Modern Grace, or the Operatical Finale to the ballet of Alonzo e Caro (sic): Charles Didelot with Rose Didelot and Mlle Parisot. Etching coloured by hand by Gillray, 1796.

On a stage set with a sun with a disapproving expression, three figures are dancing, flanked by two twirling female figures wearing Empire dresses. In the centre, the man stands on his right leg, his left leg raised and bent, his body facing the viewer with his right arm curved over his head and his left curved at shoulder height; he wears striped jacket and breeches with a small cloak and feathered hat. His head is turned to his left, looking at a female dancer, wearing a diaphanous one-shouldered dress which leaves her right breast bare and her hair is classically dressed. She stands on her left leg, with her right bent outwards behind and both arms raised. The dancer to the left stands on her right leg, the left raised modestly behind; her right arm is curved at shoulder height and her left arm is curved over her head; her hair is undressed and bound with a ribbon. She wears a 'Greek' knee-length dress, with short sleeves and modest neckline; through the diaphanous fabric it appears that she is wearing an undergarment to just above the knee. Her sharp profile is turned towards the central dancer with a sour expression.

Given by Dame Marie Rambert

The figure on the left is Mme Rose and the central figure her husband, Charles Didelot. Didelot enticed the promising young Rose Pole away from the Paris Opera in 1793 and they were a sensation on their London debut in 1796; Mme Rose’s grace, dignity and ease were especially praised. References to the graceful disposition of her body indicate that the scantiness of her dress was equally a draw. Parisot was admired for her ‘attitudes’ rather than her dancing, but she became a rival to Mme Rose, who is always shown in prints as a sharp-faced woman, usually with a disapproving expression, in contrast to the pretty, appealing Parisot.
Parisot is usually depicted with one breast bare – whether this was something that happened once or was a usual feature of her dress and performance has never been satisfactorily established.
The print is part of the collection of dance prints amassed by Marie Rambert and her husband, Ashley Dukes in the first half of the 20th century. Eventually numbering 145 items, some of which had belonged to the ballerina Anna Pavlova, it was one of the first and most important specialist collections in private hands.
Rambert bought the first print as a wedding present but could not bear to give it away. As the collection grew, it was displayed in the bar of the Mercury Theatre, the headquarters of Ballet Rambert, but in 1968, Rambert gave the collection to the Victoria and Albert Museum; seven duplicates were returned to Rambert, but these are catalogued in Ivor Guest's A Gallery of Romantic Ballet, which was published before the collection came to the V&A. Although often referred to as a collection of Romantic Ballet prints, there are also important engravings of 17th and 18th century performers, as well as lithographs from the later 19th century, by which time the great days of the ballet in London and Paris were over.

"Engraved and drawn by J s Gy"

The figure on the left is Mme Rose and the central figure her husband, Charles Didelot. Didelot had enticed the promising young Rose Pole away from the Paris Opera in 1793 and they were a sensation on their London debut in 1796; Mme Rose's grace, dignity and ease were especially praised. References to the graceful disposition of her body indicate that the scantiness of her dress was equally a draw. Parisot was admired for her 'attitudes' rather than her dancing, but clearly she became a rival to Mme Rose, who is always shown in prints as a sharp-faced woman, usually with a disapproving expression, in contrast to the pretty, appealing Parisot. Mme Rose's costume was a model of decorum compared with Parisot's; Parisot is usually depicted with one breast bare - whether this was something that happened once or was a usual feature of her dress and performance has never been satisfactorily established.

E.4971-1968