DANCING IN ROME
An art that achieves beauty by means of the grace of simple lines,
elegance of proportion and other simple resources of composition, is the
art of a vigorous nation. Such an art scorns florid treatment, surface
realism, triviality; and such an art was that of early Rome. It had that
something clumsily called semiasceticism, that attaches to dignity.
A national art quality exists, as is axiomatic, upon a basis and by
virtue of a corresponding public state of mind; each influencing the
other, but the public state of mind being the force that shapes the art,
rather than the reverse. The spirit of simplicity dominated Greece
through many centuries of her grandeur. In Rome it endured until Rome
grew rich. Its coexistence in the case of the two peoples was no more
than a coincidence; they arrived at their common simplicity through
wholly different processes.
In Greece, beauty was understood. Action and adornment were restrained
because their value was found to be multiplied by sparing use; because,
too, any excess of them detracted from the great qualities of line and
proportion. In Greece, moreover, beauty dissociated from subject or
sentiment could always find an appreciative reception; the Hellenic mind
loved beauty for its own sake. And that is the cause of the reserve that
governs the best Greek art.
Early Rome, too, instilled into her children the spirit of simplicity.
Not, however, with any understanding of the relation of simplicity to
beauty and dignity. War and lust for conquest made the early Roman
stern; and simplicity, attached to a very real asceticism, was thrust
upon him by the uncompromising hand of poverty. But, after a few
centuries of fattening on loot and tribute, what of Rome? Stupidity,
degeneracy and vulgarity.
Loot and tribute! In respect to riches both material and mental, other
peoples’ contributions to Rome’s destiny were of a degree of importance
sometimes underrated. Her monumental physical structure was built from
taxes gathered by the mailed hand. In respect to her thought, expressed
in essays, poems, orations, letters, commentaries or whatsoever other
form, the extent of other nations’ contribution to Rome’s apparent
originality is, at first glance, less evident. Upon Greek foundations of
narrative structure, metre, and form in general, Roman writings are
built, Romanised though they be in subject-matter--but Rome’s sterility
of invention in that field is suited rather to the discussion of
literary men than of dance-lovers.
But sculpture is pertinent. The first so-called Roman art was
accomplished by carving Roman faces upon thickened figures in Greek
poses, executing them in Greek technique of modelling, and naming them
Roman gods and senators. Later the Greek simplicity of modelling was
discarded; to replace it there was achieved an ostentatious mediocrity.
The Pompeian frescoes? The good ones were painted by Greeks, brought
across for the purpose. And the vivacious little statues found in
Pompeii express the same artistically witty point of view.
In the field of material gain and convenience Rome’s contribution to the
world is not to be questioned. But water-supply, paving, land laws and
fortifications are not related to questions of taste. It is Roman taste
of which one tries to form a conception, in order to explain, at least
in part, the disappointing history of dancing under the Cæsars. And the
mere direction of attention to Rome’s relation to the arts anticipates
the story of her treatment of the dance, leaving only details to be
told.
First in chronology is found the dancing symbolical of war. Then comes a
simple religious choreography, under the Salic priests, supplementing
the ritual of sacrifice. As time goes on Greek dances are transplanted,
with the degree of success to be expected among a race whose minds,
though active, are pleased only by material power, gain, and
ostentation: by a process of atrophy following non-appreciation, the
symbolism disappears from symbolic dances and the ideal of beauty from
the purely beautiful dances. They became at best a display of agility to
amuse rustics. More generally they fell into the service of sex
allurement; not the suggestive merely, nor the provocative, but
unbridled depiction of what should not be revealed and of things that
should not exist. This condition of affairs is more than hinted in works
of some of the much-read Latin writers, stated by archæologists, and
confirmed by certain Pompeian statues.
Such offences, despite the resentment they arouse in the feelings of any
naturally constituted person, might be partially pardoned by the
dance-lover if they contributed anything to the dance. But absolutely
they do not. There is latent drama and good drama in sex relationships;
but not one accent of its valid expression can be traced to dances of
obscenity. The dancer who gives himself over to obscenity loses, every
time, the things that made him a dancer: form, truth and beauty of
movement and posture. Where the art of dancing is appreciated, artists
avoid obscene suggestion. Where it is not, many are forced to it in
order to make a living. However, even where the art is appreciated,
obscenity furnishes the incompetent a means of pretence of an artist’s
career; for obscenity is sure of a mixed following of rabblement, some
in rags and some in velvet.
