutthesteadysupportoftheseinstitutionsand themanypeoplewhoencouragedmealongthewaythisbookcould nothavebeenwritten.
AstheprojectdevelopedIhadtorevisesomeofmyworking assumptions.Irealizedthatthefaultlinesoflaterancientdebates concerningtheatricalspectaclesdidnotnecessarilyfollowdifferent religiousidentities,andthataninquiryintotheChristiancritiqueof thetheatrewasperhapslessurgentthananexplorationofthe nuancedresponsestodancebysuchauthorsasAugustineandNonnus. Imoreandmorenarroweddownthescopeoftheprojecttofocus ondance,whichallowedmeinturntouncoverafascinatingand little-noticedpeculiarityofthismedium,namelythefactthatwith theempire-widesuccessofpantomime,twobasicvarietiesofdance becamevisibleandexistedalongsideeachother,oneofthemthe
relativelywell-definedgenreofpantomime,whichisnarrative,and theotheronecomprisingnon-narrativeformsofdance.Thenew avenuesforaestheticandmetapoeticreflectionthatthissituation offeredwerenotlostonauthorssuchasApuleiusandNonnus.
Overtheyearsthefollowingcolleaguesandfriendshavereadand commentedonpartsofthemanuscript,discussedcertainaspectswith me,oransweredquestions:DavidBlank,CharlesBrittain,Tomas Dratva,UlrikeEgelhaaf-Gaiser,HeleneFoley,FritzGraf,MarkGriffith, RuthE.Harder,DavidKonstan,JohnMatthews,KatrinMeyer,LisaMills, AnnaMariaNegri,Heinz-GüntherNesselrath,RenéNünlist,Pierluigi Piovanelli,VerityPlatt,SusanPrince,BarbaravonReibnitz,Charlotte Roueché,JeffreyRusten,DavidSedley,DanutaShanzer,InekeSluiter, CristianaSogno,ClaudiaWedepohl,and, finally,thelateKathryn(Kate) Bosher,whoismuchmissed.
Althoughmanyothersgounmentioned,Iamnolessgrateful tothem.
CarolineBélanger,JenniferSmith,andLouiseStephensread throughvariousdraftstoimprovemyEnglish,andDidierFollin double-checkedcountlessreferencesandhelpedassembletheindex. Thetwoanonymousreadersofthemanuscriptofferedagreatwealth ofsharpandinsightfulcomments,whichhaveimprovedthemanuscriptinmanywaysandforwhichIamverygrateful.Theeditor, GeorginaLeighton,thecopyeditor,DonaldWatt,andtherestofthe teamatOUPhavebeenmosthelpfulthroughouttheprocessof publication.Iwouldliketothankthemall.Iamaloneresponsible foranyremainingerrorsorshortcomingsofthisbook.
IowespecialthankstomycolleaguesattheUniversityofOttawa, whonotonlywelcomedmeandmademefeelathomeinCanadabut alsoofferedeverykindofsupportasIwasmakingthedifficult decisionofleavingafterninefruitfulandhappyyears.
Lastbutnotleast,veryheartfeltthanksgotomyOttawateachersof movementandmusic,MoniqueLégerand,mostofall,ZabelManoukian.
Fribourg April2017
Acknowledgements
Chapter1reusesmaterialfromK.Schlapbach, ‘DanceandDiscourse inPlutarch,TableTalks9.15’,inT.SchmidtandP.Fleury(eds), PerceptionsoftheSecondSophisticandItsTimes.Regardssurla SecondeSophistiqueetsonépoque.Toronto:UniversityofToronto Press,2011,149–68.
Chapter2reusesmaterialfromK.Schlapbach, ‘Lucian’ s OnDancing andthemodelsforadiscourseonpantomime’,inE.HallandR.Wyles (eds), NewDirectionsinAncientPantomime.Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2008,314–37.
Chapter4reusesmaterialfromK.Schlapbach, ‘StoffundPerformanceinpantomimischenMytheninszenierungenderAntike’,inU.Dill andC.Walde(eds), AntikeMythen.Medien,Transformationen, Konstruktionen,BerlinandNewYork:DeGruyter,2009,740–56. Iwouldliketothankthepublishersforgrantingtheirpermission.
