These four elements are the material of which Ballet is composed, and the result may be judged by their balance. We are to think not of the worst examples that have been, but of the best, and of those that yet might be. Most of the older writers on dancing speak of almost all concerted dances as ballets and refer to the “ballets” of the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans. The Abbé Menestrier, however, writing in the seventeenth century, wisely observed the distinction between dances that are _only_ “dances,” and those that approximate to “ballet.” It should be borne in mind that it is possible to dance and not represent an idea save that of dancing, as when a child dances for joy, _not in order to represent the joy of another_. That is the province of the Mime. It is equally possible to mimic without dancing. The best ballet-dancer is one who has intelligence and training to do both, whose dancing and mimicry are interpretative. Speaking of certain Egyptian and Greek figure-dances and the approach of some of them to the Ballet as he knew it towards the end of the seventeenth century, Menestrier wrote: “_J’appelle ces Danses Ballets parce qu’elles n’etoient pas de simples Danses comme les autres, mais des Representations ingenieuses, des mouvements du Ciel et des Planétes, et des evolutions du labyrinthe dont Thésée sortit_.” That is a distinction to be remembered by any who may look on the Art of Ballet as simply--dancing. It is necessary to-day to make another distinction, that between “ballet,” and “the ballet of the theatre.” In a sense the Hindus, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, indeed all peoples in past ages have had ballets; that is, dances which were “_representations ingenieuses_,” which represented an idea or told a story. There have been entertainments, too, of which dancing formed a considerable part--such as our English “masques,” which, contemporaneously, were often spoken of as “ballets.” But though they may for convenience have been so called, they were never more than partly akin with the ballet of the theatre as we see it to-day. They never exhibited that balance of subordinated and _developed_ arts which the best examples of later times have shown; and were not seen in the public theatre, as a form of dramatic entertainment apart from others. One has only to consider for an instant what were the musical and scenic resources of the Greek and Roman stage, and compare them with the resources of modern orchestration and scenic effect to realise the difference between antique “ballet” and that of to-day. Setting aside this difference, which arises from the development of the several elements through the centuries, one may find many an ancient definition of “ballet” that appears apt enough to-day, for the difference is not so much one of principle as this of resources.