The Dancer’s Disappointment

THE DANCER’S DISAPPOINTMENT
(Short story)

News spread in Moscow that the famous dancer Isadora Duncan would be coming there shortly. It aroused interest among all people, happy anticipations in the hearts of the pleasure­ loving, and some fear in respectable households. This happened in all places when it was known. Isadora would be coming there. It happened in Moscow too. Moscow was known as a pleasure-loving city. So it was affected in these ways more than other cities.

Interest is natural when it is known that a great dancer is coming, but why anticipations and fear? The reason was this. Isadora was not only a great dancer, she was known as an advocate of free love. If she felt, attracted by any young man whom she happened to meet, she would let him know her inclination. If he agreed, she would give him her company for as long as she liked. When she ceased to feel that interest in him, she would throw him off and go away. The young man could not stay with her any longer. She was his while she wanted him. As soon as she ceased to want him, he had to go. She was a despot in this matter. This was the belief about her current at the time.

Generous in her love for the man she loved, while that love lasted, she was generous with her money to make him happy. He could have any amount he desired while she was his, and use it in any way he liked. The people who would accept her love on her terms were themselves mostly quite well-to-do and rarely needed money from her. Most of them could really load her with their money. She received such gifts without any hesita­tion. No wonder that the lovers of pleasure in Moscow city looked forward to Isadora’s arrival with great eagerness.

The eagerness of pleasure-lovers is understandable. Why was there fear in their households Isadora’s eyes might fall on some handsome person who was the head of a household. If she offered herself to him, and he accepted her love, what would be the fate of the household? But this fear was modified by one hope. The woman might hold the man for some time; but at the end of it she would throw him away. After a short spell of folly, the man would have to come . This was a source of consolation to the households which felt the fear.

In the city with these feelings about her, Isadora made a triumphant entry on the day on which she was due. She took rest that day. Her programmes began the next day. Isadora was a great dancer. Her beautiful figure, her graceful movements, and the beauty of her dancing fascinated all, women as well as men; the old as well as the young: the poor as well as the rich; and even teenagers. No section of the population saw her but felt happy for having seen her.

What a beauty she was! A tall and graceful figure; a hand­some face; eyes that looked like two stars; the lips, the chin, the nose, the eyebrows; what grace, what wonderful charmer! And that swaying form! A few moments after she began to dance, the spectators forgot that the figure dancing in front of them was human. She danced as a fairy, a butterfly, an angel, and a swan; and as she danced each part, she became the thing that she was propounding in the dance in the butterfly dance she showed a butterfly flying in the morning light, and the morning air, and going from one creeper to another. Her movements were such perfect imaginative copy of the movements of the butterfly, that she ceased to be a woman, seemed a large-sized butterfly. In the dance of an angel, she seemed a person who had come down from paradise and was returning home. In the dance of a fairy, she was a fairy, and in the dance of the swan, she was a swan.

This beauty, this grace, this bliss, the spectators felt, are not things of this earth. The person in front is no mortal woman. She is celestial from paradise. The spot on which she is dancing is a square in the garden of the gods; and we are in paradise looking at her dance. The spectators felt that they were in another world, and were breathing paradise air.

Those who saw Isadora dance in this marvellous way, quite naturally desired, if possible, to go near her for a moment, and talk to her if possible. Isadora had understood this as soon as she began her career as a dancer; and made an arrangement to meet this wish of her fans. The group of people who had invited her to the place she visited, would arrange for persons of sufficient standing a dinner, or a tea, and she would be present at them. People who were not big enough for such special treatment could go to the front of her residence just before she went out for a morning stroll, or an evening engagement when she would appear on a balcony and greet them. The hosts in Moscow arranged for these dinners and teas and morning and evening gatherings. Isadora met all sorts of people freely in this way and became very popular among Moscow citizens within a week of her arrival.

Those who came to dinners and teas were aware as a rule that Isadora was an advocate of free love. Some among them liked to make her talk on the subject and to hear from her lips, words that society women would ordinarily not use in their talk. Isadora spoke these words without hesitation. That however did not mean that anyone could take liberties with her. If anyone tried to do so she would express disapproval with the same freedom with which she used that expression.

This became obvious in the very first gathering she attended. A guest asked her “We understand that you advocate free love. Is our information correct?”

“The phrase ‘free love’ by itself does not express my position. Many thoughtful people say now-a-days that certain restrictions in the relations between men and women now prescribed in society are harsh and should go. I plead for that view.”

“Will you kindly make your meaning clearer?”

“Certainly. Only, I beg you and the other elders in this gathering to try and understand my meaning correctly.”

“Correctly? What exactly does that mean?”