1.TheGrammarofDance:Plutarch
3.DanceasMethodandExperience:Emotionaland EpistemicAspectsofDance123
2 TheAnatomyofDanceDiscourse
Thegoalisnotcomprehensivenessbutaclosereadingoftextsthat analyseordescribedanceinsomedepth.Imagesareoccasionally referredtoaswell,especiallyinconnectionwiththediscussionofthe tiesthatlinkdancediscoursewiththe figurativearts.Butnosystematicscrutinyofdance-relatedimagesisattemptedhere.Suchan endeavourwouldgobeyondthescopeofthisbook,whoseaimitis toexaminedancefromthespecificanglesofliterarydepictionsand philosophicaldiscussions.Thisfocusentailsfurthermorethatno reconstructionofactualpracticesisintended,norafreshstudyof theepigraphicalrecord,butabettergraspofancientattemptsata theorizationofdance.2
Inparticular,theself-consciousdimensionoftextsthatdescribe andanalysedancewillbeexamined,theirawarenessoftheaesthetic possibilitiesofdanceasopposedtotheirown.Aswewillsee,the dynamicandversatilemediumofdanceaddsanimportantdimensiontotheancientexplorationofthenatureandlimitsofmimesis, whichinantiquityisakeynotionnotonlyinrelationtoartbutto cultureandsocietyasawhole.Ancientdancepractices,whetherina chorus,anensemble,oraspectacleofferedbyoneorafewindividual dancers,aretightlyconnectedwithsong,andsoacomparative dimensionisalreadyimplicitinthepracticesthemselves.Butitis quaphysicalperformancethatdanceentertainsaspecialrelationship withmimesis,becauseinthedancer’sbodythespecial,representationalorperformativedimensioncreatedbythedanceandthe pragmaticcontextinwhichthedancetakesplaceconverge,andthis drawsattentiontotheparticularlyporousconfinesofthismedium. Asiswellknown, mimēsis isetymologicallyrelatedto mimos,the mime,anditiswidelyacceptedthatthiscomplexnotionoriginally possessesaphysicalconnotation(seeChapter1.5,p.70,n.100).Itis thereforenotsurprisingthatancientdancediscourseisafertile groundforreflectiononmimesis.
particularFoucault(1972).Ancientdancediscoursedoesnotcomprisenotation, whichprobablydidnotexist(Naerebout1997,195).
2 Reconstructionsofactualdancemovementsaremostcommonlyattempted viaimages;seeSmith(2010).Thediffi cultiesarediscussedbyNaerebout(1997), 209 –53.Reconstructionshavebeenattemptedwiththehelpofcinematographic animationofimages;seeDelavaud-Roux(1993),20–2,whodiscussesearliersuch attemptsbyM.EmmanuelandG.Prudhommeau(ibid.10– 15).Furtherstudyof theepigraphicalrecordisrightlypostulatedbyNaerebout(2011),butitisbeyond thescopeofthisbook.
Theprincipaltextsdiscussedinthisbookcoveratimespanfrom aroundthefourthcentury BCE tothe fifthcentury CE,orfromXenophon’ s Symposium toNonnus’ epic Dionysiaka.Butthereisaclearconcentrationoftextsdiscussingor depictingdanceinoraroundthe secondcentury CE,whichconsequentlybecamethemainfocusofthis book.Themostimportantauthorsfromthisperiodincludedhereare Plutarch,Athenaeus,LucianofSamosata,Longus,Apuleius,andthe apocryphal ActsofJohn.
Thepresentbookispartofagrowinginterestinperformancetypes beyondthemaindramaticgenresdocumentedbytheextantplays andfragments.Danceisamediumofthehumanbody.Itisdynamic andtransitory,butitneverthelesspossessesaphysicalandtangible concreteness.Itisephemeral,butitisalsoasiteofunmediated,bodily experienceforbothperformersandspectators.Thisoscillation betweenpresenceandabsencefascinatedancientauthors,andthey explorethemanifoldtensionsindancebetweenmotionandstillness, changeandstability,andrepresentationandreality.Theygiveparticularattentiontotherelationshipbetweendanceandlanguage,alternatelyemphasizingtheirinterconnectednessorhintingattheir irreducibledifference.Languagetheoryandpoetry,grammarand rhetoricthusprovideimportantpointsofreferenceforancientdance discourse.Rhetoricinturnservesasabridgetoanotherevidentpoint ofreference,the figurativearts,whichwerepartlydescribedwiththe sametechnicalvocabularythatconstitutedtheartofrhetoric.The interactionsbetweendanceandthe figurativeartsareespeciallypronouncedinthegenreofpantomime,whosemainfocusisthedepiction ofmyths.Accordingtoliterarysourcespantomimedrawsoniconographicmodelsfamiliarfromstatues;viceversa,thedepictionofmyths throughdancearguablycontributestotheheightenedinterestin therepresentationofmovementandpathosthatstartsappearingin Hellenisticsculpturenotlongafterwe findinXenophon’ s Symposium the firstliteraryaccountofadancethatclearlyportraysamyth.In addition,dancerecursasatopicinphilosophicaldiscussionsand religioustexts.Itisherethatwecomeperhapsclosesttothemeaning ofdancingasapracticeinantiquity.Aswewillsee,danceplaysarolein theveryeffortofdefiningphilosophyasitsetsitselfofffrommystery cultspromisingillumination.Atthesametimedancepersistsasa componentofreligiousritualsdowntoearlyChristiantimes.
