The Art of Ballet

by Mark Edward Perugini

Soon after, Nivelon, and other dancers who were also mimes, such as Sallé, began to come to London; and in the early eighteenth century was seen the birth of the first real English pantomime, which bore some resemblance to that of ancient Rome, owed something to the Italian comedy and to the more recent French theatre, with certain new ideas of its own—especially in the way of costume and elaborate staging. This was due to the enterprise of John Rich.

By Rich’s time Arlequin had become the all-important character of the French comedy-stage, and he followed a then recent custom (also the ancient Latin custom) of placing one character in various sets of circumstances. His first production at the Lincoln’s Inn Fields Theatre in 1717 was “Harlequin Sorcerer,” which was followed by several others with Harlequin as the hero. Their form was always much the same. A serious, classic or fabulous story, such as one from Ovid, was the basis of the work; while between the serious scenes, and partly woven into them, ran a lighter story, consisting mainly of Harlequin’s courtship of Columbine, with interference from other characters, on whom in turn Harlequin played tricks with his magic wand. Rich played Harlequin, and made him dumb, for the simple reason that, though a clever actor, he could not speak well enough for the stage. Thus he gave us once again the ancient classic art of pantomime, which now became the true wordless English Harlequinade; and he taught his players of the other parts, Pantaloon, Pierrot, Clown, Columbine, an art of wordless acting equal to his own. He realised the value of fine mounting, and his productions were gorgeously staged and almost invariably successful.

It would be interesting, of course, to trace with some detail the history of Italian comedy and its influence on the French and English stage; indeed, to go fully into the vexed question of its origin. Certain modern scholars, such as Miss Winifred Smith in her extremely able and interesting volume on the Commedia dell’ Arte, issued by the Columbia University of America, holds the view that it was not derived from the classic stage at all, but was a spontaneous growth of fifteenth-century Italy.

Another view is that there was an unbroken thread of tradition from Greece, through Sicily and the Greek settlements in south-eastern Italy, and that when the Commedia attained its great vogue in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, spreading through Italy and thence through western Europe, the charm and complexity of its texture was due to the numerous strands that had been gathered up from various localities in the progress of years.

Yet another possibility is, that this central idea of pantomime, or dumb acting, may merely have occurred again and again through the centuries, as a “new” idea, without direct impulse from tradition.

Personally I feel that acting without words implies a greater technical advance in the art of representation than acting with them, for it makes the actor more than merely repeater, or even interpreter, of an author; it makes him partly creator, or author. It is impossible, however, to go fully now into the question of the origin of the art of pantomime. Whatsoever diverse theories students may hold, the fact remains that it was known in classic days, and that the form of it which we know under the Italian title of the Commedia dell’ Arte flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and certainly had its influence on the French and English stage, literature and art, and also on Ballet.

The Duchesse du Maine in her pantomime production of Corneille’s “Horace” was deliberately harking back to a form of entertainment which she believed had held the classic stage; and the production was not without effect on the history of Ballet. The appearance of Italian pantomime actors in Paris had additional influence.

Look at some of the pictures of Watteau, Lancret and Fragonard. You will see there the types of the Italian Comedy; turn to the scores of the opera-ballets of the early eighteenth century and you will note that, more often than not, the Italian players were introduced; just as we to-day, in our revues, have introduced Russian dancers, or English players impersonating, or parodying, the Russians—simply because the Russians have in recent years attained a vogue similar to that attained by Italian singers in the ’forties of last century, and to that attained by the Italian comedy troupes of two centuries ago. These things are introduced into current dramatic productions just because they have their vogue, just because they are “topical.” Equally they influence art and literature.

Even the French critics seem hardly to have realised the extent to which French art of the early eighteenth century was influenced by the contemporary stage. All can see, of course, that it was influenced, to the extent of introducing the types of Italian comedy. One has only to glance at Watteau’s “L’Amour au Théâtre Italien” to see that patent fact. But the fact also that, except for his earlier landscapes and camp scenes, several of Watteau’s pictures were, in all probability, derived from ballets actually seen on the French stage seem to have been overlooked.

One of the earlier works attributed to Watteau is a picture representing the “Departure of the Italian Comedians.” The engraving of it by L. Jacob in the wonderful Jullienne collection of engravings from Watteau’s works plainly gives the date of the incident as 1697. Watteau, however, did not arrive from Valenciennes to take up his abode in Paris until after 1702, when he came to reside and work with Claude Gillot, the engraver.