“I mean that you should understand what I say without adding to my words meanings suggested by personal prejudice.”

“That is quite proper.”

“I have not practised discussion as I have practised dancing. I shall merely state in simple words what I think. What people call ‘free’ when they speak of free love, has arisen from an idea which the advocates of free love have about woman’s place in the relations between men and women under present condition. They feel that man has complete freedom that it is completely denied to woman. The result is that woman is subjected to much trouble.”

“Example?”

“I suppose you know that the idea first mooted by a woman writer of France.”

“George Sand?”

“Yes. Her own life made her take that stand. She married with great pleasure a man she loved. He was not true to her. She bore her dissatisfaction as possible, but found after sometime that there was no happiness for her, unless she released herself from him. So, she began the movement for a way by which a woman in that position could obtain release.”

“Her proposal did not stop with that simple proposition.”

“No. The first idea that woman in such a position is entitled to release from her husband gives rise to the desire for freedom for woman in some other respects. George Sand stated these freedoms and tried to influence the public mind in their favour.”

“We have heard it said that the adoption of the changes proposed by George Sand would destroy the sanctity of the institution that society calls marriage.”

“Why did marriage become an institution? Basic ideas about the relations between men and women made it desirable. The arrangement which the institution brought in did not realise the ideas in full. We have to modify the arrangements. Till they are so modified, marriage will not have the sanctity that it should have. That sanctity has to be realised hereafter.”

“We have heard that it was George Sand’s idea that the desire of man and woman for each other is like the desire for a drink when one is thirsty. You can satisfy it much in the same way as when you take a drink. You choose your drink when you get it and take it.”

The talk so far had been between one guest and Isadora. When that guest made this statement, another guest who sat near him intervened in the discussion and said, “George Sand never said so. This is an idea which her opponents ascribed to her distorting what she had said merely to strengthen their argument.”

Isadora turned towards this guest and said, “That is true, I thank you for informing the company of this fact.”

The guest who had intervened was the well-known actor Stanislavski. Stanislavski, beside being a good actor, had read a great deal of modern thought. In reply to Isadora’s word of thanks, he said, “There is no need for thanking me. There is no one here who likes unfair censure of George Sand. Those who know the truth about her should correct wrong notions current about her when he comes to know them. That is their duty.”

Actress Volge who was a close friend of Stanislavski was seated beside him. She said: “Quite so. Yet, you know that all who know the truth, will not state it and correct erroneous reports. What you said helped the lady in this discussion. So she thanks you.”

Isadora learnt from a person near her who the young woman was, and said to her, “Thank you, Madamoiselle Volga, for helping me. People very often hesitate to contradict and allow wrong statements to go unchallenged.”

The result of Stanislavski’s intervention was that Isadora left the greater part of further discussion to Stanislavski. The substance of what he said was this.

From the earliest days of social life, man everywhere has prescribed rules for the smooth working of society, and devised institutions helping to observe them. Marriage is one of the institutions so devised. What we call civilisation is a result of these rules and these institutions. Society has not become perfect. It must become better than what it is. To become better, it must modify existing rules and institutions where necessary. The wise people in society have to consider what modifications are necessary to improve the present position. As part of this, they have to consider how present practice in the matter of the relations between man and woman can be improved. The wise people of society should sit together and consider matters calmly and come to decisions. Improving the institution of marriage is necessary not merely for the sake of woman; it is necessary for the sake of society as a whole. George Sand desired that the wise men of our societies should take this task seriously. There is nothing improper in that desire. The rules previously made have been misused by bad people. Any rule made by society can be so misused by persons of that kind. Constant vigil to modify existing rules so that the institution may work better is an absolute need. To make this view of George Sand mean that marriage as an institution should be abolished, and that man and woman may satisfy sex desire as they satisfy thirst where and when they like, is to distort her intention.

There were bad people in the old days. Marriage was devised to ensure safety from such people in society. There are bad people now. They use marriage for their purposes now. You must have heard of parents in France with grown-up sons saying “Our cock has started out. Take care of your hens.” Long ago in India men seem to have behaved in this way. In a play of Kalidasa, the king played with a young woman for some days, and left her and went his way. When she went to him with a child in her womb, he denied having met her. If this was the behaviour of the king, what should the subjects have been like? Civilisation must improve. There is no escaping this necessity.

Our error so far has been to think of woman as a companion in sex only. This is to narrow her functions unnaturally. She is mother, she is sister, she is daughter, she is friend, she is a fellow human. Civilisation must keep man in mind of this fact. Except for bearing children, woman is not different from man. That she does that, must make her an object for respect and tenderness, and save her from having to fight the male of her species, for her freedom.

