Do any of you participate in historical dancing? It is tons of fun. Regency dances fall into just a few categories: English Country Dances, Reels, Cotillions, Waltzes, and Quadrilles. Since I recently pulled together some dance information to prep people for an online ball, I thought I would share it here as well –especially since I have zero time right now! 🙂
1817 Clifton Assembly Room, by Rolinda Sharples (Brit Museum)
Today I’ll cover two staples of the early Regency ballrooms, English Country Dancing and Reels. In Part 2 I’ll do Cotillions (an even earlier dance form) and Quadrilles (the “latest craze” that came in and stayed). Since I have a lot to say about the Waltz (or Valse), that one will get a post all to itself as Part 3, and Part 4 will cover “How They Learned” and ways to remember what they learned!! Please check back to learn when we will schedule these. I promise the parts will run more often than once a month.
English Country dances have been around since the 1600’s, but by the Regency, the most popular form was a “longways set” –meaning done in a long line of couples, whereas early forms were often circles, or “closed” sets of two-to-four couples. The longways dances were also usually “progressive”, which meant the couples moved up or down the line to dance with new people after each repeat of the figures. Some dances involved only a two-couple pattern, but some involved three! At times there might be a couple (or two) at one end of the line or the other, waiting to re-enter the dance. In modern times, we now start all the “number ones” in the line at the same time, but in the Regency, it was usual to begin with only the first “first couple”, a special honor for them, and everyone else had to wait until the action and repeats of the dance reached them.
Here is a video of “The Leamington Dance” (1811) being danced slowly with a caller by modern EC dancers. If this is all new to you, it should give you a good sense of how a simple country dance works.
Reels are a very lively form of dance where the participants weave in and out between each other. Popular in Scotland, they also were common in English Regency ballrooms, and could involve various numbers of dancers. (A 6-hand reel would involve three couples.) There is overlap between reels and ECD, since often country dances will include a section (called a “hay”) where the figures are essentially a reel, and sometimes an ECD will have “Reel” in the name (as they also sometimes had “Waltz”) just to confuse matters. 🙂
This video gives an idea of how a reel works, so you can spot one when you see one! https://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/videoclips/reels.html BTW, that website is a great source of country dance information, if you want to know more. Much of it applies to both English and Scottish, although there are some differences. I will give some more good resources at the end of this blog series.
Do you have favorite dance scenes you loved in books or movies? What made them romantic and what did you like most about them?
Today I’ll continue the dance series I began on July 6, with some notes about the cotillion and the quadrille, dances which were common in the early Regency and the late Regency, respectively. While there is a great deal of overlap in some characteristics of these dances, their prevalence in the ballroom does not seem to have overlapped much at all.
COTILLIONS
Jane Austen wrote to her niece Fanny in 1816, “Much obliged for the quadrilles, which I am grown to think pretty enough, though of course they are very inferior to the cotillions of my own day.” Jane was past her dancing prime by then and was referring to music sheets, but as so often happens even today, was not a fan of the “new” style of dancing that the younger people loved.
The Cotillion was a French country dance for four couples popular in England in the late 18th century. While it often began with a circling figure and included later small circles, most of the dance was performed in a square, with various “changes”, or figures that moved in and out of that main formation and allowed for changes of partners.
Because the cotillions came from France, many kept their French names.
The only dance Jane Austen ever mentions by name, “La Boulangerie” is a
cotillion. Here is a video so you can see what it was she so enjoyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLUzvSXguQY
There were many various types of cotillion dances: “waltz cotillions” and “allemande cotillions” for instance. They included some figures also commonly found in English country dances and reels, and later the quadrilles, so there is a shared basis between the types of dances.
For instance, four of the basic quadrille segments are also found in cotillions: Les Pantalons, L’Eté, La Poule and La Pastorale. Many steps are also shared, but in style and music the dances are quite different. Quadrille enthusiasts denounced the cotillion as old-fashioned and “belonging with the ancient minuet.”
The word “cotillion” changed during the 19th century from referring to the specific type of dances to the more modern usage, referring instead to a dance event, even specifically to a dance event for debutantes. Just know that during the Regency era, that was not what it meant!
QUADRILLES
Captain Gronow wrote in his memoirs about the first appearance of the Quadrille at London’s elite social venue, Almack’s: “In 1814, the dances at Almack’s were Scotch reels and the old English country-dance; and the orchestra, being from Edinburgh, was conducted by the then celebrated Neil Gow. It was not until 1815 that Lady Jersey introduced from Paris the favourite quadrille, which has so long remained popular.”
The quadrille became a craze, so popular that it overtook all other forms of dance being done at this time, except for the waltz (topic for Part 3 of this series), introduced at about the same time. Cartoonists of the day, such as Gilroy and Cruikshank, could not be expected to resist ridiculing such a vibrant fad, especially as it required some skill and practice. “Accidents while dancing the Quadrille” was a popular caption.
