But should such detailed explanations of purpose be necessary? Granting the abandonment of all ordinary, accepted conventions, ought a work of art, conceived upon whatsoever unfamiliar principles, to fail to grip the imagination? It may be noted that in the introductory lecture, the Japanese colour-print was cited as an example of a form of art scoffed at, when first seen in this country, because its conventions were unfamiliar and not understood. But one fancies that upon any mind not utterly philistine, no matter how unable to _understand_ its peculiar conventions, the work of a Japanese master made a very definite impression. The Occidental mind had a sense of the Oriental achievement, even if it failed to comprehend precisely what had been achieved. If attempt is not to be confused with accomplishment, one fears that only a partisan enthusiast could have a similar regard for “Le Sacre du Printemps.” It is difficult to discover unity of purpose. To mention a minor, but glaring inconsistency, the costumes designed by Roerich (though one is grateful for the vividly decorative groups which they produce) are scarcely consonant with his “primitive” scenery, and certainly not characteristic of ultra-primitive humanity. A people that had acquired such arts as the possession of this clothing postulates can scarcely be reckoned typical of “the Muscovy of dimmest antiquity,” and it is at least doubtful whether at their comparatively advanced stage of civilisation (accepting as historically accurate Nijinsky’s theory of primitive modes of expression) gesture and movement would be marked by such uncouth and awkward characteristics. The fact would seem to be that the authors of this ballet have chosen to be a law unto themselves. No doubt it is possible under [Illustration]