By the time the discussion reached this stage, the function for which the invitees bad come, ended; and the gathering dispersed.

The topic came up again at a few other gatherings when this happened. Isadora said, “We discussed this matter some days ago. It was then made clear that what advocates of free love wanted was freedom for woman, not license. Your great actor Stanis­lavski has understood this subject perfectly. Those who wish to know more about it, please talk to him. He will explain it much better than I.” Those whose talk was stopped with this reply, said to each other; “Stanislavski has become her disciple.”

People who knew Stanislavski, knew his attitude in the matter of the man–woman relationship. “He is a modern”, they said. They also knew that his life was clear. So they would not talk lightly of him. But many who did not know him from near, thought that he lived a loose life. Volga and he were close friends. They believed that she was not only friend, but mistress. Such people hesitated to invite him to their houses. “His talk is fine, his conduct no better than it should be.” That was their idea of him. “Isadora invariably invites any young man she liked to her place and wins him over. She dallies with him as long as her fancy lasts; and then pushes him out, and looks out for another victim.” They expected to hear something like this about Stanisla­vski presently.

A week passed; ten days; fifteen days. Yet Isadora invited no one. More than to these people, this indifference on her part caused disappointment to many well-to-do young men who thought themselves handsome and expected some approach from her side.

In the gatherings that took place, Isadora met many of these people, young and not young; and also Stanislavski and Volga. She felt greatly attracted to Stanislavski and liked Volga. She met also Anton Chekov, who wrote the very successful play in which these two took part and acted. After some days she asked all the three of them to dinner on a particular night.

Chekov said that he was not very well, and excused himself Volga and Stanislavski went and dined with her.

They spoke about free love again. At one point in the discussion, Volga said something differing from Isadora. Isadora said, “That is merely a repetition of the old attitude. I am surprised that one so modern-minded as you think that way.”

Volga said, “Well, the modern mind also may look at things in many ways. We have to think of all these ways and choose what most of us think the best.”

“People who think that the change we advocate, will deprive them of some advantage they enjoy at present, obstruct the change. We cannot accept their objection.”

“This mistake is to think of it as a problem in which the male and the female stand on different sides. The fact is we have to think of the welfare of the whole race. In such thought man and woman are on the same side.”

“It really is a question of the balance between the two sides. As things are, all the advantage is on one pan. Some of it has to be taken out from that pan and put into the other.”

“That is correct. But what is the form of this advantage?”

“The advocates of free love say the man and woman can be husband and wife while both agree to have that relationship. If in living together one of them feels for some good reason that it is not worthwhile to continue the relationship, that one should be allowed to say so, and end that life.”

“On principle that can be accepted. But what harm might its practice mean in society, it would be difficult to say.”

Stanislavski said, “What Madamoisele Volga urges is that man and woman are not all of one pattern. The appetite for food differs from person to person; the appetite for sex differs too. One rule cannot apply to all. Reform has to move slow, watching the effects of change. Otherwise a change made in good faith may become a new evil in place of an old one.”

Isadora: “In that case the change we need cannot be effected in a century.”

Stanislavski: “That is possible. But, we must remember the institution of marriage has taken thousands of years to reach ifs present form from what it was in primitive times. It may take another thousand years to reach the perfect form we have in mind. We should perhaps think of that form as an ideal never to be reached.”

Volga: “We change institutions. We cannot change the nature of men and women. Institutions have to make full allowance for differences in the nature of people. Marriage, given a shape in the past, has, as we see now, failed in some respects. We must see why this has happened, and how the harm can be avoided. Actually we have to change the outlook of people, that is to say, the nature of people. This is a process that takes time.”

Isadora: “How many lives will suffer during that time?”

Stanislavski: “If we introduce the change you suggest, we might be causing the same amount of suffering. This husband and wife are managing somehow today. Another husband and wife are managing the same way. The husband in one case says he wants the relationship to end; the wife says it in the other case. They separate. Both husband and wife must go through some pain in consequence. The husbands in both cases and the wives in both cases must look for other wives and other husbands. If the husbands and wives are all young, they might find com­panions whom they think more suitable. What will be the position if they are middle-aged or even older? If a number of men and women go about seeking more desirable companions, what will be the state of the society? Husbands and wives are not only husband and wife; they have become parents; what about the children? Marriage was thought of to build families. The welfare of the family is as important as the personal satisfaction of the husband and wife.”

“That may be so, but it is difficult for the women, whose position has become intolerable to bear it in consideration for the family.”

“It is difficult. But what other way is there ready to band? Society has to consider the total. It cannot neglect the total and help the individual.”