Thebroadculturalareasjustmentioned languageandpoetry, rhetoricandart,andphilosophyandreligion formthebackbone
ofthe firstthreechaptersofthisbook,whichexaminehowdance discourseisinformedbytheseareasofculturalexpressionandhowit influencestheminturn.Theremainingthreechaptersarededicated todancescenesasaliterarymotifinancientproseandpoetry, especiallysymposiumliterature,epigram,thenovel,andlateantique epic.Thesinglechapterscommunicatewitheachotheronmany levels,sincetheformalanalysisofdanceanditsevaluationalongside languageandartinteractwiththeattemptsofphilosopherstodelineatetheessenceandfunctionofdance,andthewaypoetsandauthors ofprose fictionportraydancelikewiseshedslightonhowdancewas perceivedinantiquity.
Existingoverviewsofancientdancetendtofocusonclassical Greece.3 However,someofthemostimportantsourcesondance areinfactfromlaterperiods,andtheyneedtobeplacedintheir propercontextinordertobeunderstoodadequately.Authorslike PlutarchandAthenaeuspurporttoconveyinformationonthe danceofearliertimes,buttheyare firmlyanchoredintheirown culture,sothattheirdiscussionsstraddleinfactdifferentmoments intime.Itisthereforeimportanttoexaminetheargumentsand opinionstheypresentinadiachronicperspectiveandtolookat precedentsandsourcesaswellascontemporaryconditions.More recently,imperialpantomimehasbecomeanobjectofstudyinits ownright,anditwillalsobeamajor,butnotexclusive,focusofthis book.ProbablythemostpopulartheatricalgenreintheRoman Empire,itdevelopedoutofearlierformsofrepresentationaldance, suchasthatwhichisillustratedinthelastchapterofXenophon ’ s Symposium .Initsmostcommonform,itfeaturesasolodancer impersonatingvariouscharactersinsuccession,whileasong a librettoofsorts,usuallysungbyachorus elucidatesthe(mostly mythical)subjectmatter,accompaniedbypipes,percussion,anda varietyofotherinstruments.4 Again,althoughpantomimebecomes
3 e.g.Emmanuel(1896);Séchan(1930);Lawler(1964a)and(1964b);Prudhommeau (1965);Lonsdale(1993);Naerebout(1997).Foracorrectionofthestereotypethat Romansdidnotdancesee,e.g.,AlonsoFernández(2015);AlonsoFernández(2013); Naerebout(2009);Shapiroetal.(2004),337–42;Garelli(1995);Wille(1967),187–202. 4 SeeWebb(2008a),58–94;Molloy(1996),40–79.Lada-Richard(2007)isahighly accessibleintroductiontopantomimeanditssocialsignificanceintheRoman Empire.ThedetailedstudybyGarelli(2007)buildsonawiderrangeofsourcesand isespeciallyhelpfulinassemblingtheevidenceforthehistoryofpantomime,its subjectmatters,anditsperformers.Variousfurtheraspectsofpantomimeare
atopicofinterestonlyintheimperialperiod,acloserlookatthe literarysourcesrevealsaremarkablecontinuityofargumentsand pointsofviewlinkingitwithearlierdiscussionsofmusicalculture, especiallyconcerningtheso-calledNewMusicwhichemergesinthe late fifthcentury BCE.Ifthelatterwascriticizedforitscomplexity, versatility,andemotionalism,thesearetheverysamechargesthat recurlaterindiscussionsofpantomime.
Justasitisimpossibletoexamineimperialdancediscoursewithout lookingatalargerchronologicalperspective,itisnecessarytoacknowledgeagreatvarietyofdanceformswhichinteractwitheachotherin manyways.Lawler’sfourfolddistinctionofprocessional,mimetic, kineticandacrobaticdancesremainsuseful(1927,74–5),although forreasonsspecifiedinSection3,pp.14–15below,itispreferableto replace ‘mimetic’ with ‘representational’ .Butespeciallythelasttwo arebynomeansclear-cutcategories.Initsmostessentialform, dancecanbede finedasphysicalmovementthatistosomeextent formalizedanddoesnotrespondtoanimmediatepracticalneedbut hasasymbolicalfunction.Inantiquity,thetwoelementsthatare addedmostconsistentlytothebasicunderstandingofdanceas ‘movementofthebody’ arerhythmand figuresorposes(schēmata, standardizedpatternswhichintroducedastaticdimension),and furthercriteriaincludegraceandexpressiveness. 5 Thisbroad notionofdanceincludesboth choreia choraldance and orchēsis or saltatio,termswhichinprincipledesignatearangeofdanceswith oneorseveralindividualdancersbutintheimperialperiodcommonlyrefertopantomime.Withthemajorexceptionofthesecondcentury ActsofJohn discussedinChapter3.6,thisbookfocusesless on choreia thanonvariousformsof orchēsis or saltatio.
discussedinHallandWyles(2008).Pantomimelibrettosarenotextantexcept perhapstheso-calledBarcelonaAlcestis,onwhich,seeHall(2008b).
