II

Apart from the loveliness of _Manfred_--the almost aching loveliness of

Astarte--and the whole of the _Carnival, Kreisleriana_, and several

other pieces, I have never been able to admire Schumann's music. When I

wrote on Strauss I said that he has many moments in which he tries to

bring humor into music. Turn from the "Annie" motive in _Enoch Arden_ to

the "Eusebius" of the _Carnival_, and you will readily see all the

difference between two passages which it is quite possible to compare

with one another. The "Annie" motive is as pretty as can be; it is

adequate enough as a suggestion of the somewhat colorless heroine of

Tennyson's poem; but how lacking in distinction it is, if you but set it

beside the "Eusebius," in which music requires nothing but music to be

its own interpreter. But it is in his attempts at the grotesque that

Schumann seems at times actually to lead the way to Strauss. It is from

Schumann that Strauss has learned some of those hobbling rhythms, those

abrupt starts, as of a terrified peasant, by which he has sometimes

suggested his particular kind of humor in music.

Schumann, like Strauss, reminds me at one time of De Quincey or Sydney

Dobell, at another of Gustave Moreau or of Arnold Bocklin, and I know

that all these names have had their hour of worship. All have some of

the qualities which go to the making of great art; all, in different

ways, fail through lack of the vital quality of sincerity, the hard and

wiry line of rectitude and certainty. All are rhetorical, all produce

their effect by an effort external to the thing itself which they are

saying or singing or painting.

On seeing the _Carnival_ for the second time I am more than ever struck

by the fact that the ballet is a miracle of moving motion. In the dance

of Columbine and Harlequin--they danced and mimed like living

marionettes--I recalled vividly my impression on seeing a ballet, a

farce and the fragments of an opera performed by the marionettes at the

Costanzi Theatre in Rome. I was inclined to ask myself why we require

the intervention of any less perfect medium between the meaning of a

piece, as the audience conceived it, and that other meaning which it

derives from our reception of it. In those inspired pieces of living

painted wood I saw the illusion that I always desire to find, either in

the wings of the theater or from a stall. In our marionettes, then, we

get personified gesture, endless gesture, like all other forms of

emotion, generalized. The appeal in what seems to you those childish

maneuvers is to a finer, because to a more innately poetic sense of

things than the rationalistic appeal of very modern plays. If at times

we laugh--as one must in this ballet--it is with wonder at seeing

humanity so gay, heroic and untiring. There is the romantic suggestion

of magic in this beauty. So, in Harlequin, I find the personification of

grace, of _souplesse_, in his miming and dancing; and when he is

grotesque, I find a singular kind of beauty. A sinister gaiety pervades

the ballet; a malevolent undercurrent of subtle meanings gives one the

sense of an intricate intrigue; and I almost forgive the fact that the

music is German!

I am, on the whole, disappointed with the _Cleopatra_ ballet; for the

scenery certainly does not suggest Egypt; but, to my mind, suggests

rather the scenery used in Paris when I saw Alfred Jarry's _Ubu Roi_, a

symbolist farce, given under strange conditions. The action took place

in the land of nowhere; and the scenery was painted to represent by

adroit conventions temperate and torrid zones at once. Then there were

closed windows and a fireplace, containing an alchemist's crucible.

These were crudely symbolical, but those in the Coliseum were not. In

our search for sensation we have exhausted sensation; and, in that

theater, before a people who have perfected the fine shades to their

vanishing point, who have subtilized delicacy of perception into the

annihilation of the very senses through which we take in ecstasy, I

heard a literary Sans-culotte shriek for hours that unspeakable word of

the gutter which was the refrain of this comedy of masks. Just as the

seeker after pleasure whom pleasure has exhausted, so the seeker after

the material illusions of a literary artifice turns finally to that

first, subjugated, never quite exterminated element of cruelty which is

one of the links which bind us to the earth.

