- Era: 1850s through early 1900s, England and America
No, it isn't just a children's rhyme! The tune is older, but in the mid-nineteenth century a rather silly dance began appearing both on sheet music and in dance manuals. It seems to have been hugely popular, which reminds me that (1) dancing was a pastime for young adults and (2) most nineteenth-century punch recipes involved significant amounts of alcohol.
Most of the early (mid-century) sources bill Pop Goes the Weasel as an "ancient" English dance, "recently revived." Some elaborate that it has been revived "among the higher classes of Society." One piece of sheet music grandly proclaims that it was "Lately introduced at Her Majesty's Nobilities [sic] Balls." In his article on the song, British writer Michael Quinion quotes an advertisement from 1854 which described the dance as actually having been introduced by Victoria herself. Quinion and I are equally skeptical of this piece of puffery, but it's clear from the sheer quantity of surviving sources that the dance was popular on both sides of the Atlantic.
[Update 2/12/09: Elaine in the comments reminds me that Victoria's dancing master, Joseph Lowe, frequently mentions doing Pop Goes the Weasel with the royal children and their friends, and that the introductory material to the 1992 edition of Lowe's diaries (partially available online via Google here) mentions that it was danced at Court balls. I'm still skeptical that it was actually introduced to society by Victoria, but it does seem to have been danced by the royal family!]
Some of the earlier sources include phrases along the lines of Coulon's statement that Pop Goes the Weasel is "performed in the same manner as the Country dance, the ladies and gentlemen being placed in lines opposite to each other." It's not clear what makes it not a country dance, so I feel that it's a distinction which makes little difference in practice, especially since other sources, early and late, categorize it as such. Like most country dances, the formation is a longways set of couples.
Figures
The basic four-figure sequence of the dance is similar in every source, perfectly matched to the music. The dance is begun by the couple at the top of the set.
8b Active couple down the middle and back again to original places
8b Active couple go down the outside of the set and back again
8b Active couple takes the next lady and the three circle around to the right then back to the left, ending with the lady going under the active couple's raised arms while all sing "pop goes the weasel!"
8b Active couple takes lady's partner and repeats the circling and "pop"
I interpret the circling as clockwise and then counter-clockwise, as is typical in country dances.
A few sources scramble the music correlation slightly, allowing sixteen bars for the third figure; these are clearly misprinted, since the same sequence then takes eight bars in the fourth figure and the song itself would not match a forty-bar dance.
Most of the mid-century sources (sheet music and dance manuals) describe the movement in the first sixteen bars as a "run," a somewhat alarming prospect given the crinolines and hoop skirts fashionable in the era. Later sources in the 1880s and 1890s, less detailed, generally say nothing about the style of movement. One exception is a manual in which it is described as a "march." It's difficult to know whether this was a later variation or simply a regional one; the source (Koncen) is from St. Louis and was published in 1883. Given that sixteen bars of music are occupied by one couple parading down the set and up again twice, a little exuberance on the part of the active couple probably adds to the entertainment value. I suspect that nowadays other dancers in the set would succumb to the urge to clap, and I probably wouldn't try too hard to suppress that impulse.
Progression
In the last half of the dance the first couple progresses down one place by "popping" the second couple to the places above them. The first couple then goes down and up the middle and the outside again and repeats the circling and popping with the next couple, and so on to the bottom of the set. Several sources explicitly state that when going down the outside, once progressed, the couple "breaks through" the lines and goes down from wherever they may happen to be rather than going all the way back to the top of the set, as is standard practice in modern country dance genres (ECD, contra, RSCDS) today. Once the first couple has passed two couples, the couple now at the top begins the same sequence in typical "snowball" progression style until the entire set is dancing. Some sources wait until the first couple has passed three couples, leaving, in effect, a "neutral" couple between each group of dancers.
Since, like all snowball-progression longways dances, this could take a very long time and far too many repeats of the music to do in a long set, I would recommend holding the sets at perhaps four couples. That would allow the dance to be performed in nine repeats if couples start off as soon as they have another couple to dance with, or twelve repeats if they wait one more before beginning. (See my earlier post here for more detail on how the snowball progression works and how much music is needed for a longer sets.)
Variations
There are three areas in which the figures vary from source to source:
1. The great majority of the sources start the dance with the active couple moving down the center of the set and up again, but a few sources reverse the first two parts and have the couple move down the outside first, then the inside.
2. Again, the overwhelming majority of the sources take the lady first for the circle-and-pop sequence, but a few sources take the gentleman first and then his partner.