5 ‘Movementofthebody’:Pl. Laws 814d;Athen.1,20c.Forrhythmand figures,see Chapter1.3,pp.49–50.Evenintheabsenceofanarrativecontentdancecouldbe perceivedasexpressingsomethingand,hence,asaformofrhetoric,asWebb(1997), 136–9showswiththeexampleofSalome.Forabasicmoderndefinition,see,e.g., Naerebout(1997),163: ‘Thusdancemovementismovementwhichcarries,andis madetocarry,meaning’;Naerebout(2006),39addsanintentiononthepartof thedancersandrecognition ‘asaspecialcategoryofbehaviour’ onthepartofthe spectators.
DANCEDISCOURSE
Intheimperialperioddiscussionsofdanceoccurinavarietyof literarycontexts.Wewouldexpectthetechnicalhandbook the technē or ars tooccupythe firstplaceamongthewritingsdedicated totheanalysisofdance,justasisthecaseforrhetoric,forinstance, whichistreatedinanumberofhandbooksfromthesameperiod. Indeedweknowofworksonthetopicthatwouldfallintothis category.Butunliketherhetoricaltreatises,theyarealllost.The sameholdstruefortheearliertraditionofwritingson(tragic)dance, amongthemSophocles’ OntheChorus,Aristocles’ OnChoruses,and Aristoxenus’ OnChoruses, OnTragicDancing,and Comparisons (i.e. of Dances).6 Onlyfragmentsoftheseworkssurvive,andinthecaseof Aristoxenuswearenotevencertainastohowmanydifferentworks thetransmittedtitlesreferto.7 Weknowthattherewasagreatwealth ofwritingsondancefromapassageinLucian’sdialogue OnDancing (secondcentury CE),wherethemaincharacter,Lycinus,remarksthat ‘manywhohavewrittenaboutdancebeforeuswastedthegreatestpart oftheirtreatisesdetailingallthetypesofthedanceandlistingtheir namesandsayingwhateachisandbywhomitwasinvented’ (33).Not allwritingspursuedsuchamethodicalapproachthough.Inaneffortto differentiatehisownagendafromhispredecessors’,Lycinusundertakesinstead ‘topraisethedanceasitisnow’ (34),i.e.pantomime,a projectwhich,aswewillsee,involvesafairamountofin-depth descriptionofthismostpopulardanceformoftheimperialperiod. Althoughthementionofpreviousauthorswhowroteonthesame subjectbelongstotherhetoricaltopoiofthebeginning(exordium),we maysafelyassumethatsuchrepertoriesofdancesasindicatedby Lycinusexistedindeed;theywerepresumablythetypeofsourceon whichAthenaeusorthelexicographerPolluxcoulddrawfortheir detailedlistsofdances.8
6 SeeBagordo(1998);Warnecke(1932),2233;Latte(1913),1–16.
7 Fr.103–12Wehrli=17F1–10Bagordo.SeeBagordo(1998),28–9;Rispoli (2000),395–6;421–8.
8 Seeesp.Athen.14,628c–631e;Pollux, Onom.4.95–110.Forthementionof previousauthors,see,e.g.,DioChrys. Or.53.1;Isocrates Paneg.74;Livypraef.3. Warnecke(1932),2233–4distinguishesaphilosophicalandalexicological–antiquarian strandofwritingsondance.Translationsaremyownunlessotherwisenoted.
Asforpantomime,wecannotnecessarilytrusttheinformationthat thefamousdancerPyladeshimselfwastheauthorofatreatiseonhis ownart.Similarly,theforemostactorofhisgeneration,Roscius,was saidtohaveauthoredatreatiseongestures.Theseattributionswere probablymostofallmeanttoincreasethefameoftheseindividuals, althoughMacrobius’ testimonyonRoscius(Sat. 3.14.12)isgenerally accepted.Treatiseswerepresumablyproduced,ifnotbypractitioners themselves,thenbyscholars,whocontinuedtheearliertraditionof writingsondance.9 Butthefewextantworksonthesubjectarenot typicaltreatises,becauseinadditiontodiscussingpantomimeina moreorlesssystematicfashiontheypursueagendasofpraiseor critique.ApartfromLucian’ s Ondancing justmentioned,weknow ofapolemicalworkonpantomimebyhiscontemporaryAelius Aristides(nowlost),towhichtheoratorLibaniusrespondstwo hundredyearslaterwithaspeech Onbehalfofthepantomimedancers (Oratio 64).
