Weaver never claimed that his three categories could not operate together.
In 1712 John Weaver theorized three broad categories in which dance might be understood: “serious,” “grotesque,” and “scenical.” He cast his net over a wide territory of movement possibilities that he regarded as belonging to the dancer’s art, or the dancing master’s science.
Serious dancing was something to admire for its grace, its strength and control, its symmetrical shapes, and its pleasing quality: it was a category that embraced both ballroom dancing by gifted (usually noble) amateurs, and professionals, who were obliged to make it somehow “bigger” in theatrical performances.
Although less concisely than Weaver, Magri referred to the three broad categories of his art as The true Ballerini, whether Seri or Comici must equally be in general possession of everything pertaining to dancing; no real distinction can be made between one Character and another, for if it is difficult to dance the A wide-ranging set of skills and technique was expected of the professional dancer in the eighteenth century, and although details of choreographic invention and specifics about preferred execution varied over place and time, the basic conception of dancing styles and a dancer’s versatility remained remarkably stable across the continent and the century.
It is within this theoretical framework that I will assess Rich’s performances on the London stage. Dupre is Louis Dupré who first danced at the newly reopened Lincoln’s Inn Fields theatre in 1714.
More notated dances in which he was a named performer survive for him than for any other male dancer on the London stages.
These choreographies require a very high level of skill and agility, and in one – a solo for Dupré – a remarkable feat of control and strength as well (see illustration 4).
 From surviving cast lists it is clear that many of the leading professional dancers of the day participated, and the evidence suggests that they danced in both serious and comic styles with great skill.
In his review of some of the famous English dancers of his time and the recent past, for example, John Essex remarked in 1728 that “the Performers upon both Stages [Drury Lane and Lincoln’s Inn Fields] at this Time are very eminent in Serious as well as Comic.”  And while a pantomime almost always featured sung items, often located within scene units not dedicated to mimed and dance action,  the decision to sometimes call the whole show “a dance” is certainly understandable: movement (of several varieties) accompanied by music was a dominant component.
It is hardly surprising that John Rich has come to be regarded in recent scholarship as a great dancer. Some of the surviving pictorial evidence might lead one to conclude that Lun was a dancer of considerable prowess.
Perhaps the most frequently reproduced depiction of John Rich as a dancer is an engraving from the collection of the Garrick Club in London (see Illustration 1 below).
By 1728, on the other hand, Weaver revised his categorization of dancing styles, likely in response, if only in part, to the great popularity comic pantomime or “grotesque” entertainments had acquired.