Like the cotillion, this was a dance form with four couples
arranged in a square. Unlike the cotillion, it consisted of five sections or
movements, each with its own complicated sequence of figures and music, with
differing time signatures. Also unlike the cotillion, in the quadrille, the
couples took turns performing the steps, with the head couples leading and the
side couples resting until their turn. (Given the exertion required and the
length of the dances, this was no doubt a blessing!)
This video gives a good sense of the dance –watch as much as you wish, just know it lasts 11 minutes and 19 seconds! Paine’s First Set of Quadrilles (1815) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSD37PF2_Dw
I hope you are enjoying these dance notes and finding them helpful to visualize Regency dancing for your reading or writing pleasure! Part 3 on the Waltz will be posted on July 25.
Why does the WALTZ (or
French “Valse”) fascinate us? I’m sure it’s partly because it was so
scandalous during the Regency, and partly because we love the potential for
romance when our heroes and heroines share the intimate dance. This is a long
post!! Bear with me –I couldn’t choose what to leave out.
The waltz existed as a form of cotillion and of English
country dances long before the scandalous single couple version of it was
introduced to England
during the Regency. It is those types of waltzing
that Jane Austen references in her writings. Here are links to two examples of
country dance waltzes, which utilize the familiar ¾ time rhythm:
The waltz traces back to German peasant dances as old as the 16th century. Its history is similar to that of other dance types: what shocked the aristocracy and at first seemed beneath them eventually was adopted by them, because, well, why should only the peasants have fun? The turning, close-held waltz took hold in the higher regions of society by the 18th century in Bavaria and Vienna, and spread to France, where post-revolutionary society embraced it.
Why was the waltz so scandalous? The illustration at top, while exaggerated, gives you an idea, but this lovely video clip from the BBC explains most of it quite well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r0dKkkk2jk Besides the intimacy and close hold was the simple fact that the dancers were turning for much of the time, which could lead to ladies becoming dizzy and quite shockingly out of control of themselves!
In 1804 a German visiting Paris wrote, “This love for the waltz
and this adoption of the German dance is quite new and has become one of the
vulgar fashions since the war…” [the French Revolution]. The “new” form of
waltz trickled into England
slowly, scandalizing most of English society when they first saw it. The German
ex-pats who made up the soldiers of the King’s German Legion are credited with
introducing the waltz to residents of Sussex in 1804, but it was slow to catch
hold in England, where moral codes were strict (well, stricter).
Early caricature of French “Incroyables and Merveilleuses” waltzing
In 1814, neither the waltz nor the quadrille were yet permitted to be danced in Almack’s. Some theorists say attendees at the Congress of Vienna (Sept 1814) first saw the dance there and brought it back to England. But Princess Lieven, wife of the Russian ambassador assigned to England starting in 1812, had been in Berlin prior to that assignment, so it makes sense that she learned the dance while there. She was the first foreign-born patroness of the mighty Almack’s social club and is said to have introduced the waltz there in 1815.
Dance Master Thomas Wilson’s book “A Description of the Correct Method of Waltzing” came out in 1816. His famous illustration of the “nine positions of the waltz” is below (you can see the numbers underneath each one if you look closely). By then, the dance had become prevalent enough to be ridiculed by the cartoonists of the day, and popular with the young who always want the “new” thing.
Thomas Wilson’s “Nine Positions” of the Waltz
The royal courts, generally foremost in setting fashions in
many areas, consistently lagged in the area of dance. In July of 1816, the
waltz was included in a ball given in London
by the Prince Regent. A few days later an editorial in The Times complained: “We
remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was
introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English court on Friday last
… it is quite sufficient to cast one’s eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of
the limbs and close compressure on the bodies in their dance, to see that it is
indeed far removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered
distinctive of English females….”
The Regency form of waltz was closely related to other dances: the German Landler, and the French Allemande, and the other dances that drew on these forms. At her Capering and Kickery website (kickery.com) dance historian and teach Susan de Guardiola writes: “The early waltz looked quite different than the modern form. Dancers moved on their toes in a different pattern than what is seen in today’s competitive ballroom dancing, and adopted a wide range of “attitudes” of the arms…. Nor were waltzes choreographed, though Wilson suggested dancing different waltzes in sequence [slow followed by lively and back to slow again]. Entire ballrooms of dancers did not perform identical moves.” [Gail’s note: The name sometimes used for Regency waltz is the “pirouette waltz”.]