Inorderto fillthegapsandrecovertheremainsofdancediscourse intheimperialperiod,wemustincludeothercontextsinwhichdance wasaddressed.Amongthese,thedialoguegenreoffersthemost promisingavenue,inparticularsympoticdialogue.Oneimportant modelforsympoticdiscussionsofdancewassetbyXenophon,whose Symposium includesvariousdancescenesandendswithadescription ofaballetrepresentingamyth.Thesympoticcontextisinteresting becauseitoffersadoubleperspectiveondance,asitfacilitatesboth itsperformance usuallybyprofessionalentertainers anddiscussionstakingthecuefromthedancingitself.10 Thesediscussions arepartofthephilosophicalstrandofwritingsondancewhich originatesforuswithPlato’ s Laws. 11 Thetraditionwascontinued bynumerousauthorsofliterary symposia,amongthemalmost certainlyAristoxenusand,intheimperialperiod,Plutarchand Athenaeus.12 InPlutarch’ s TableTalk oneofthecharactersexpresses theviewthatentertainments,amongthemdancespectacles,further aharmoniousatmosphereduringthesymposiumandforestall
9 Pylades ’ treatiseismentionedatAthen.1,20e;seeJory(1981),150;Rotolo (1957),40.UndulypessimisticabouttheexistenceoftechnicaltreatisesisNaerebout (1997),194.
10 Onthesymposiumasavenuefordance,seeChapter1.2,p.35n.30andp.39n.37.
11 Seen.8above.OnPlato’spresumedindebtednessinthisregardtoDamonof Oa,seeChapter1.1,p.27,n.6.
12 OnAristoxenus’ SymmiktaSympotika,seeChapter4.2,pp.185–6.
potentialconflictsamongtheguests(7.8.4,713E–F).The finalchapter ofthesameworkmakesoneofthemostimportantcontributionsto ourunderstandingofancientattemptsatanoverarchingformal theoryofdance.Danceisalsoamongthesubjectsofconversation inAthenaeus’ Learnedbanqueters.
Anotherplacewheretracesofthephilosophicalstrandofwritings ondancecanbefoundisearlyChristianliterature.Clementof AlexandriadrawsonliterarydepictionsofmysteryritesbyEuripides andPlatoinordertocreatehisown,Christianizedversionofmysteries,inwhichdancing albeitametaphor andinitiationvirtually coincide.Moreimportantly,theapocryphal ActsofJohn testifytothe little-knowntraditionofdancingaspartofearlyChristianreligious rituals.Accordingtothishighlyfascinatingtext,thecrucialfunction ofdancingliesinitsabilitytocreatealink,viatheactivationof empathy,betweenphysicalexperienceandcognition.Thetextsmentionedsofarwillbediscussedinthe firstpartofthisbook.
ConsideringhowimportantdancewasinGraeco-Romanculture, descriptionsofactualdancespectaclesaresurprisinglysparsein ancientliterature,especiallydancespectaclesthatconveyanarrative. Amongthemostimportantexceptionsisthe finalchapterof Xenophon’ s Symposium,whichIshallargueactsasalinkbetween thedebatessurroundingNewMusicandlaterdancediscourse.Much shorteraccountsarefoundinanumberofepigramsoftheimperial period.Thesetextsproblematizetherelationshipbetweenaphysical re-enactmentandtheunderlyingmyth,sheddinglightonthecapacityoftheformertoshapethelatter.Theancientnovelsalsoinclude dancescenes,mostprominentlythosebyLongusandApuleius,who bothcontinuethePlatonicreflectionondance.InLongus,dance understoodasaphysicalmediumofinterpretation shapessocial rolesmostefficientlybygraftingmythicalpatternsontoreality.Crucially,thisprocesshingesnotonthepsychologicalidentificationof theperformerswiththecharacterstheyimpersonate,asothershave argued.Rather,itisthemerefactofembodyingthemythicalcharactersthatshapesthesocialrealityoftheperformers,becausethe mythallowsoneofthemtoproducehimselfasamasterfulmusician topublicacclaim,whiletheotherdisappearsfromthestage.The dance,thoughvisiblyaformofsimulation,actsthusverydirectly uponthesocialrealitydepictedbythenovel.Apuleiusinturnexaminesthemechanismsofreceptionbyintroducingaprotagonistwhois invariablydrawntodancespectaclesbyhiscuriosityandreactsto
theirfascinatingappealbysubjectingthemtohisinterpretation. Finally,Nonnusmakesdancealeitmotivofhisepicthe Dionysiaka. Closeanalysisofthesetexts whicharechosenfortheirexemplary characterratherthaninanattemptatcompleteness mustwaittill thesecondpartofthisbook.Butitisworthwhiletoaddressin advancecertainmethodologicalproblemsinvolvedinliterary accountsofdance,whichwillinturndirectustosomeofthecore issuesofancientdancediscourse.