The Russians have cruelty enough, but not this kind of cruelty; they are

more complex than cruel, and why credit them with any real sense of

morality? They are gifted with a kind of sick curiosity which makes them

infinitely interesting to themselves. And--to concern myself again with

these Russian dancers--they live in a prodigious illusion; their life in

them is so tremendous that they are capable of imagining anything. And,

in the words of Gorki, "in every being who lives there is hidden a

vagabond more or less conscious of himself;" but--for all those who

revolt--he has one phrase: _l'Épouvante du mal de vivre._

Now, Lubov Tchernicheva, who looked Cleopatra and was dressed after

Cleopatra's fashion, had nothing whatever to do, except to be repellent

and attractive. She was given no chance to show that the queen she

represented was one of those diabolical creatures whose coquetry is all

the more dangerous because it is susceptible of passion; one in whom

passion was at times like a will-o'-the-wisp that is suddenly

extinguished after having given light to a conflagration.

_Scheherazade_ is barbaric and gorgeous in _décor_, and in costume

exotic and tragic and Oriental as the Russian music is; only, to me, the

music is not quite satisfying; it has rather an irritating effect on the

nerves. The dances are bewildering, intricate and elaborate, and

intensely alive with animal desire. It is really a riot in color, amid

an ever-moving crowd of revellers; in which Massine shows himself as the

personification of lust, as he makes--with furious and too convulsive

leaps in the air and with too obvious gestures and grimaces--frantic

love to Zobeide, mimed by Tchernicheva, who has the stateliness of a

princess, who glides mysteriously and is wonderful in the plastic

quality of her movements, which I can only image as that of a tiger-cat.

Carlo Goldoni has been compared as a great comic dramatist with Pietro

Longhi, who, in his amazingly amusing pictures, reflects also the

follies and revels and miseries of the period. Longhi used to tell

Goldoni that they--the painter and the playwright--were brethren in art;

and one of Goldoni's sonnets records this saying:--

_Longhi, tu che la mia musa sorella

Chiami del tuo pennel che cerca il vero._

It seems that their contemporaries were alive to the similar qualities

and the common aims of the two men; for Gasparo Gozzi drew a parallel

between them in a number of his Venetian _Gazzetta._

It struck me, as I saw the Goldoni ballet and heard the music of

Domenico Scarlatti, that all of the costumes and much of the effect of

the miming--which were the most delicious and capricious that I have

ever seen--had been designed after Longhi's paintings and drawings; for

in many of these he gives a wonderful sense of living motion; but

certainly nothing of what is abominably alive in the great and grim and

sardonic genius of Hogarth.

In Venice I have often spent delightful hours before, for instance, such

innumerable drawings of his as: painters at the easel, ballet girls with

castanets, maid-servants holding trays, music and dancing masters

(indeed, is not Enrico Cecchetti in the ballet a most admirable and most

Italian dancing master?), tavern-keepers, street musicians, beggars,

waiters; the old patrician lolling in his easy-chair and toying with a

fan; the cavaliere in their fantastic dresses; the women with their

towering head-dresses. The whole sense of Venice returned to me as I saw

Lydia Lopokova--always so bird-like, so like a butterfly with painted

wings, so witty in gestures, so absolutely an artist in every dance she

dances, in every mime she mimics, in her wild abandonment to the

excitement of these shifting scenes, where all these masked and unmasked

living puppets have fine nerves and delicate passions--putting powder on

the face of the Marquise Silvestra and mocking her behind her back. I

saw then Casanova's favorite haunts: the _ridotti_, the gambling-houses,

the _cafés_ in San Marco's, the carnivals, the masked balls, the

intrigues; the _traghetti_ where I seemed to see mysterious figures

flitting to and fro in wide miraculous _route_ beneath the light of

flickering flambeaux.