All this discussion took place in perfect friendliness. There was no suggestion of difference of feeling. People must be happy. Society should be stable. How do we realise both these objects? Both sides desired to find the way. There was no anxiety to win in the argument.

When the guests left for their homes, Isadora asked Volga to come again the next afternoon if possible. Volga said that she could not come the next day, but would come other time. Isadora then said to Stanislavski, “Can you come tomorrow? Please do, if it is not inconvenient.” Stanislavski thought for a moment and said, “Yes, I shall come.”

When Stanislavski arrived the next day, Isadora was alone. She came to the door and received him, and took him into her private room.

Stanislavski noticed that there seemed to be no one else in the house. The woman, he suspected, might make some proposal he could not accept. But, he did not show it in any way He walked in with her and sat on a chair she showed him. She then went in and brought a plate with two glasses full of high class liquor. She placed it on a table in front of him and sat on a chair which was close to him and said, “Taste this wine; it is very old, fine, French liquor.” Stanislavski tasted the wine, and said, “Yes, it is very fine liquor.” A moment later, he said, “Are some other guests coming.?”

“No. This afternoon is dedicated to you.”

Stanislavski looked at her for a second as if to make sure of her meaning, and turned away without saying anything. After a minute or two Isadora drank the liquor in her glass and seeing that Stanislavski had finished the liquor in his, said, “Shall we go in?”

Stanislaviski replied in a very low tone, “No.”

“Did you say no?”

Stanislavisky nodded in assent. Isadora was stunned.

“You do not desire me?”

“Of course, I do.”

“Then?”

“Should we discuss the matter?”

“If you have no objection, I would like to know your mind.”

“Very well I desire you, but control the desire for two reasons.”

“What are they?”

“You may belong to me for sometime; and then decide to leave me and go. I do not wish to go through the anguish that that separation would cause me.”

“It is equally possible that you might wish to leave me.”

“I am not that type of male.”

“And what is the second reason?”

“You may bear my child, what about its future?”

“That can be thought about when there is a child.”

“I am not a male of that type either. I desire that my child must have its mother’s love and tending. I also should be available to it. If this were possible, I could have accepted your proposal. It is not possible; so, I do not think of it.”

“You are a strange kind of man.”

“Modern men seem strange to the average people today.”

“Am I not a modern woman?”

“You are modern to an extent, not enough.”

“No man whose company I desired has refused me so far, Do you know?”

“They were not men of my kind.”

Isadora was silent. After a few seconds she said, “I hope you do not think me an immoral woman.”

“I do not think of the matter.”

“Really?”

“Really, I am fully modern.”

“What exactly is that?”

“A fully modern person will not go about giving values to the people be meets, and labelling them as good, half good, not good, and so on. He accepts all as he finds them and allows them to act as they themselves think proper. The fully modern man considers no one a sinner. He does not presume to think that any one is bad.”

“Does it mean that after my proposal to you, and your rejection of it, you have the same good opinion of me as before?”

“I have the same opinion as before.”

“You are not meaning that it was not good.”

“That is not relevant. Is it?”

Isadora was deeply humiliated and looked at him with a very cruel look. Her one single impulse at the moment was that she should give him a slap. Only, giving it was out of the question.

Both were silent for quite two minutes. Stanislavski got up and said, “Shall I take leave?” Isadora got up and said, “Very well.”

After he had gone, she came from the doorway and picked up the two glasses from which she and her guest had taken the liquor and threw them spitefully on the ground. They broke to pieces, and the pieces were strewn all over the room.

Hearing the sound of broken glass, her servant-maid came from within, and looked in from the doorway. She saw that her mistress was in a great temper, and fearing to talk to her, quietly withdrew. Isadora behaved wildly the whole of that evening. That night she drank much more than usual; when the door-screen did not move easily she tugged at it and tore it; saying that the wine was not good, she threw down two glasses; complaining that the food was not good, she beat the cook. She lay in bed the whole night sleepless from a sense of unbearable humilia­tion. The next morning however she had recovered her temper and was able to go about normally.

Isadora Duncan wrote an account of her life years later. She named in it some important men whom she had desired, including Stanislavski, and said that all of them but Stanislavski had accepted her. She gave, as the reason for his refusal, the second one he had given to her; and did not refer to the first one. The account showed no trace of the humiliation she had felt at the man’s rejection of her advances. On the contrary, it showed, great satisfaction in the fact that while one man had turned away, all the others had accepted her. The maid-servant wrote an account of her life with this mistress and described how on a particular night, in their stay in Moscow the mistress had been in a vile temper and broke glasses, tore screens and beat the cook and indulged in altogether wild behaviour.

–Translated by the author from the original in Kannada