This chapter surveys different ways in which ‘heresy’ has been conceptualised by a variety of writers, both within the periods in which it arose and in later centuries. Tracing a number of different inflections to the charge of heresy, the chapter suggests that we might see it not only as constructed by orthodox authority but as a means by which ‘authority’ itself is reaffirmed; and in conclusion suggests some ways through which modern historians might then reconceptualise their search for ‘dissent’ in past times.

The chapter traces the emergence of the notion of ‘gnostics’ as a classification, from originating confusion in the use of this language by ancient Christian anti-heresy writers to ongoing debates over this category among modern scholars. Progress in understanding the relevant ancient sources may benefit from analyses of specific themes and features in individual texts but without the encumbrance of disputes over a troubled classification (‘gnosticism’) that ultimately is a relic of ancient heresiology.

The Waldensians began inside the church in the 1170s, were excommunicated, went underground and survived into the sixteenth century. In our efforts to get at their past reality, how far can we penetrate the texts about them produced in the Middle Ages by a persecuting church, during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation by polemicists and in modern times by academics modelling them according to the latest intellectual fashions?

Were ‘the Cathars’ a medieval reality, an actual religious dissidence entertained by an organised group of people, or are they a mere figment of medieval churchmen and modern historians? In the last two decades, a fierce scholarly controversy has developed around this question. The present chapter introduces the reader to both sides of the argument.

This chapter introduces the main themes and scope of the volume, including discussing the origin of the concept of ‘heresy’, as well as outlining what aspects of it will and will not form the focus of the following chapters. It then provides a summary of the division of the volume into two parts and the particular topics and case studies contained in each.

This chapter considers the presentation of virtue and happiness in the Meditations and asks how far this matches the distinctive features of Stoic thinking on these topics. The main topics considered are (1) the virtue–indifferents distinction, (2) the presentation of the virtues as forming groups or as unified in some way, (3) the virtue-happiness relationship and the idea of happiness as ‘the life according to nature’, meaning according to human or universal nature (or both). Overall, it is suggested that, although Marcus’s focus in the work is on the contribution of these ideas to his overall project of ethical self-improvement, his presentation largely reflects the ideas and connections between them that we find in the standard ancient accounts of Stoic ethics.

In this chapter, I attempt to trace the influence of the Stoic tradition on Marcus Aurelius by focusing on his approach to impressions, material flux, and fate. The primary suggestion is that the influence of earlier Stoicism is best interpreted within the framework of how Marcus develops a normative response to the external world. It is within this context of getting to grips with fluctuating, alienating, and disturbing appearances that we should seek to locate his reception of the Stoic theories of the cognitive impression, material flux, and the philosophical life, more broadly. Such an emphasis on inculcating a reliable response in the soul to the outside world also helps to explain a much-discussed feature of the Meditations, namely the unusual incorporation of Epicurean atomism within the work. I also push back on recent claims that there is evidence of a flirtation with Platonism evident in this text. Marcus was an innovative interpreter of his tradition with a particular focus on psychological stability, but, for all that, he was also a thoroughgoing Stoic.

Outlines the aims and rationale of this guide to The Rite of Spring, sketching the book’s structure across four parts: The Paris Premiere; Contexts; Performance and Interpretation; and Scholarship. Situates the volume within a scholarly context, exploring how it relates to the enormous quantity of published literature on The Rite of Spring – a literature that can be difficult to navigate, especially for newcomers to the work. Also proposes a new, historically sensitive way of approaching the original 1913 production, combining historical and musical perspectives with a focus on the ballet’s intense corporeal impact as noted by some of the first critics inside the theatre.

Describes how Russian dancer-turned-choreographer Vaslav Nijinsky broke free from ballet conventions in his pre-war productions for Diaghilev’s Ballets Russes: L’Après-midi d’un faune (1912), Jeux (1913) and, most famously, The Rite of Spring (1913). Focuses on his characteristically reductive movement vocabulary, the arrangement of dancers on stage and his retreat from the traditions of illusionistic theatre as recognized and understood at the end of the long nineteenth century. Considers various source materials, including press reports, photographs, choreographic notation (where available) and oral testimony. Also explores possible influencing factors within the pre-war theatrical scene (modernist puppet theatre, two-dimensionality, the so-called ‘cinema of attractions’), as well as influences Nijinsky may have had on the choreographers who followed him.