3.ARTANDTEXT,EKPHRASISANDDANCE
Itisappropriatetodiscussdancescenesinliterarytextsunderthe headingofekphrasis,thehighlyelaborateandvividdescriptionwhich aimstoputtheobject ‘beforetheeyes’ ofthereader.Ontheonehand, accordingtotheancientrhetoricaltreatisesthesubjectsofekphrasis includedynamicobjectssuchasabattle,astorm,oranentirefestival. Itisthusonlynaturaltoadddancescenestothelistofpossible objects.13 Ontheotherhand,themodern,narrowsenseofekphrasis asthedescriptionofarepresentationalworkofartseemsparticularly relevant,sincedanceisanartformperceivedthroughtheeyes,and especiallyintheimperialperioditveryoftenconveysanarrative.In recentyearsekphrasis,understoodastheverbalaccountofavisual representation,hasdrawnalotofscholarlyattention,andtheinsights thathavebeengleaned,forinstanceconcerningitsfunctionsasa mise-en-abîme oratriggerforinterpretation,arecertainlyusefulfor thestudyofliterarydepictionsofdance.14
Atthesametime,however,theprivilegingofthenarrowsenseof ekphrasishasledtoanalmostexclusivefocusondescriptionsof two-orthree-dimensionalartefacts,orstaticandspatiallyconfined visualobjects.Itisobviousthatdancescenesnecessitateamore flexiblenotionofekphrasiswhichcombinesancientandmodern
13 SeeWebb(2009),61–86.Festivaltime(heortē)islistedbyTheonasasubtypeof seasons(ibid.78n.49).
14 Thebibliographyonekphrasisisvast.Forrecentoverviewsseeinparticular Webb(2009);Elsner(2007b);BartschandElsner(2007);Elsner(2002);Webb(1999); Graf(1995);Goldhill(1994);Heffernan(1993);Krieger(1992);Fowler(1991).Webb (2009),185–6notesthatallekphraseistendtobemetafictional,notonlythoseof worksofart.
connotations.Danceisadynamicmediumwhosematerialcon fines arenotasclearlydemarcatedasthoseofapaintingorasculpture;it occupiesacertaintimespanandinteractswiththeaudienceina two-waydialogue,or ‘feedbackloop ’.Inparticular,therelationship betweenwhathasbeencalledthephenomenalandthesemiotic bodyofthedancer,i.e.thebodyasjustanotherhumanbodyandas anaestheticconstructorpotentialsignifier,isinconstant fluxasthe spectator’sperspectiveshiftsbackandforthbetweenthetwo.15 So, ifliterarydescriptionsofdancescenesparticipateinthemetapoetic discourseofekphrasishintedatabove,itseemscrucialtopay attentionalsotothespecificdifferencesinmetapoeticre flections thatekphraseisofapainting,asculpture,oradanceperformance enable.Literarydescriptionsofvisualrepresentationsjuxtapose differentmedia,textualandvisual,andthusyieldmoreorless openorveiledcomparisonsoftheaestheticpossibilitiesofthese media.Thiscanbeobserved,forinstance,inPhilostratus’ Images or inagreatnumberofepigramsoftheGreekAnthology,togivebut twoexamples.16 Butifversionsofsuchacomparison,orrivalry, betweenvisualandtextualartformsexistedalreadyinantiquity,it isimportanttoaskwhatroledanceplayedinit.Inotherwords,the questionthathasnotyetreceivedtheattentionitdeservesisthe placeofdanceintheancient paragone,touseatermfamiliarfrom thestudyofLeonardo’ s Treatiseonpainting. 17
Thetemporaldimensionofdanceisparticularlyinterestinginthis connection.Inancientaccountsofpaintingsorstatues,someeffort goesintoshowingthattheyareperceivedinaglimpse,almostoutside time.Platonistsinparticulararguethatvisualperceptionisseemingly independentofthe flowoftime,whiletextsrelyonthetemporal successionofsinglewordsandsyllables.Fromtheirperspective,this conditionisagreatassetofvisualperception,andtheyvaluehighly
15 Onthefeedbackloopinphysicalperformances,seeFischer-Lichte(2008),ch.3; onthephenomenalvssemioticbody,ibid.ch.5.2.Similarly,BarbaandSavarese (2005),234distinguishapre-expressivefromanexpressivestateofthebody,andto theformercorrespondsapre-interpretativeresponsebythespectator.
