As I watch Toumanova today, I see but an extension in time, space and years of the “baby ballerina” in her adult personality; there is still an extravagant and dazzling glamor; there is still steely technique; there is still a childlike naivete about her, even when she tries to be ever so sophisticated; everything about her is still dramatic and dramatized. And there is still “Mamochka,” in constant attendance, helping, criticizing, urging; and although Tamara has been happily married for a decade or so, “Mamochka” is still the watchdog. Many ballet “mamas” are not only difficult, but some of them are overtly disliked. Toumanova’s mother is another category. She has been at all times a fine and constructive help to Tamara, both with practical assistance and theoretical advice. Tamara’s approach to the dance is beautiful to observe. Her devotion to ballet amounts almost to a religion. Nothing under the sun is more important to her than her work, her attendance at lessons. Nothing ever is permitted to interfere with these. I firmly believe that such is her concentration and devotion to her work that, if a fire were to break out back-stage during a performance while Tamara was in the midst of her fabulous _fouetées_, she would continue with them, completely unperturbed, more intent on _fouetées_ than on fire. The Montreal discussions with the Ballet Theatre direction on the subject of guest stars produced no understanding of the situation; only the tiresomely reiterated, “It’s a sacrilege! It’s a crime!” What was a “crime” then, was a sheer necessity. Let us look, for a moment, at the Ballet Theatre situation today, after it is no longer under my management, but entirely on its own, responsible for its own destiny. During the last year of our association, following the resignation of J. Alden Talbot as managing director, as I have pointed out, Lucia Chase, who pays the bills, and Oliver Smith became joint managing directors. They were running the company when we came to a parting of the ways. It was they who protested most bitterly over the guest-star system. Now, with the company, after thirteen years of existence, presumably established, Miss Chase is firmly perpetrating the same “crime” herself. I certainly do not object to it. But surely what was a “sacrilege,” what was a “crime” at the time I was responsible for their perpetration, must, now that the Ballet Theatre is on its own, no longer be either sacrilegious or criminal.