THE RUSSIAN BALLET.*
PROPBAT has produced a very fine hook on the Russian Ballet. It consists of a short history of the enterprise, an account of all the principal painters who have worked for it, a critical chapter upon the present tendencies of the decor of the ballet, and three chapters on dancing and choregraphy from the point of view of the three successive " maitres de ballet," Fokine, Nijinsky, Massine. These are all by Mr. Propert himself. They are followed by a chapter on the music by Mr. Eugene Goossens and a complete list of the repertory of the ballets. This occupies just half the book. The rest • The Russian Ballet in Western Puro.ae. 1909-1920. By W. A. Proyerk London : John Lane. (15 Cs. net.)
consists of a superb series of reproductions in colour of the original drawings for the scenes, costumes, and curtains of most of the ballets in which, we believe, nearly all the artists who have worked for M. Diaghilev are represented.
As will be seen at once, this makes the most wonderful " gift book "—if we may so call it—of the Russian Ballet, which from its pictures alone could never fail to give delight to all who love the arts of colour and of costume. But Mr. Propert's book claims to be much more than this. His chapters on the ballets are far from the uninformed eulogies which so often "pad out" a book, the illustrations of which are the main object. Indeed, the illustrations are here no more than are necessary to exemplify Mr. Propert's criticism. For he is no blind worshipper. Indeed,
when each individual ballet—and for that matter each indi- vidual painter—comes up for discussion and about each some grave defect is discovered, the less learned lover of the Russians (who, like the present writer, each time he has seen the ballet has been far too bemused by delight to let his critical faculties come into play) will be rather pained and worried at finding his beloved favourites subjected to the cold analysis of Mr. Propert's pen. But if the analysis is critical, it is always enthu- siastic. It is only because Mr. Propert feels so strongly that
the ballet is a great and significant thing that he cannot help criticizing fiercely when he does not approve. We who con- fessedly only visit the ballet for the delight it gives us may be " contented if we may enjoy the things which others understand," but for the professed critic like Mr. Propert there is a share of the responsibility of the actual participator. He must point out everything which he considers a defect, or he fails in his duty. Mr. Propert is himself, as he tells us, especially interested in the decor of the ballets. For, he points out, it is here that Diaghilev has done his greatest work. In the actual dancing he has indeed swept away the old rigid classical tradition that had grown up in all the State-subsidized ballets of Europe. But he was only going back to what had been before the choking conventions grew up. It was the decor which was his own especial subject, and it was in this that he made his great revolution. Hence it is fitting that a book on the Diaghilev Ballet should deal in the greatest fullness with the question of decor, for, says Mr. Propert, "Is not a revolution greater than a renaissance ? " Diagbilev's interest in painting was of an older date than his connexion with the theatre, so that when he became the controller of his ballet he was able to bring with him a whole school of new Russian painters to design his dresses and scenes for him. Of these Benois of Pctrouchlw, Roevich of Prince Igor, and above all Leon Bakst of Scheherazade, Thabiar, and L'Apres-midi d'un Faune were the best known. Mr. Propert is particularly interesting on Bakst, to whom he devotes a chapter. Here is his summing-up :-
" But whatever the final verdict on his merits as an artist may be, there can be no doubt that his is the outstanding figure among thepainters that worked with Diaghilev during the first five years of his enterprise. No one, himself assuredly included, would wish to claim for him the designation of a great painter. But within the walls of the theatre, the terrain which he had deliberately chosen for his work, he remains in many ways unrivalled. Spirituality and subtlety are not among his many gifts, but the combination of a profuse imagination and technical mastery of lino and colour is a sufficiently rare endowment to ensure for its possessor a position of some importance in the chronicle of coutumporory ant."
After this group of artists come the two " Thayonists," Nathalia Gonteharova and Larionov. They hold, we are told, the most extreme views on painting, and from the example reproduced, Mlle. Goutcharova's pictures do seem, to say the least of it, a little difficult. But in the theatre they have such delightful things as " Coq d'Or " (Mile. Gonteharova), " The Midnight Sun " and " Children's Tales " (Larionov) to their credit that for the sake of these we can forgive them a wilderness of incomprehensible pictures. This ends the list of Russian painters.
Mr. Propert goes on to tell us of the important parting of the ways which the ballet has reached. Was it, as it toured about the European capitals, to retain its strictly Russian character, or was it., as it were, to internationalize itself and call in the best talent in painting, in music, and in dancing in the countries through which it travelled ? We are told how the bolder, more difficult course of internationalization is being taken, how Matisse, Devain, Picasso, and the Spanish musician, Mauvel de Fella, were called in to help the ballet ; not, perhaps, always with success, but at any rate they imparted new ideas and vigour to the enterprise. Diaghilev, reversing the policy of Canning, has called in the old artistic world of France and Spain to redress the balance of the new one of Russia, the vertigo of revolution.
We have left ourselves little space to comment on the chapters on Fokine, the great maitre de ballet of the older type ; on Nijinsky, " the marvellous boy," whose tragedy was so great ; of Massine, his no less youthful and no less burningly enthusi- astic successor. Neither can we say anything of Mr. Goossens' illuminating chapter on the music. Of the illustrations we need say nothing, for they will be sheer pleasure. Only let us always remember that they are not in themselves intended to be pictures, but designs for dresses or scenes, and must be considered as such. He would be a poor man indeed who would always agree with such a stimulatingly didactic critic as Mr. Propert on so fasci- nating a subject as the ballet. But this should rather increase than diminish our pleasure in his book. Taken as a whole, it is fully worthy of its subject. Can we say more ?
Previous page