16 Gutzwiller(2002),110aptlycoinsthephrase ‘ecphrasticparadox’ fortheverbal articulationofthevisual.SeefurtherSquire(2009);Newby(2009);Giuliani(2007); Männlein-Robert(2007a);Elsner(2004);Elsner(2000),esp.264–5;Elsner(1996); GoldhillandOsborne(1994).
17 Theargumentsforthesupremacyofpaintingoverpoetry,music,andsculpture formthe firstpartofthe Treatiseonpainting,whichsincethenineteenthcenturyis commonlycalled Paragone.Onthisterm,seeFarago(1992),8–14.
theinstantinsightthatimagespromise.18 Bycontrast,writerslike PhilostratustheElderendeavourtoshowthatthispromiseisamere illusion,eitherbecausepaintingsorstatuespossessindeedatemporal dimension,madeevidentintheirnarrativestructurecreated,for instance,throughmultipleviewsorviewpoints,orbecausethey presupposeatemporaldimensionwhichis,however,curtailedby thepartial,momentaryviewtheobjectoffers.Inthelattercase,the ekphrasiscomestotheaidoftheworkofartbyexpandingonthe representationalcontent,supplyingatemporaldimensionwhereitis missingbutneeded.19 Ekphraseisofworksofartthusbringoutthe tensionbetweentheconflictingtemporalconditionsofvisualobjects andverbalaccounts.Thistensionisneatlyencapsulatedincertain wordsandideastransposedtoekphrasisfromthedomainofthe theatre,inparticularthatofthe ‘spectator’ (theatēs).Thespectator ofadramaperceivestheunfoldingofactionsthroughtheeyes,thus combiningthevisualandtemporaldimensions.Likewise,thereader ofanekphrasisofaworkofartisinvitedto ‘ see ’ theobject,whichisas itwereanimatedbythe flowofwords.
Tocomebacktodance,thismediumcombinestheadvantagesof visualclarityandtheabilitytoconveyactions.However,thetemporal characterofdance,whichitshareswithlanguage,onlyaccentuatesa differentsetofproblemsrelatedtoekphrasis.Inordertoelucidate thisaspect,somefurtherpreliminaryremarksmustbeadded.Evenin itsmodern,narrowsense,ekphrasisisanotoriouslyambiguousterm. Doesanekphrasisofaworkofartusuallyaccountforthematerial featuresoftheobject,ortherepresentationalcontent,oritsimpact,or perhapsallofthesetogether?Thesesimplequestionsbringthefull complexityofekphrasistothefore:adescriptionofthematerialsand techniquesusedinaworkofartandthelevelofskillinvolvedisnot thesameasanexplanationorinterpretationofwhatitrepresents,nor isitthesameasanaccountofhowtheviewerisaffected.Inmodern
18 See,e.g.,Plotinus5.8.6,discussedinChapter2.4,p.109.Gutzwiller(2002), 95arguesthattheconciseformoftheepigrambetterthananyother ‘replicatesthe timeframeoftheactualviewingprocess’.FollowingLessing,thetensionbetween spaceandtimedominatesmuchscholarshiponartandtext,e.g.Chapter1andthe appendixofKrieger(1992).Foradiscussionoflookingitselfanditsculturaland epistemologicalunderpinningsinthesecondcentury CE,seeGoldhill(2001a).
19 SeeGiuliani(2007);Gutzwiller(2002),104–7(withemphasisontheekphrasis supplyingavoice).OnHellenisticsculpturegroupsdisplayinganarrativestructure, seeChapter2.5.
12 TheAnatomyofDanceDiscourse
scholarship,however,thetermekphrasisisusedquiteindistinctlyfor thesedifferentaspects.20
Ancientliterarytextsreflectthepluralityofpossibleapproachesto figurativeworksofart,butsomeoptionsareclearlyfavouredover others.GrantedthatintheancientGraeco-Romanworldartis overwhelminglyrepresentational,descriptionsofworksofarttend tobetraysomeawarenessofthedichotomyofformandcontent.21 Amoreorlessdetailedaccountofmaterialfeaturesisusuallyaccompaniedbyanelucidationofwhattheobjectrepresents.Theresulting tensionbetweenformandcontentmaybehighlightedwithgreat conciseness,forinstancewhenwereadinthedescriptionoftheshield inBook18ofthe Iliad that ‘theearthdarkenedbehindthemand lookedlikeearththathasbeenploughed/thoughitwasgold’ (548–9).22 Thesituationisevenmorecomplexwhencharactersor actionsneedtobeidentified.Thisturnsintoanopportunityforthe authoroftheekphrasistodisplayconnoisseurshipbasedonacombinationofvisual ‘literacy’ andabroadeducation,especiallyinthe domainsofmythandreligion.