3. I found three variations on how the circling is performed: (a) Some sources suggest turning one and a half times around rather than reversing direction. This leaves the first couple below the second lady and messes up the progression, since she is "popped" back to her original place. It's easy enough to fudge this by doing the progression when the active couple heads down the set again, though. (b) Several later sources (1880s onward), describe the move as right hands across and left hands back. This, of course, means that the active couple must either make an unusual arch of left hand in left or drop hands and rejoin them to form the more usual style of arch; either is more awkward than simply moving from circling into an arch. (c) Finally, one source, from 1893, describes a sequence of "balance to the second lady, three hands around" prior to the "pop."
While none of these variations strike me as particularly necessary, 3(b) might be construed as a somewhat more accurate version for a very late 19th-century ball.
Music
The tune is the familiar one. Since I have no source for the dance earlier than the mid-19th century, I am somewhat skeptical of any claim to be an "ancient" dance. But the tune at least seems to be rather older. Quinion quotes a correspondent, David Joyce:
“The tune is a version of that used for the country dance, The Haymakers, which has the same form as Strip the Willow, and Bab at the Bowster (a couple hold hands, forming a bridge, which the other couples have to pass under). The tune was published in Gow’s Repository, issued in four volumes between 1799 and 1820. Thus the tune was around at least half a century before the American publication of Pop Goes The Weasel, but is certainly very much older. (It is similar to the tune used for Humpty Dumpty, and not far removed from Lilliebulero and Rock A-bye Baby, all jigs traceable back to the seventeenth century.)”
While examining the many versions of the song lyrics would make a fascinating project, it is not particularly relevant to the dance. The only lyric required in dancing is the periodic repetition of "pop goes the weasel!" The various songs are entertaining, however, so I will conclude with a brief excerpt from one:
I have no moral to my song
But this I've got to say, sirs,
We're but the beings of an hour
And soon will pass away, sirs.
Like others, I must "gang my gait,"
And hope my song don't please ill.
There's nothing more for me to say --
But -- pop goes the weasel!
Those interested in the history and meaning (such as it is) of the lyrics may read further at Michael Quinion's World Wide Words or at The Phrase Finder.
I haven't yet tried this dance with actual dancers at an event; if anyone does, I would be curious to know how it was received.
[Update (11/27/08): I ran the dance very successfully at a Remembrance Day Ball; see details in the comments. It was well-received by an adult crowd of not-very-experienced dancers.]
Sources for Pop Goes the Weasel
The dance Pop Goes the Weasel appears in numerous dance manuals and on sheet music throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. A representative sampling of sources is below.
Dance manuals
Anon. Wehman Bros.' Book on the Way to Dance. New York, c1900.
Cartier, [Professor]. Cartier's Practical Illustrated Waltz Instructor. New York, 1882.
Coulon, Eugene. Coulon's Hand-Book. 3rd edition. London, 1860.
Ferraro, Edward. The Art of Dancing. New York, 1859.
French, J. A. The Prompter's Hand-Book. Boston, 1893.
Harvey, J. H. Wehman's Complete Dancing Master and Call Book. New York, 1889.
Hillgrove, Thomas. A Complete Practical Guide to the Art of Dancing. New York, 1863.
Howe, Elias. Elias Howe's Complete Ball-Room Handbook. Boston, 1858.
Koncen, Mathias J. Professor M. J. Koncen's Quadrille Call Book. St. Louis, 1883.
Radestock, Rudolph. The Royal Ball-Room Guide. London, c1877.
Sheet music
Pop Goes the Weasel, or, Fun & Frolic. With a Full description of the Figures. Baltimore, n.d. (Quinion claims 1850).
Pop Goes the Weasel; La Tempete; and Le Grand Pere. Three Fashionable Dances. London, n.d.
Pop Goes the Weasel. With a full description of the Figures by Eugene Coulon and the Original Music Arranged by John C. Scherpf. New York, 1853.
Pop Goes the Weasel. New & Popular Dance. Philadelphia, n.d.
Pop Goes the Weasel, or, Fun and Frolic. With a full description of the figures. Philadelphia, 1854.
Pop Goes the Weasel. Comic Song. Written & Adapted by Eugene Raymond. Baltimore, 1856.
Pop Goes the Weasel. Buffalo, 1864.
Something to remember is that the tune, as most of us learn it as children, is a jig, so if dancers are walking the dance (and not skipping), they're walking on beats 1 and 4 of each measure. For this to work, the tune needs to be played rather more briskly than we are wont to sing it to children. In addition, for the dance to work, you either need to go twice through the tune ABAB, or repeat each "line" of the children's verse twice AABB.
It took me a shamefully long time to figure this out, and my first several attempts to reconstruct and teach this dance went painfully badly.
