"This book began in 2014 as an introduction to the book I was then writing about a small group of dance theorists-five Germans and an Englishman-and their treatises published between 1703 and 1721: obviously a very narrow conspectus in subject and years. The aim of the introduction was to place these largely ignored writers (epecially the Germans) in a broad historical context that would demonstrate how essential and pivotal they were. As I read further in dance theory I found more and more sources on the subject that turned out to be far more interesting and complex than I had originally imagined. The introduction kept getting longer, until it became an albatross on the book's actual text, not only because of its ever-increasing length, but more gravely, because I had assumed it would trace a teleological ascent in dance theory culminating in my authors and their works, followed by a degenerative aftermath. This tendentious viewpoint threatened not only to deter readers from a sympathetic reading of the book as a whole; it turned out, the more I read and learned, to be simply wrong. The history of dance theory, as I gradually came to realize, is too interesting and important to be exploited for spurious purposes. Also, it's an untold story. Dance historians are familiar with many or most of the authors and titles, but not what they have to say about dance theory.

That's the part usually at the beginning of books that is skimmed through in order to get to the more urgent preoccupations of historical dancers and dance historians: performance practice, reconstruction, technique, and repertoire. Viewed superficially, moreover, it can seem as if the same self-evident and obligatory themes keep getting repeated like clichés in these sections under the general rubric of theory: a definition of dance and/or dance theory, or at least a list of their basic components; the relation of dance to the other arts and other areas of knowledge; dance's origin and history; and its utility (i.e., health, social conduct and success, recreation). Finally, and contrary to what I had long believed, dance theory is not dead. In fact, it is thriving in the twenty-first century. Yes, I was fully aware that something called dance theory was being copiously written and talked about, and that "theory" and "theorizing" and "theorist" had become wildly ubiquitous in dance scholars' lexicon, but I believed that what they were talking about was no genuine dance theory, had no kinship with what was historically accepted as dance theory, and did not meet the criteria of what a theory should be. I was convinced that what I considered dance theory had been swept away in the iconoclastic, irreverent, and nonconformist spirit of postmodernism.

Luckily, early readers tactfully convinced me to address my folly. As I wrote, I learned. Writing this book has already served as a textbook in my own learning experience. There are some excellent compilations of readings in dance history. The common format is to devote each chapter to a historical period, with an introductory essay followed by relevant readings. The number of readings tends to increase as history marches on, peaking in the nineteenth century. A sampling of such compilations follows. Each book differs from this one in different ways, but in general, and by intent, none of them does everything this book sets out to do: treat theory in depth and as a discrete topic; treat theatrical and social dance equally; include readings dating from classical Antiquity to the twenty-first century; and link the readings, through brief introductory essays, from end to end by a narrative thread based on salient topics as seen from evolving perspectives"--.