Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about some of the tidbits of evidence of ladies or gentlemen dancing in same-gender couples in Regency-era ballrooms. I'm returning to the topic of same-gender dancing with an interesting article I discovered in an issue of a late-nineteenth-century American dance magazine, The Two Step, published at the time by dancing master and author H. N. Grant, out of Buffalo, New York.
The June, 1898, issue (Vol. 5, No. 47) includes a short essay on an important topic: "May a Lady Dance Backward." It opens with a strong statement in favor:
Should a lady be taught to use the backward step in the waltz?
Yes we say, most emphatically yes.
That opens up all sorts of interesting questions, doesn't it? Were ladies not generally even taught to waltz backward? Was that actually controversial?
Apparently, it was not a problem in the anonymous author's school:
We have taught the ladies to retreat with the waltz step ad lib., for ten years or more, yet its excessive use is seldom ever seen in our establishment. In all our experience, we have yet to find a lady who objects to dancing backward or a change. They even ask for the practice.
I've certainly seen it considered impolite for a gentleman to force a lady to go backward for any length of time, and the article does support that etiquette tip:
We are not advocating the fad of rushing the lady half way, or completely across, or around the hall in a backward position. We know that this is done in some places and is entirely wrong. All things become wrong when carried to excess.
But done in moderation, it should be quite acceptable:
Would it be an unpardonable breach of etiquette for the gentleman to occasionally allow his partner to make two or three retreating movements? We hardly think so.
A fuss over ladies dancing backward would be generally amusing as a nineteenth-century tempest in a teapot, but it's the author's other argument for ladies learning to dance backward that really makes this essay noteworthy:
Why should she not have as much liberty and control over direction as the gentlemen to make her a competent leader in the dance when necessity requires it? Let someone answer the question.
Should not the lady be taught to lead in dancing as well as the gentleman? If not, why not?
That's a surprising position for a nineteenth-century dancing master to take, even if it is couched in terms of "necessity", which presumably means when there are considerably more ladies at a ball than gentlemen, a predicament sadly familiar to most historical dancers.
I think it most likely (though it is probably unprovable) that the author of the article and other anonymous material in The Two Step was H. N. Grant himself, but the opening is such a strong statement that it makes me wonder if there was a female author lurking behind the lack of byline. Though it follows logically from the idea of all-female dance classes and the large number of female dance teachers, I don't think I've ever before seen such a direct suggestion that "to make the lady a competent leader" was even a minor afterthought in a typical nineteenth-century dance school.
The author of the article obviously expected some pushback. But he (or she) kept on making the argument, starting with the obvious technical point that in the "new" waltz of the late nineteenth century, the backward step was incorporated into the turn itself:
Can a lady or gentleman lead in waltzing, alternating the turn in either direction, without making a retreating movement? No indeed. One who says it can be done in the waltz proper, would only show how little they knew of the rotary movements and positions of the feet.
As a dance teacher myself, that was my own first thought when I saw the title of the article: how would it even be possible for a lady to waltz without knowing the backward step? Practicing both forward and reverse movements is an integral part of the exercises given by dancing masters like M. B. Gilbert in his 1890 Round Dancing (see, for example, Exercise I on page 81). I can't imagine teaching this waltz without using both directions of movement.
The author also addresses the clothing issue:
It would of course be entirely wrong to have a lady move backward dressed in court costume or with a train dress of any description. In such cases, the lady would also be debarred from taking the lead with another lady. We must suit our actions to time and place.
The problem of dancing backward in a train is well-known, and any competent gentleman dancer should know not to force a lady in a train backward. But to see it discussed as an issue of whether a lady ought to take the lead role or not is fascinating. And, again, it makes me wonder about the authorship; would a male author have thought about the problems of dancing in a train?
-------------------------------------
Along with the proposal that ladies should learn to dance backward in order to lead, the article also directly endorses the most basic foundation of nineteenth-century improvisation, the standard four directions: forward, backward, turning to the right (natural turn), and turning to the left (reverse turn).
The most pleasing way to waltz is varying the direction in every conceivable manner, allowing the lady where she is a capable dancer to take from one to three backward movements ad lib., thus relieving the monotony of following up the three directions of right, left, and forward.
Also of interest is the apparent disintegration of the concept of line of dance, foreshadowing the more chaotic dance floor of the 1910s:
Where a couple can take the backward step easily, they may weave in a most scientific manner, through a crowd that is moving in all directions. This bad style, if it may be so termed, has been rapidly meeting with general favor, and will continue to grow in popularity , despite what any one or more associations may say, or individuals who hang and stick to the old orthodox ways may claim.
Finally, the author goes off on a tangent about the Boston Dip and the two-step, which he or she considered much worse problems in the ballroom and much more worthy of opprobrium on the part of dancing masters. Ladies going backward, by comparison, was a ridiculous thing to fight over:
Should any one of the associations make a law enforcing by expulsion their members to prohibit the ladies from occasionally dancing backward, then will their ranks grow beautifully less, or else no attention must be paid to breaking of the law.
I heartily agree, but I'm fascinated to see the discussion was even being had, and to see it having been put in the context of making ladies into competent leaders. I've seen and done plenty of leading at balls "when necessity requires it", which is the practical approach for most historical dancers today, but it's nice to see the idea so strongly supported in the late 1890s as well.
I love the idea that it could be a female author, and of course it could. But in my own experience of social dance, I find that men are the most vocal advocates of ladies learning to lead, and learning to do it well. The motivations I notice most are (1) It takes the pressure off them - they no longer have to look after a needy partner or feel the pressure of a row of mournful eyes and (2) they want to follow and would prefer to follow a woman rather than a man.
Posted by: Eleanor | January 05, 2017 at 01:25 PM