Posted by: jennie | August 27, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I thought the need to repeat the tune would be obvious (play the tune, walk in the rhythm that comes naturally, and it takes two repeats to get through one repeat of the dance) so I didn't make a point of it, but yes, jennie is absolutely correct about this.
jennie, have you ever tried it with live dancers? What did they think? I have trouble picturing a group of modern adult enjoying it, but I've certainly been surprised before.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | August 27, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I ran "Pop Goes the Weasel" at a Remembrance Day Ball in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, last weekend and it was a success! I ran it a little after the halfway point of the ball, which meant the less dedicated dancers had already left (many come mainly for the dinner beforehand and leave right after the grand march). I used period progression (top-down starts), holding the sets at four couples to keep the complexity minimal and for the sake of the poor musicians. That still meant eighteen times through the tune, but they were fairly good-spirited about it. I was impressed that this group, which does not have a lot of regular dancers in it, managed the progression with no trouble at all. There's something to be said for ignorance in this case: they had no preconceptions about how the progression ought to work, so they just followed my instructions without trying to get clever. I was disappointed not to get more people singing, though. But people were happy with the dance and want to do it again next year.
I am now trying to decide if I want to add a second, more complicated longways progressive dance for them next year as well. Such dances are found all over period dance manuals, but are rarely called at vintage dance community balls, since differing roles for couples and that sort of progression are challenging to people unfamiliar with them. Most callers (myself included) just find it easier to go with the couple-facing-couple "form as for the Spanish Dance" progression, which gives out balls a weird skew in the format of our country dances. I doubt I can find one as easy as "Pop," but if I do "Pop" early and a second one later, it might work.
Gettysburg in November is my only current Civil War-era gig, so I don't know if I'll have another chance to experiment before then.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | November 27, 2008 at 08:16 AM
Sounds like it went well!
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | November 27, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Patri used to use this dance several times at the Returning Heroes Ball, back when it was held in Winchester. No one complained about it being childish.
It also appears to be part of Cecil Sharp's repertoire, though I haven't checked the sources. Intriguing if true; I've always felt he was influenced by 19th century contras*, but this is the first solid evidence of it that I (personally) know of.
*In this case, I am using the term "contra" to distinguish between country dances of the 19th century and either the earlier Playford dances that Sharp mostly referred to or the EFDSS dances that he started.
Posted by: Michael | February 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM
I may have to recalibrate my estimate of what adults enjoy doing after watching a group of them become fiercely competitive at a Victorian dance-game version of musical chairs a couple of weeks ago!
Since Sharp was born in 1859 and thus grew up with mid- to late-19th century social dancing, it's hardly surprising that it influenced his work. His versions of 17thc country dances display 19thc style tics. I'm not sure the distinction you're making between country dances and contra is valid, though; both terms were used by different people to refer to the same dances for much of the 19th century. I think the division between the forms is a 20th-century artifact.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | February 10, 2009 at 12:52 PM
You can't really say "what adults enjoy doing" without specifying which adults. I called "Pop Goes The Weasel" (one of the versions in the Community Dances Manuals, basically the same as you've got here, but as a simultaneous-start duple minor rather than a snowball) for an English dance sponsored by a group of occasional contra dancers but largely attended by International Folk Dancers, years back. They didn't dig it. (Too much standing around for the 2s, I think.) But I'm confident that historical recreationists, mixed adult-child community groups, etc, would do it happily.
Basically, there's not enough in this for country dance hobbyists, but there's plenty for normal adults. (But then, there's plenty of fun for normal adults in the not-even-a-dance-at-all modern cotillon variation with the two long lines and the favor.)
On the "fiercely competitive" front, it turns out that one of the way to get dance-hobbyist adults to have silly fun with simple dances is to make them competitive in some way. (There are a couple of mixer dances where you get three couples in a circle and they make a six-hand handshake star, then the bottom hands pull the lady through and swing, then the next, and so on. (And then maybe the new couples promenade around the ring and find another group, or some such.) Point out that the lowest pair of hands get the longest swings, and contradancers will get really competitive to be that lowest pair, and not notice that there's nothing to the dance. Similarly, describe the galop to the bottom in "Gothic Dance" as a race, and they're all over it.
I agree with Susan that "contra" and "country dance" isn't a meaningful distinction for 19th century dance. Michael should note that some 19th-century sources say "contry" where he'd say "contra".
(It's meaningful *now*, of course, when (modern) contra dancers and (modern) English country dancers are two largely separate communities, music styles are really different (even when it's the same musicians), dance styles are really different (even when it's the same dancers and callers).)
