The English and French seem never to have been shy about taking sly little pokes at each other. In 1834 a New York newspaper reprinted from an unnamed London paper an article, "On the Exclusive in Dancing", which took aim at French ballroom etiquette. Apparently the French were questioning the propriety of the country dance:
[The French] appear to be growing fastidious in their amusements, and have learned to be English enough to question certain minor points of propriety and etiquette in their public balls; as, for instance, whether it be proper for a gentleman to resign the hand of his partner to contact with strangers for the mere preservation of a figure in a country dance,
and had in fact discarded country dances completely, in favor of
some more conjugal kind of movement, either waltzes, mazurkas, or galopes, that rivet a couple together for a whole evening till (we would fain hope) they were sick of one another and themselves.
Note the implications of "conjugal" there. In their sudden concern for "propriety", the French were abandoning the relatively innocent country dance in favor of dances like the waltz and galop that kept the dancers in each others' arms and had thoroughly scandalized the English in the early decades of the century.
The above alone would be an interesting tidbit about the changing popularity of particular dance forms in the 1830s, the tradition of partner-changing (or not), and the differences between the ballrooms of France and England. But the author then goes on to smugly insult the French by implying that the reason for these "contracts of fidelity" was some "internal weakness" of upper-class French ladies, who had to be protected from the least temptation, to which they would presumably succumb:
Their constancy to their partner would appear but a poor offering when they fear to endanger it by interchanging it with another.
The English were not exactly in a position to criticize the morals of the French in this area, but underneath the geopolitical sniping, there is an interesting point of ballroom etiquette.
The idea of fussing over touching hands with different people in a country dance was indeed notably ridiculous by the standards of the era, in France as much as in England, and I think the shift to couple dancing had more to do with changing fashions than a sudden attack of propriety by the French. But there does seem to be a major difference in custom here. In England and America, dancers not only had no problem touching hands, they also generally changed partners during an evening, as is amply attested to by writers from Jane Austen on down:
"The customary mode of changing partners is between every two dances, if a Quadrille or any other dance be introduced, partners are also changed, but this rule is irregular."
--- Anonymous. Analysis of the London ball-room (London, 1825)
Indeed, supplying people with partners was one of the principal tasks of the hosts of a private ball or the Master of Ceremonies at a public one:
"The master of the ceremonies must take care that every lady dances, and press into service for that purpose those young gentlemen who are hanging round the room like fossils. If desired by him to dance with a particular lady you should refuse on no account."
--- "A gentleman". The laws of etiquette; or, Short rules and reflections for conduct in society. (Philadelphia, 1836)
The author of the article is strongly in favor of such amiable mixing and unflatteringly compares the "supercilious behaviour" of the French ladies with the better behavior of the fishermen's wives of Boulogne, who
take for their partners the first good-natured person, gentle or simple, that offers, bestowing upon him in their cheerful talk and kind looks some of the bounty of their own guileless nature
The message that people who are genuinely innocent of any improper impulses would have no reason to avoid dancing with multiple partners is quite clear. The author also goes on at some length about the "refinement upon pleasure" of parting and meeting again, and the necessity for magnanimity in sharing the attention of the most attractive ladies.
Twenty years later, the famous London dance teacher and author Mrs. Nicholas Henderson was even more blunt about the impoliteness of people who danced only with each other at a ball:
"Whatever preference may be felt, none should be shown in a public assembly of pleasure, which should be one large family, and universal urbanity should prevail throughout. Perfect politeness conceals preferences and makes itself generally agreeable. Favouritism is suitable only for private life. Lovers are apt to forget this in the ball-room and make themselves disagreeable, and sometimes particularly offensive, by their exclusive devotion to one another. The ball-room is not the proper place for making love, but for general and agreeable association."
