Even rarer than clear descriptions of the two-step of the turn of beginning of the twentieth century are clear diagrams of the two-step. The one below (click to enlarge), depicting the gentleman's steps, was provided by the Springfield School of Dancing (Springfield, Ohio) and published in the April, 1919, issue of H. Layton Walker's dance journal, The Two Step (Buffalo, NY; Volume XXIX, No. 4, p. 23.) This is a very late description of the two-step, whose prime period of popularity was in the first decade of the twentieth century. It does not appear to have evolved at all, at least not in Springfield, Ohio.
Sadly, it was not accompanied by a description of the dance, but the diagrams are very clear. I'll break down the four variations shown, but first, let's look at the dance position.
Here's a larger image; click to enlarge even further:
Note the classic nineteenth-century dance position, with the arms extended low out to the side. The exact placement of the woman's left hand will depend on the length of the dancers' arms. The gentleman's right hand at the lady's waist works well if the lady is wearing a corset to support her back.
Now, for the steps. I've broken them out of the diagram and reoriented them for easiest viewing. First, here are the two turns. Natural (right) is at top and reverse (left) at bottom:
The right turn starts at the upper right. It's hard to read the numbers (1+2, 1+2) on the steps, so I suggest clicking and enlarging the image. From the initial position, the gentleman steps with the left foot sideways to the left (1), closes the right foot (+), and steps left again, turning clockwise halfway (2). Then he steps right with the right foot (1), closes the left foot (+), and steps right again, turning halfway (2). That makes it quite clear that the slide (1) and close (+) are straight along the line of dance, and the turn happens on the final movement (2), rather than the entire sequence being performed in a curved line. This works perfectly when dancing along, but when dancing with a partner, the final movement (2) must be a bit forward to step either around the lady (first half) or between her feet (second half) in order to make the turning work.
The left turn starts at lower right. Again, the gentleman steps left to the side (1) and closes the right foot (+), but then steps left again and turns counter-clockwise halfway (2), just as the arrow shows. The second half is likewise right to the side (1), close the left foot (+), and step right again, turning halfway (2) to complete the turn to the left. The same warning about dancing with a partner applies: on the first half of the reverse turn the gentleman must step a bit forward between the lady's feet on the final step (2) as she steps around him, then on the second half he must step slightly forward and around her.
Next, we have the forward and backward movement:
The forward sequence, at left, starts off with a two-step sideways, leading with the left foot (left to the side (1), close right (+), left to the side (2) ) before moving into the actual forward step, leading with the right foot: step right foot forward (1), close left in third position behind (+), and step right forward again (2). In this case, the final step is turning one-quarter clockwise. Assuming the forward step is moving along the line of dance, that would put the gentleman's left shoulder toward line of dance, in preparation for turning either right or left.
The backward sequence, at right, starts off with the same sideways two-step leading with the left foot (left-close-left, 1+2), before depicting the backward step leading with the right foot: step right foot back (1), close left in third position in front (+) and step backward right again (2). The final step is turning one-quarter counter-clockwise, which again would put the gentleman's left shoulder toward line of dance and the couple ready to turn.
It's interesting that the forward and backward steps are alway made with a right foot lead following a sideways step to the left, but I'm not sure whether that's meant as a specific way to dance or just to fit nicely in the sequence and on the diagram. Certainly there's no reason one can't two-step forward or back leading with either foot, or with both alternately. Also note the close of the feet (on "+") is shown as to third position, not side-by-side in first. The former is much easier to lead when traveling forward or backward than the latter. The is essentially the "crossing" mentioned in The Dancing Times (London) less than a year later as an enhancement to the two-step in the foxtrot, as I discussed here. In England closing to first seems to have been the norm by this time, so closing to third (or perhaps even fifth) was an exciting variation.
The steps diagrammed here are essentially the same, allowing for differences in time signature, as those described verbally by English dancing master Edward Scott. Scott put the two-step in 6/8 time and counted it 1...3,4.... rather than 1+2 (more typically notated as 1&2),
In the full diagram (up at the top of the post), the steps are depicted in the order natural turn - backward - reverse turn - forward and the sequence makes two right angles. I don't believe that the diagram is meant to depict exactly how one ought to combine the sequences, since if one assumes the first turn is along the line of dance, following the diagram precisely would leave the dancers somewhere in the middle of the room. The two-step, as primarily a traveling-and-turning dance like the waltz or polka (or the galop, which is essentially the same dance), ought to keep more in a standard line-of-dance circle around the edges of the room. I think the diagram was arranged to fit the page and accommodate the advertising text and the drawing of the dancers. I would prepare for the forward or backward step by making a quarter turn at the end of the previous step to put either the lady's or the gentleman's back to the line of dance, so as to continue moving around the circle rather than suddenly making a perpendicular movement.
Comments