Russian Fifth Position vs. Cecchetti First: What the Ankles Reveal About Ballet Style
In classical ballet, the smallest details often carry the deepest stylistic meaning. A few millimeters at the ankle can signal an entire pedagogical lineage. Nowhere is this more apparent than when comparing the Russian (Vaganova-influenced) fifth position with the Cecchetti first position—and in how these distinctions were analyzed, discussed, and recorded through Labanotation by Ann Hutchinson Guest.
The Russian Fifth Position: Function Before Geometry
In the Russian school, particularly under the Vaganova tradition, fifth position is often taught with a pragmatic understanding of anatomy. While the ideal remains heels together and full turnout, many Russian teachers accept—sometimes even encourage—a microscopic opening at the ankles if it allows:
True turnout from the hips
Proper alignment of knees over toes
Freedom of movement in jumps and transitions
This can result in what dancers sometimes describe as a soft fifth: the legs are crossed tightly, but the heels are not aggressively forced together if doing so would compromise turnout or placement. The emphasis is on function, strength, and continuity of movement rather than a perfectly sealed geometric shape.
Cecchetti First Position: Clarity, Closure, and Appearance
By contrast, the Cecchetti method is famously precise and codified. In first position, Cecchetti explicitly disliked the appearance of a gap at the ankles and preferred the ankles fully closed. The position is defined by:
Heels firmly touching
Equal turnout in both legs
A clean, symmetrical, uninterrupted line
For Cecchetti, the closed ankle was both visual and technical. An open space between the ankles disrupted the clarity of the position and weakened its formal definition. Closure reinforced balance, stability, and leg coordination, but it also ensured that the position looked correct. The visual exactness of the shape mattered.
This reflects Cecchetti’s broader philosophy: positions should be immediately readable, formally exact, and consistent across dancers and contexts.
Ann Hutchinson Guest, Juilliard, and Labanotation: Writing the Difference
This distinction between schools was not just taught—it was documented, analyzed, and even debated.
Anne (Ann) Hutchinson Guest, one of the foremost authorities on Labanotation, devoted her career to recording movement with extraordinary precision. During one of my classes at Juilliard, she gave a talk in which she directly addressed this issue. She explained that Cecchetti did not like the appearance of the ankle gap and preferred the ankle fully closed, and that this preference was significant enough to be reflected in notation.
In her Labanotation analyses of classical ballet positions, Hutchinson Guest made clear that this was not a casual stylistic quirk but a defining structural principle of the Cecchetti method. A space between the ankles changed the meaning of the position itself. In notation terms, the presence or absence of that “hole” mattered—it altered alignment, weight distribution, and intent.
Her work demonstrates that ballet technique is not just tradition passed by word of mouth; it is a system that can be observed, discussed, and preserved in writing.
More Than a Gap: A Philosophical Divide
What appears to be a tiny difference at the ankle actually reflects two larger philosophies:
Russian fifth prioritizes anatomical truth, dynamic movement, and adaptability.
Cecchetti first prioritizes formal clarity, codified structure, and visual exactness.
Neither approach is inherently right or wrong. They simply answer different questions:
Should the body adapt the position?
Or should the dancer adapt the body to the position?
Thanks to Anne Hutchinson Guest’s meticulous work—and her direct teaching and discussions, including my instructors at Juilliard—we can see these answers not only in the studio mirror, but on the page, written into the very language of movement itself.