This video of five dances performed at the Royal Pavillion
in Brighton is long, but at about 5:40 the
dancers perform “The Allemande a Deux” (1780) which is a French modification of
a German Landler. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17QPpXyCql4
If you compare it to the video of the single couple
performing the Regency waltz (see next link), I think you will see some of the
similarities, and you will also get a sense of how Regency waltzers did not all
do the same figures at the same time. Regency Waltz/Valse 1826: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7B_Qsdnn5E (Video from the
French National Historic Dance Championships –you have to love a country that
holds such a thing!!)
If you are interested to know more, I found a fun video that compares the Regency style “pirouette” waltz to the later versions, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0QxdsoUzo
Do you think our modern version of the waltz has lost some of the “spice” of this earlier style? Or are you glad that our version is a lot easier to dance?
Given all the ways dance mattered, socially and personally,
during the Regency, it’s obvious that acquiring the skills and training to
dance well (along with the proper etiquette) was supremely important. Skills on
the dance floor would not entirely make or break a young person’s future, but
they certainly helped.
Young ladies and gentlemen of wealthy families would usually
receive private tutoring from a professional Dance Master. These men would be
hired by multiple families and would travel from house to house to teach the
latest dances as well as proper steps, comportment, posture, and behavior.
I’m certain there was snobbery over just which dance master
your household had hired! One who was French and
had references from higher ranked families, or one who was well-known among the
ton and had published extensively,
would certainly be preferred over a relatively unknown candidate.
How their pupils felt about them
probably varied not only by how well they taught, but also by their age,
personality and personal appearance, and the ages of the young people they
taught. I can imagine young ladies developing a crush on their dance instructor
if he was a bit charming, but I also imagine the young girl you can see in the
back of the Cruikshank cartoon below thinking very un-ladylike thoughts about
hers while forced to stand in the “hip-turner” box (also known as turn-out
boards, or the torture box).
It was more properly called a tourne hanche, which betrays its French origins. Its purpose was to train the feet to turn outward at a wide angle, a ballet-like position you can see the others in this scene all maintain. The small, easily portable violin played by the dancing master is not an exaggeration by the cartoonist –it is called a pochette, or “pocket violin.”
The less wealthy could take classes at a dance academy (in a
large enough town), just as one might do today. Dance Masters strove for
prominence through publishing as well as through the success of their competing
establishments. Given a basic understanding of the main forms of dances, one
could purchase the latest books, which usually included the instructions for
performing each dance. Publications such as “Thompson’s 24 Country Dances for the
Year 1802” came out every year with new dances. The selection would vary
depending on who issued the publication. The most popular dances might be
carried over from year-to-year for a very long time, while some new ones might
be introduced to be danced to old familiar tunes.
The most prominent dance masters competed with each other,
trying to out-do each other with their offerings and credentials. In the
1820’s, established master Thomas Wilson and relative newcomer George Chivers
engaged in an infamous rivalry. A typical advertisement from The Morning Post
(13th November, 1818) reads:
Waltzing, Ecossoises, Quadrilles, Spanish Dancing,
Minuets, La Grand Polonaise, Gavottes, Country Dances, Swedish Dancing &c
— Mr CHIVERS, late of the King’s Theatre Italian Opera House, gives PUBLIC or
PRIVATE LESSONS and PRACTICE in the EVENING, from Eight till Ten, or Nine till
Eleven, or any hour of the day, MONDAYS, WEDNESDAYS, and FRIDAYS. Mrs Chivers
superintends the ladies in a separate apartment. Families attended. Professors
taught any department, and the greatest secrecy observed. Cards had at Mr
Chivers’ Academy and Assembly Rooms, No 7 Pickett-Place, Temple bar; where may
be had A Companion to the French and English Dancing, also the Swedish
Dances (which Mr C. has introduced into this country; its simplicity and
elegance surpasses all others, and is well adapted to parties having a majority
of either sex.) The Rooms may be had occasionally, which have accommodation for
200 persons.
Chivers’s establishment shared space with a Fencing Master, also a fairly typical arrangement, but one that pressed limitations on scheduling classes. I fancy a resemblance between Cruikshank’s dance master in many of his later cartoons and Chivers’s portrait from one of his own publications, although I’ve found no reference that this was intentional.
Trained older siblings could be pressed into duty to teach the younger family members when circumstances demanded economy. Dance would be among the subjects taught at finishing schools for young ladies and academies for young gentlemen. This lovely Hugh Thompson illustration is from a story (“Quality Street”) about sisters who start such a school.
Nor should we discount the role of observation, as anyone
attending an assembly or ball could watch others to study the figures (sets of
steps) of any dance one didn’t know. English country dances dominated during
the early Regency years. They are fairly easy, once you have learned a
“vocabulary” of the various figures, which appear over and over again in
different combinations for each dance. So learning the order in which they are
done for a particular dance would not be too hard.