Among the Romans themselves, actual participation in the dance was not
popular. Propriety forbade so close an association with an art
disfigured and dirtied, the Roman reviling as unclean the image soiled
by his own hand. From Spain, Greece and Syria people were brought to
dance before gourmands and wasters, degraded to the level of their
patrons’ appreciation, and discarded when they had exhausted the scope
of novelties suitable to the demand. Several centuries of Roman
employment of dancers contributed not one step, gesture or expression to
the art; the plastic and graphic records show only that which is Greek,
or, on the other hand inane, vulgar, or degenerate. To the latter levels
sank the _Ludiones_ and the _Saturnalia_; instituted as religious
celebrations, ending as orgies.
It is vaguely asserted that the Roman stage amplified the Greek scope of
pantomime. And, notwithstanding the many reasons to distrust such a
statement, there were two artists whose work may have been of a class to
justify it. They were Pylades and Bathyllus, natives respectively of
Silicia and Alexandria. Their names live in the impression they
produced. Of the character of their work it is impossible to learn
anything explicit; “softly dancing Bathyllus” is as concrete a reference
as anything to be found about them in writings of their period. So it is
impossible to know whether their great popularity was due to merit, or
to ingenious compliance with the taste of their adopted city. Their
record, therefore, must stand as the story of a furor, and not
necessarily as that of artistic achievement.
“The rivalries of Pylades and Bathyllus occupied the Romans as much as
the gravest affairs of state. Every Roman was a Bathyllian or a
Pyladian,” De l’Aulnaye writes. Vuillier presents a more graphic image
of their hold on public attention: “Their theatrical supporters, clad in
different liveries, used to fight in the streets, and bloody brawls were
frequent throughout the city.” For the endless quarrelling and
intriguing between the two, Pylades was once taken to task by the
emperor. The answer was that of a lofty artist or a publicity-seeking
gallery-player, let him decide who can: “Cæsar, it is well for you that
the people are occupied with our quarrels; their attention is in that
way diverted from your actions.”
His arrogance directed itself impartially toward ruler and subject.
Representing the madness of Hercules--he combined pantomime with
dancing--he shot arrows into the audience. Octavius being present on
such an occasion refrained from any expression of disapproval. Was he
afraid of offending his people by so much as an implied criticism of
their favourite? It is not unlikely. When, unable to control his
impatience with Pylades’ unsettling influence, the emperor banished
him, a revocation of the decree was made imperative by signs of a
popular insurrection!
Not the least of the instances of Pyladian insolence was his
interruption of the action of a play to scold his audience. During a
performance of _Hercules_ some one complained loudly that the movement
was extravagant. Pylades tore off his mask and shouted back, “I am
representing a madman, you fools!”
So much for Pylades and Bathyllus. The jealous, hypertemperamental
artist who allows nothing to interfere with the effect of the work to
which he is consecrated sometimes falls into eccentricities of conduct.
Such eccentricities are copied to admiration by impudent incompetents;
and, contrary to P. T. Barnum’s aphorism, some of them do “fool all the
people all the time”--especially if those people themselves lack the
clear vision of simplicity. Impudence to emperors and “shooting up”
audiences may mean the utmost of either sincerity or hypocrisy; choice
of opinion is free. Certainly the Roman Empire’s political intrigues
reveal a profound and practical knowledge of the science of publicity;
it is an ancient profession.
Artists, advertisers or both, it matters not at all, Pylades and
Bathyllus failed to lift dancing from the mire. The self-styled “Eternal
City,” the Rome of the Cæsars, held it down to her level till her rotted
hands could cling no longer, yet treated it from first to last with
scorn. Horace, who never allowed his wit to lead him into danger of
offending any except those without influence on his patron Mæcenas,
repeatedly uses association with dancers as a synonym of
disreputability. Cicero takes a fling at the art; Sallust attacks a lady
for dancing with a degree of skill unbecoming a virtuous woman. With
the logic of a father who locked up his children so that they should not
teach bad manners to their parents, successive emperors banished dancers
for doing their work according to the taste of their patrons.
Rome’s inability to move her imagination on a high plane had decayed
her, muscle, brain and bone; wealth slipped away, and all of her that
was respected was her remote past. In the meantime she had imposed upon
Europe her laws and prejudices. Ears trained to credulous attention were
those that heard her complaint of the depravity of dancing--a complaint
given colour by the obscenity of the only secular dancing known to
Europeans (outside of Spain) in the time of the empire’s decadence. With
such a combined force of misrepresentation against it, its restoration
to a proper position among the great arts was destined to be postponed a
thousand years. To this day there persists to its injury an echo of its
early defamation.
Yet in the hour of humiliation, the dance gained the respect of the only
earthly power that might reasonably hope, in such an extremity, to save
it from a miserable end. It was taken under the protection of the
Christian Church.