Posted by: Alan Winston | February 11, 2009 at 09:08 AM
There's not necessarily enough in the dance for the vintage dancer subset of historical recreationists, either. The Gettysburg ball is more a CW reenactor ball than a vintage dance event, and it went over fine there. Returning Heroes is also heavily populated with CW reenactors. I'm not sure either group could be described as normal, exactly. :)
I'm not sure I'd try calling it at an event aimed more at any specifically-dance-oriented community.
On the other hand, my very dance-oriented cotillion group was perfectly willing to spend a lot of time sitting in chairs in a circle watching people act out various bits of silliness. So you never know.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | February 11, 2009 at 09:13 AM
I *did* specify that the scope of my use of "contra" vs "country" was that comment. I needed to make the distinction at that time, in my context as a 20th century person (I haven't lived long enough in the 21st yet). I agree that the division is a 20th century artifact.
I have also noted the "tics" -- what I was pointing out was that here we had a whole dance, lock, stock, and barrel. I expect there are others, and would be interested in an analysis showing how many. It could be useful in friendly conversations with modern ECD enthusiasts who think that Sharp's work was an accurate reconstruction of 17th and 18th century dances.
Alan has an interesting point about the benefits of competition. On the negative side, the "race" figure in "Gothic Dance" is so obviously a race that Patri and Barbara found/find it helpful to maintain decorum by asking dancers NOT to race during it. De-fanging it by giving the first couple to the bottom the *bottom*, rather than top, position in line seems to help.
All that aside, I'll admit that I find it a somewhat boring dance myself.
Posted by: Michael | February 11, 2009 at 07:14 PM
Michael:
It's listed in Sharp's Country Dance Book Pt. 1 and Pt. 1 2nd Ed. (two versions in the latter), though since I don't have copies of those I can't check to see what his version actually looks like. Sharp didn't just go back to Playford for dances -- he also collected current community dances in the U.S. and England. It seems reasonable that this dance would have hung around in folk tradition for a couple of decades given its apparent popularity (it was still appearing in dance manuals at least to 1900). I expect there are others in his collections. It wouldn't be hard to just get a list of the dances in his books for comparison, if you're all that curious.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | February 11, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Here's how it was done in Ilmington, Warwickshire in 1926 (notated from a film)
Pop Goes the Weasel
A1 In groups of three (2nd lady and 1st couple), right hand star. At the ‘pop’ 1st lady is sent under the joined hands of the other two to the top position.
A2 The second man joins the star, and the first man is popped out to his home position
B1 First couple leads down and back.
B2 Everyone swing and change.
Sharp collected a version from Armscote in Warwickshire (version 1 in the Country Dance Book) which is close to, but not the same as this one.
I've also found that it was popular with Queen Victoria and her family - see A New Most Excellent Dancing Master: The Journal of Joseph Lowe's Visits to Balmoral and Windsor (1852-1860) to Teach Dance to the Family of Queen Victoria
By Joseph Lowe, Allan Thomas
Edition: illustrated
Published by Pendragon Press, 1992
ISBN 0945193300, 9780945193302
135 pages
(you can read some of it via Google books)
Posted by: Elaine | February 12, 2009 at 08:39 AM
Elaine,
Interesting later version, though obviously folk-processed from the mid-19th century one. It would help if you would define your terms; "swing" could mean at least four different figures and "change" could likewise mean a couple of different things, so I'm not quite sure how that last figure looks.
Good catch on Lowe's journal! I've read that, and I completely forgot about the mentions of "Pop" there. I think all the actual entries in which he mentions doing it are children's dances, though in the introduction it's mentioned (with no supporting cites) that the Queen used it at Court Balls. I'll update the post to reflect this.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | February 12, 2009 at 09:29 AM
The following ad appeared in The Times of London of December 22, 1852:
POP GOES the WEASEL: the new dance recently introduced with such distinguished success at the Court balls and at the balls and soirées of the nobility, is now published with the original music and a full explanation of the figures, by Mons. E. Coulon. Price 1s., postage free, Jullien and Co., 214 Regent-street.
This is two years earlier than the once cited by Michael Quinion
In a review of a show at St James's Theatre, London, on November 5, 1853, The Times stated that, the music for a ballet divertissement having been lost, the 'gods' started singing "Pop goes the weasel" in chorus. This rather suggests that it already had words.
Posted by: Lawrence Silverman | July 01, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Only just revisiting this now. Swing and change - I'm not a dance teacher or caller, but a musician, so this may be vague. It's a common English Ceilidh figure these days. Basically 2 couples swing (and the type of swing varies depending on the dancers)and change places by rotating around each other while they swing. In the film it's a two-handed swing (done by pre-teen girls).
Posted by: Elaine Bradtke | March 16, 2011 at 11:08 AM