Often,however,theelucidationofwhattheobjectrepresentsis greatlyprivileged,andformalcharacteristicsrecedeinfavourofthe narrativetowhichtheworkofartrefers.Whenspatialmarkersor materialdetailsarefewandfarbetween,thedescriptiontendsto emancipateitselffromtheobjectanddwelllargelyonwhatitrepresents,oristhoughttorepresent.This ‘storytellingimpulsethatlanguagebyitsverynatureseemstoreleaseandstimulate’ (Heffernan 1993,5)canbeobservedeveninthelinesfromthe Iliad quotedabove, whichanimatethemetallicsurfaceoftheshield.23 Butitcanbetaken muchfurtherandmakethereaderallbutforgetthatamaterialobjectis
20 See,e.g.,Gutzwiller(2002),85n.1,whousestheterm ‘ecphrastic’ for ‘epigrams concerningworksofart’,albeitacknowledgingthatinancientrhetoricaltheorythe mereaccountoftheimpactofaworkofartwouldnotqualifyasanekphrasis.Onthe ancientcategoryofekphrasticepigram,seeLauxtermann(1998),526–9.
21 Forancientartasmimetic,or ‘representational-cum-expressive ’,seeHalliwell (2002),289.
22 Trans.Lattimore(1951).Theexampleisdiscussed,e.g.,byBecker(1995),127–9; Heffernan(1993),4–5.
23 Anotherwell-knownexampleofadescriptionconveyingcontentratherthan materialdetailisthe ‘grey-haired’ oldmandepictedonacupthatwasbyallaccounts notpaintedatTheocr. Id.1.44.InthecontextofIdyll1thiskindofcognitiveleaphas beenreadas ‘overlynaïve’ (Gutzwiller1991,91),buttheboundarybetweendescriptionandinterpretationisalwaysanunstableone.
beingdescribed,ashappensinthoselengthyportionsoftheshield descriptionthatdetailactionstakingplaceinthetwocitiesdepictedon theshieldwithoutaddinganyhintastohowexactlytheseactionsare rendered(e.g.18.491–515).24 Whilethiskindofnarrativeelaboration isverycommon,wehardly findtheoppositescenarioinancient ekphrasis,i.e.theprivilegingoftheformalfeaturesoverthecontent. Describingtheouterappearanceofaworkofartwithoutattemptingto elucidatewhatitrepresentswouldfailtorenderjusticetotheobject, whichquaworkofartpossessesarepresentationaldimension.25 Finally,alargeshareofekphrastictextsfromantiquityfocusonthe impactoftheworkofartontheviewer.Thisaspectcanbewitnessed indrama,forinstancewheninAeschylus’ satyrplay Theoroi or Isthmiastai thechorusofsatyrsgazeadmiringlyattheirownportraits, anditisdevelopedwithparticulargustoinepigramsfromtheHellenisticperiod.26
Whenitcomestoliteraryaccountsofdancescenes,however,we findthattheyofferopportunitiestopushthelimitsoftheframework outlinedhereandexploretheextremes.Thesituationiscomplicated bythefactthatdancespectaclestypicallyinvolvebothdancingand singing,whichopensupnewavenuesfortheirliteraryrepresentation. Anearlyexampleofadescriptionemancipatingitselffromthedance spectacleanddwellinglargelyonthenarrativecontentcanarguably befoundinBook8ofthe Odyssey,thoughdifferentinterpretations havebeenproposed.Inthecourseoffestivitiesheldinhonourof Odysseus,KingAlcinoushasyoungPhaeaciansperformdancesto theaccompanimentofDemodocus’ songandphorminx(8.250–384). Theaccountoftheirskilfuldancinggiveswaytothelengthyreportof Demodocus’ songontheadulteryofAresandAphrodite(266–366). Itmaybethecasethatthedancingactuallystopsatthispoint, althoughnosuchinterruptionismentioned.Ifso,itwouldthen
24 Zenodotusconsideredthebulkoftheshielddescriptionspuriousonaccountof thisnarrativeexpansion(seeBecker1995,101).
25 SeeWebb(2009),81–4.
26 Aeschylus, Theoroi or Isthmiastai,TGF78a.OnHellenisticekphrasticepigrams, see,e.g.,Männlein-Robert(2007b);Gutzwiller(2002),95–104;Goldhill(1994);on earlierperiods,Borg(2010).Gutzwiller(1991),90–2,buildingonFriedländer(1912), differentiatesbetweenan ‘epic-narrative’ anda ‘mimetic-dramatic’ traditionofekphrasis,includinginthelattercategoryreactionsandsubjectiveimpressionsofviewers. Becker(1995),42–4distinguishesfourlevelsoffocusinanekphrasis,addingtoform andcontenttheviewer(whomaycoincidewiththenarrator)andthecreator/creation oftheworkofart(‘Artifex and Ars’).
