Weaver’s own letter is too long to quote in its entirety, but I cannot refrain from giving at least the following, since, while speaking of his own work, he offers incidentally several peculiarly interesting glimpses as to the state of the art in 1712.
“Mr. Spectator,
“Since there are scarce any of the arts or sciences that have not been recommended to the world by the pens of some of the professors, masters, or lovers of them, whereby the usefulness, excellence, and benefit arising from them, both as to the speculative and practical part, have been made public, to the great advantage and improvement of such arts and sciences; why should dancing, an art celebrated by the ancients in so extraordinary a manner, be totally neglected by the moderns, and left destitute of any pen to recommend its various excellencies and substantial merit to mankind?
“The low ebb to which dancing is now fallen is altogether owing to this silence. The art is esteemed only as an amusing trifle; it lies altogether uncultivated, and is unhappily fallen under the imputation of being illiterate and ‘mechanic.’ And as Terence, in one of his prologues, complains of the rope-dancers drawing all the spectators from his play; so may we well say, that capering and tumbling is now preferred to, and supplies the place of, just and regular dancing in our theatres. It is, therefore, in my opinion, high time that someone should come to its assistance and relieve it from the many gross and growing errors that have crept into it, and overcast its real beauties; and to set dancing in its true light, would show the usefulness and elegance of it, with the pleasure and instruction produced from it; and also lay down some fundamental rules, that might so tend to the improvement of its professors, and information of the spectators, that the first might be the better enabled to perform, and the latter rendered more capable of judging what is (if there be anything) valuable in this art.
“To encourage, therefore, some ingenious pen capable of so generous an undertaking, and in some measure to relieve dancing from the disadvantages it at present lies under, I, who teach to dance, have attempted a small treatise as an Essay towards an History of Dancing; in which I have enquired into its antiquity, origin and use, and shown what esteem the ancients had for it. I have likewise considered the nature and perfection of all its several parts, and how beneficial and delightful it is, both as a qualification and an exercise; and endeavoured to answer all objections that have been maliciously raised against it. I have proceeded to give an account of the particular dances of the Greeks and Romans, whether religious, war-like or civil; and taken particular notice of that part of dancing relating to the ancient stage in which the pantomimes had so great a share. Nor have I been wanting in giving an historical account of some particular masters excellent in that surprising art; after which I have advanced some observations on the modern dancing, both as to the stage, and that part of it so absolutely necessary for the qualification of gentlemen and ladies; and have concluded with some short remarks on the origin and progress of the character by which dances are writ down, and communicated to one master from another. If some great genius after this would arise, and advance this art to that perfection it seems capable of receiving, what might not be expected from it.”
All modern students of dancing will be interested especially in the passages I have italicised in the foregoing excerpt, for one gets a significant glimpse as to the state of theatrical dancing (they had no native ballet) in London during the reign of Anne; such a contrast to Paris, where Louis XIV’s Académie Royale de la Danse was beginning to bring forth “rare and refreshing” fruit and the Ballet was beginning to be understood as a genuine work of art.
“The art is esteemed only as an amusing trifle!” In an earlier paper had not “Mr. Spectator” introduced the subject with a little apology for dealing at all with a reputedly trivial theme, and had he not backed himself up with scholarly reference to classic writers on the Dance, such as Lucian?
Oh! Anne! That the art should have been, in your reign, “esteemed only as an amusing trifle!” And when you might have followed a royal example and, emulating your contemporary Louis, ennobled the art by founding an English “Royal Academy of Dancing.”
Well, Weaver, at any rate, knew that the art was something more than an “amusing trifle” when he wrote almost prophetically: “If some great genius after this would arise and advance this art to that perfection it seems capable of receiving, what might not be expected from it.” What would he have said had he lived to see the triumphs of Noverre, of Blasis, and of the British, French or the Russian Ballet of modern times?