Becoming proficient at the steps, however, could be more
problematic. Regency dancing is energetic, the steps precise. The “walking”
steps that many modern country dancers use were not the thing at all in period.
Practicing in front of the mirror
Dance footwork in the Regency era, even for country dances,
was closer to ballet. Jane Austen wrote of Fanny in Mansfield
Park, “Sir Thomas, having seen her walk rather than dance down the
shortening set, breathless, and with her hand at her side, gave his orders for
her sitting down entirely.” Posture, deportment, and above all, elegance,
were required.
Do you wonder if you would forget how to do one of the dances at a ball? You would not be alone. Many dancers needed a way to “crib”! How about carrying a fan with the latest dances printed on it? Or a discrete set of cards with the instructions, strung on a ribbon around your wrist or tucked into your reticule? Here are pictures of some of these period “memory aides” for dancing (helpfully offered for sale by the dance masters)!
The dances on this fan are:
• Captain Mc Lean – Whim of the Moment – Duke of
Clarences Fancy – Dreary Dun
• Paynes Jigg – Miss Dukes Fancy – The Fife Hunt – The
Birth day – Dibdins Fancy – Garthland
• Sir Alexander Dons – Ballata Waltz – Jem of
Aberdeen Waltz – The Harriot -The Highland Club
A similar set of cards in The Harvard Library’s Ward Theater Collection, designed to be threaded on ribbon and worn around the wrist, printed with dance instructions for the quadrille, 1815. Selling sets of such cards were yet another way the enterprising dance masters tried to earn their bread.
Speaking of dance cards, what about those little ones with a pencil with which you could write in your partners names? Did they have those in the Regency era?
In this 1820’s image of Quadrille dancers, one of the “waiting” women (at left) is clearly looking at her dance card. Is it to see what other dances are planned and to whom she has promised them? (She’s with her current partner -how rude that would be!)
The term “dance card” in English with the latter meaning is
dated 1892 by the Oxford English Dictionary –well past the Regency and even
Victorian eras. It’s a beloved tradition with authors and I may have even had
this wrong in some of my early books, but the answer is: NO. Prompt cards to
tell the dances, yes, but not to write in the names of partners, not until much
later in the 19th century. For one thing, tiny pencils were not yet being made!
And pens required an inkwell. But here’s an example of one from the 1880’s, and
a fun collection of such cards, dating 1913-1940’s, if you’re interested!! http://gettysburg.cdmhost.com/…/collecti…/p16274coll9/search
I hope you’ve enjoyed this series. Dance history is one of my great loves! If you have questions, I will be happy to try to answer them in the comments. Parts 1-3 of this series, if you missed them, can be found posted in previous weeks during July.
I hope you’ll cross your fingers for me if you read this post by Saturday evening. My exciting news is that LORD OF MISRULE, my new release from last December, is a finalist for a prestigious 2019 Maggie Award as Best Historical Romance! And Saturday night is when the winners are going to be announced.
I was flabbergasted when I made the finals, but it is so thrilling that my first new book after a 16-year pause in my career has been so well-received. The other thing that makes this honor especially exciting to me is that I write “sweet”, and not only was this book competing with Historical Romances of all sorts of time periods, but it was also up against much hotter reads, which tend to be more popular.
I had the fun exercise of drafting what I’m calling my “fantasy thank you speech” which a friend at the Moonlight and Magnolias Conference in Georgia this weekend will deliver for me in the (rather unlikely) event that my book wins. But in that speech I mentioned that, ” Even though we are all writing about the emotional journeys our characters must take to arrive at deep and lasting love, omitting the explicit sex can make it harder to show the dance of attraction and doubt they go through.”
Thinking about “sweet” versus “hot” has made me think about all the kinds of risks we authors take as we try to do service to our characters’ stories. I tend to write unusual plots, and try to bring something fresh and different to each Regency story I write. Not all readers want that, of course! So it’s often a risk –and that tendency may be how I ended up here in the Risky Regencies sisterhood. Maybe over the coming months, each of us blogging here can talk about what she thinks is “risky” about the writing she does. I admit that I’ve been in a very “ruminative” mood lately, taking stock of where I am and where I’m going now that I am writing again.
What am I working on? Readers wanted more stories from Little Macclow, the Derbyshire village setting of LOM. I hadn’t planned on a series, but it turns out there is enough material there to mine. My current work-in-progress is a prequel to LOM, which I hope to release before or at least by December! It’s the story of Tom & Sally Hepston, who are already married when you meet them in LOM. Is it risky to write a series that wasn’t planned in advance? I guess we’ll find out!!
Do you read both sweet and hot romances? Do you like offbeat stories? What kind of risks do you see authors take, and which ones do you enjoy, or not enjoy?