I see before me, as I write, the night when I went from the Giddecca to

the Teatro Rossini, where a company of excellent Italian comedians gave

one of Goldoni's comedies, and, as when the chatter in the gallery ends,

the chatter begins on the stage, I found for once the perfect illusion;

there is no difference between the one and the other. Voluble, living

Venice, with its unchanging attitude toward things, the prompt gaiety

and warmth of its temperament, finds equal expression in the gallery,

and in the interpretation of Goldoni, on that stage. Going to the

theater in Venice is like a fantastic overture to the play, and sets

one's mood properly in tune. You step into the gondola, which darts at

once across a space of half-lighted water, and turns down a narrow canal

between walls which seem to reach more than half-way to the stars. Here

and there a lamp shines from a bridge or at the water-gate of a house,

but with no more than enough light to make the darkness seen. You see in

flashes: an alley with people moving against the light, the shape of a

door or balcony, seen dimly and in a wholly new aspect, a dark

church-front, a bridge overhead, the water lapping against the green

stone of a wall which your elbow all but touches, a head thrust from a

window, the gondola that passes you, sliding gently and suddenly

alongside, and disappearing into an unseen quiet.

_Sadko_ is simply a magical and magnificent pantomime, and

Rimski-Korsakov's ballet music gives me the sense of the swirl and

confusion, of the bewilderments and infinite changes in the realm of the

sea-king. And, apart from the riotous Russian dancing, most of the

ballet is made of nervous gestures of the hands and arms, that have an

exciting effect on the nerves, and that recall to my memory certain

aspects of the sea; as when I saw a deadly sluggish sea, a venomous

serpent coil and uncoil inextricable folds; symbols of something

suddenly seen on the sea-surface in contrast with a wizard transmutation

of colors. But, most of all, one aspect of curdling thick green masses

of colors under a curdling green sea. In that instant I saw all the

beauty of corruption. Then the underworld became visible, close under

the sea: with palaces (like Poe's); streets, people, ruins; forests

thick with poisonous weeds, void spaces, strange shifting shapes:

symbols I could not fathom. Then came a stealthy, slow, insidious

heaving of the reluctant waves. Then, again, the surging and swaying;

and, always motionless, yet steadily changing in shape, the somber and

unholy underworld.

In Tchernicheva I saw an actual Princess of the Sea, gorgeously dressed,

and enchanting. Yet, all of the spectacle was not beautiful; it was

singularly inhuman and, at times, unnatural. Nothing but beauty should

exist on the stage. Visible beauty comes with the ballet, an abstract

thing; gesture adds pantomime, with which drama begins; and then words

bring in the speech by which life tries to tell its secret. Still, in

the two extremes, pantomime and the poetic drama, the appeal is to the

primary emotions, and with an economy and luxuriance of means, each of

which is in its own way inimitable. Pantomime addresses itself, by the

artful limitations of its craft, to universal human experiences, knowing

that the moment it departs from those broad lines it will become

unintelligible.

Pantomime, in its limited way, is no mere imitation of nature: it is a

transposition. It can appeal to the intellect for its comprehension,

and, like ballet, to the intellect through the eyes. To watch it is like

dreaming. And as I watched this ballet I felt myself drawn deep into an

opium-dream, as when I wrote of:

This crust, of which the rats have eaten part,

This pipe of opium; rage, remorse, despair;

This soul at pawn and this delirious heart.

Then, as the spell tightened closer and closer around me, I seemed to

have taken hashish, of which I wrote:--

Behold the image of my fear;

O rise not, move not, come not near!

That moment, when you turned your face,

A demon seemed to leap through space;

His gesture strangled me with fear.

Who said the world is but a mood

In the eternal thought of God?

I know it, real though it seem,

The phantom of a hashish dream

In that insomnia which is God.

Does not every one know that terrifying impossibility of speaking which

fastens one to the ground for the eternity of a second? Exactly that

sensation came over me, the same kind of suspense, seeming to hang over

the silent actors in the pantomime, giving them a nervous exaltation

which has its subtle, immediate effect upon us, in comic or tragic

situations.