CHAPTER I. THE ANCIENT AND MODERN ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE DANCE 15

II. THE RISE OF THE BALLET 27

III. THE HEYDAY OF THE BALLET 39

IV. THE DECLINE OF THE BALLET 57

V. THE SKIRT DANCE 71

VI. THE SERPENTINE DANCE 81

VII. THE HIGH KICKERS 91

VIII. THE REVIVAL OF CLASSICAL DANCING 103

IX. THE IMPERIAL RUSSIAN BALLET 123

X. THE REPERTORY OF THE RUSSIAN BALLET 137

XI. THE RUSSIAN DANCERS 153

XII. THE ENGLISH BALLET 173

XIII. ORIENTAL AND SPANISH DANCING 189

XIV. THE REVIVAL OF THE MORRIS DANCE 203

XV. THE FUTURE OF THE DANCE 215

INDEX 225

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

IN COLOUR

CARMENCITA, after a painting by John Sargent _Frontispiece_

DANSEUSES EN SCÈNE, from a painting by Degas _To face page_ 66

ISADORA DUNCAN “ “ 106

MAUD ALLAN, from a photograph “ “ 112

DANSE ORIENTALE, after a design by Léon Bakst “ “ 132

ANNA PAVLOVA, from a painting by John Lavery “ “ 160

ADELINE GENÉE, from a photograph “ “ 178

RUTH ST DENIS, in a Nautch Dance “ “ 192

IN BLACK AND WHITE

MARIE TAGLIONI, as _La Sylphide_ “ “ 42

CARLOTTA GRISI, in _The Peri_ “ “ 50

FANNY CERITO, in _Ondine_ “ “ 52

KATE VAUGHAN “ “ 72

KATE VAUGHAN, in Turkish costume “ “ 74

ALICE LETHBRIDGE “ “ 76

LETTY LIND, in a Skirt Dance “ “ 78

LETTY LIND “ “ 84

CONNIE GILCHRIST (The Gold Girl), from a painting by Whistler “ “ 92

REGINA BADET, première danseuse of the Paris Opera “ “ 98

ISADORA DUNCAN “ “ 108

MAUD ALLAN, in _The Vision of Salomé_ “ “ 114

MAUD ALLAN, in Chopin’s Funeral March “ “ 118

THE RUSSIAN BALLET, an undress rehearsal “ “ 126

TROUHANOWA, in an Oriental ballet “ “ 130

WASLAW NIJINSKY, in _Le Pavillon d’Armide_ “ “ 138

LEONTIEV and LEPOUKHAVA, in _Le Carnaval_ “ “ 140

KARSAVINA and NIJINSKY, in _Le Spectre de la Rose_ “ “ 142

LES SYLPHIDES “ “ 144

SERAPHIMA ASTAFIEVA, as _Cleopatra_ “ “ 146

WASLAW NIJINSKY, in _Scheherazade_ “ “ 154

TAMAR KARSAVINA, in _Scheherazade_ “ “ 156

ANNA PAVLOVA “ “ 158

PAVLOVA and MORDKIN “ “ 162

PAVLOVA and MORDKIN, in Russian costume “ “ 164

MADEMOISELLE SCHMOLZ “ “ 166

MIKAIL MORDKIN, in _The Arrow Dance_ “ “ 168

LYDIA KYASHT “ “ 170

LYDIA KYASHT, in _Sylvia_ “ “ 174

ALEXANDRA BALASHOVA “ “ 176

ADELINE GENÉE “ “ 180

ADELINE GENÉE, in _A Dream of Butterflies and Roses_ “ “ 182

PHYLLIS BEDELLS, in _Sylvia_ “ “ 184

BEATRICE COLLIER and FRED FARREN, in _La Danse des Apaches_ “ “ 186

RUTH ST DENIS “ “ 190

LEONORA, as a Spanish dancer “ “ 194

LA OTERO “ “ 196

LA GUERRERO “ “ 198

MORRIS DANCE: BEAN-SETTING “ “ 206

MIKAIL MORDKIN, in _The Cymbal Dance_ “ “ 216

INTRODUCTION

It is not unlikely that when the art historian of the future comes to treat of the artistic activity of the first decade of the twentieth century, he will remark as one of its most notable accomplishments a renaissance of the art of the Dance.

That this renaissance is an accomplished fact, is a matter of common knowledge. Within a relatively short period there have appeared several great dancers, who must necessarily have been preparing themselves for a considerable time previously to their appearance, yet as it were in secret, without cognisance of one another, with a common aim, but without a common plan. Contemporaries in time, they have been as far removed in space as the East is from the West. In all movements which touch the spirit, this circumstance of the simultaneous but independent manifestation of a common impulse is at once the most general and the most unaccountable. The still small voice whispers into space and those of a delicate hearing hear and respond. We content ourselves by repeating the explanation, which is no explanation, that the movement is “in the air.”

It follows, therefore, that he who sets out to relate adequately the story of the Dance in recent years should have qualified himself by being present at many different points, almost at one and the same time, ready to take account of its various exhibitions. Criticism of the Dance makes severer demands, at any rate physically, than criticism of literature. Dancers, even the most peripatetic, do not circulate with the same freedom as philosophers and novelists. Mahomet must always go to the mountain. It is true that all the roads of modern art lead to Paris, and some are continued as far as London. But the critic, even if he lies in wait at either of these centres, cannot always count on catching the bird of passage on the wing. To the quality of ubiquity I make no claim. And I may as well confess now as never that I saw Russia only when it came to Covent Garden. For the omission in this book, therefore, of a description of the performances of certain dancers, I have no better excuse to offer than the fact that I have never seen them. Silence in many cases must be taken to mean not my ignoring of their art, but my ignorance of it. I think I may claim, however, that the names that are omitted will be found to be famous rather on account of some personal quality in the dancer than on account of her influence on the development of the Dance.

There are other peculiar difficulties which beset the critic of the Dance. I do not refer to the difficulty of passing judgment upon a fugitive art that leaves nothing behind it but an echo of applause, for with the dancers of the past I have little concern. There is the difficulty of discriminating between the executant and the composer--a difficulty greater in dancing than in music, since the dancer is more than an executant of the art, she is herself the medium of it. In the popular eye she has in fact always quite eclipsed the choregrapher. Criticism is in doubt as to the measure of her share in the creation of the design--an uncertainty that cannot be resolved by any reference to a score. Further, it is in continual danger of being misled by the glamour of personal qualities--physical beauty, for example--which are strictly extraneous to the art. (Taglioni, it should be remembered, was probably the plainest as well as the greatest of dancers.) In no art, therefore, is personal prejudice established so readily or on grounds of such doubtful artistic validity.

The Dance enjoys no immunity from the clash of schools. Indeed, partisanship is the more bitter as principles of criticism are less determined. The respective upholders of the school of the ballet and of the natural or classical style of dancing are barely on speaking terms. To the advocates of the old school the new classical dancer is little better than a freak performer; to the austere classicist the ballet-dancer is but a smiling automaton, and both agree in refusing to recognise the skirt-dancer as a dancer at all.

To the exponents of conflicting styles I have endeavoured to do justice. If I have failed, it is of no great moment, since criticism of the Dance is still so inchoate that the opinion of the expert--and the responsibilities of his office I unhesitatingly refuse--has little more authority, except on questions of pure technique, than that of an expression of personal preference. I care little if the reader tears to tatters any hazardous conclusions upon which I have ventured. Such denials I expect. Almost I welcome them. But I care much if by anything that I have said the reader is provoked to formulate a serious criticism of his own and to refer his judgment to the abiding principles of art.