--- Mrs. Nicholas Henderson. Etiquette of the ball-room and guide to all the new and fashionable dances, third edition. (London, c1854)
Unless there is an explicit local custom of not changing partners, this is perhaps something those organizing and attending historical balls ought to keep in mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article from The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics and Literature is transcribed in full below. The Albion was a weekly New York newspaper described as "a political paper, devoted chiefly to English and colonial interests, and much read by the British in Canada, as well as in the States" in America, Historical, Statistic, and Descriptive (London, 1841) by J. S. Buckingham, Esq., as quoted in a review in the London journal The Literary Gazette and Journal of the Belles Lettres, Arts, Sciences, &c on May 22, 1841.
I have not been able to identify the London paper from which it was taken, but such borrowing across the Atlantic was quite common in American publications of the nineteenth century, and I have no reason to doubt the article's English origin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ON THE EXCLUSIVE IN DANCING.
"Our lively neighbours," as the daily journals delight to call the French, appear to be growing fastidious in their amusements, and have learned to be English enough to question certain minor points of propriety and etiquette in their public balls; as, for instance, whether it be proper for a gentleman to resign the hand of his partner to contact with strangers for the mere preservation of a figure in a country dance, and whether country dances had not better be discarded altogether, than at the price of such a custom. We regret that the question has been carried against the poor contredanses, and that that benevolent invention, so hope-inspiring and diffusive of good will, has been banished for some more conjugal kind of movement, either waltzes, mazurkas, or galopes, that rivet a couple together for a whole evening till (we would fain hope) they were sick of one another and themselves. What is become of the original innocence of the pastime, when people enter into these formal contracts of fidelity for the evening! What need is there for such a couple to seek a public assembly to perk their mutual preferences in the faces of those to whom they are probably as indifferent as they desire to be! A ball-room established on this system of repulsion can never look like itself, and no honest master of ceremonies from Beau Nash, to Simpson, of Vauxhall, would, we are convinced, give such a system his countenance.
Whoever has found time for reflection amidst the illuminazione a giorno of a ball room, has found fair faces looking more fair in proportion to their sympathy and general benevolence -- no as they signalized their affection for Mr. Thompson by a supercilious behaviour, and a scorn for all other created beings. The fishermen's wives of Boulogne, who dance on holidays in their flaming ear-rings and neat blue stockings, with the most perfect cheerfulness, and take for their partners the first good-natured person, gentle or simple, that offers, bestowing upon him in their cheerful talk and kind looks some of the bounty of their own guileless nature, and expecting a return in kind -- afford a complete instance of the morale of the art. With them dancing is an act of sociability, cheerfulness, benevolence, and in some sort reverts to its primitive employment as a religious ceremony.
The elegant Parisian ladies, who are so chary of their fingers' ends under the armour of two pair of gloves, must be conscious of some internal weakness -- Their constancy to their partner would appear but a poor offering when they fear to endanger it by interchanging it with another. According to the notions of the old school, there was something gallant and becoming in surrendering, as the forms of the dance required, the interest in a very handsome partner, as a temporary relief to gentlemen less blest in their selection. There was a refinement upon pleasure, in parting to meet again after the self-imposed penance had been incurred -- a magnanimity in showing the power to separate -- a respect for the prejudices of people's self-love, which does not permit any one individual to see himself willingly lower than another in the esteem of any estimable lady, though that other should be the husband elect, with many other things which do not seem to enter into the calculations of this utilitarian and revolutionary age. The personal influence of the fair sex lasts longer in the ball-room than anywhere else; but even waxlights will lose their power to prolong the reign of youth and beauty, if this Gallic humour of solitude in society should spread. Extremely beautiful persons have sometimes been thanked, half in irony, for making themselves hateful and disagreeable, that there might be some counteracting power to the tyranny of fine features. For our parts, we would risk the utmost danger that the most handsome face, with the most agreeable manners, could threaten, rather than bring disgust to our aid -- and would have the conscience of the ball-room consist in diffusing as much happiness and as many agreeable impression as possible. -- London paper.
Source: The Albion, A Journal of News, Politics and Literature, May 17, 1834
Comments