In fairness, it must be added that this account of the eccentric happenings on the stage is quite inadequate to convey any proper impression of these two tableaux--which are, in fact, quite indescribable by words. It would be a mistake to suppose that this extraordinary performance is as wearisome as its unintelligible character might lead one to infer. According to all ordinary standards the whole business is completely mad--the music is mad, the dancers are mad. Yet it does not bore, and the interest which it excites must be something more than that of mere curiosity to endure through two whole acts. One suspects this to be merely a tribute to the unquestionable cleverness of the ballet, though the generous spectator may like to suppose a more solid reason. When the present writer witnessed the first production of “Le Sacre du Printemps” in Paris, the printed synopsis of its action presented to the audience was of the briefest kind. The spectators were left to unravel its meaning for themselves--and they signally failed to rise to the occasion. Briefly, they hissed it. They would not listen to Stravinsky’s music: the choreography of Nijinsky moved them to unkind laughter. On the later production of the ballet in London, the management wisely distributed an amplified synopsis, detailing the incidents (so far as the ballet can be said to have any), and took the further precaution of prefacing the performance by a short lecture, in which a distinguished critic, of sympathetic leanings, endeavoured to expound the principles upon which the authors of the ballet had proceeded in its creation. Thanks to this forethought, the ballet received in London the attentive hearing which was denied to it in Paris. It even received applause, though how far this was due to the amiability of London theatre-goers--less impulsive and more tolerant than the Parisian public--it would be rash to guess. Undoubtedly the ballet, as presented in London, was more easily followed than when seen in Paris. In part, perhaps, the certain degree of familiarity helped; in part, the stronger lighting of the stage during the second act of the London performance was of assistance. But, chiefly, the greater intelligibility arose out of the explanations, verbal and printed, with which the spectator was forearmed. Antics which had been meaningless became invested with the shadow, if not the substance of plausibility; it became apparent what they were _intended_ to mean, even if the meaning still seemed to fail of true expression.