Glyn Muitjens (Leiden University)
Ancient Greek contained various terms we could translate as human ‘skin.’ One might therefore wonder how these words differ in meaning. In this paper I focus on two particularly common examples of these skin terms: khrṓs (χρώς) and dérma (δέρμα). By mapping each term’s discrete associations I am able to point out both overlap and differences in their meaning, and highlight their sociocultural significance.
These terms are the subject of several studies on Greek skin terminology, which tend, however, to focus on khrṓs over dérma—the latter is regarded as unremarkable stripped ‘hide.’ These scholars furthermore concentrate on Homer (Gavrylenko) and on the Hippocratic Corpus (Pigeaud). In turn, scholars who take a wider textual or diachronic approach to skin terminology either gloss over the differences in the uses of these two skin terms, casting them both simply as ‘skin’ (Grundmann), or solely indicate some of their differences without sustained discussion of the ancient texts (Connor).
Taking as my examples several passages in which khrṓs and dérma are juxtaposed (e.g. Theoc. 2.88-90), I briefly indicate the variety of their usages in Greek literature from the Homeric poems up to the second century BCE. I demonstrate that these terms are underlain by different conceptions of the body in its relation to the surrounding world: while khrṓs generally implies an ‘open’ body, dérma rather ‘closes off’ a body from the world. Crucially, such a lexical semantics approach allows me to indicate more and less typical uses of the words.
I develop this idea in the second part of my paper, in which I focus on two kinds of atypical uses of dérma. I suggest that in these particular cases the regular use contexts of this term are strategically defied, and consider reasons for why authors might choose to do so. The first case study is the consistent application of dérma (and related terms) for the skin of punished slaves and criminals (e.g. Ar. Pax 746-747; Hyp. Fr. 200). The skin in its vulnerability is usually denoted by khrṓs, and I consider how the low social status of slaves and criminals is tied up with the use of dérma for the beaten surface of their bodies.
My broad chronological scope also allows for marking changes in the meaning of dérma over time, as I do in my second case study. Whereas dérma often represents skin detached from the body, the Hippocratics start using it extensively for the surface attached to the living body. I argue that the Hippocratics in doing so open up the possibility of thinking about ‘skin’ as a discrete part of that body. This development fits in the Hippocratic reconceptualization of the physical body as containing an opaque inner space that is governed by impersonal and unconscious powers (Holmes). Thinking about skin terminology in these ways reveals competing constructions not only of the body surface, but of the body as a whole in ancient Greece: much like it does now, skin mattered in antiquity.