upon, with all seeming earnestness, the second informal committee of censors protests on grounds of respectability! Why? Is it because, in coming to that fourth position, two steps were taken in succession by the same foot? No, that is not it; it seems that fourth position is at fault, per se.
The character of the objections suggests the existence of an apprehension that an unqualified acceptance of the Tango would be risqué. There is no other explanation for the hostility, under present conditions of the dance. Yet, idle as are the objections, they cannot be quite overlooked. A certain number of vacillators are listening now to one voice, to another to-morrow: however great or small their influence, in ratio to its strength it will tend to denature a product that now has a flavour to interest discerning taste, yet hardly to imperil the weak-headed.
Dropping the above issue, the Tango's trick of the foot continues to be interesting; this time in relation to the interest of character. The sharp in-twist of the foot is one of the points of individuality both of the Tango and the dance of the Arab. Now, probable family relationship puts the Tango under no obligation to family traits, for the sake of family dignity; that is beside the point. But, in its own interest, the Tango would do well to take a careful look at the work of the Arab, to see that it is deriving equal profit from the same resources. Which it is not. By current usage (in the United States at least) the Tango makes a practice of toeing forward, or even in, to an extent that is not only monotonous, but which robs the quick in-turn device of the value of surprise. The Arab woman, on the other hand, places her feet at a natural angle; moreover, she
