STAGE YANKEES

The "stage Yankee" was a stock character on the early American stage, said to begin with the character of Jonathan in Royall Tyler's The Contrast (1787). Federal-era America was eager to develop nationalistic icons, and the Yankee type, with his unself-conscious bearing, pride in origin, and idiosyncratic speech, was ideal. [Click link for "Stage Yankee" at left.]

The British actor Charles Mathews observed the Yankee on his American tour in the 1820s and created "Jonathan Doubikins." Mathews, a gifted mimic and writer, brought Doubikins to life in his theatrical "At Homes", in which he played numerous characters with the help of quick-change in costumes and voice and facial characterizations.

Other Yankee actors followed, the most famous and popular being James Hackett, George Handel Hill (image above), Dan Marble, and Joshua Silsbee. The Yankee character appeared in plays like The Forest Rose (1825), She Would Be A Soldier (1832), Cut and Come Again (1840), The Pilot (1843), and The Stage Struck Yankee (1849), culminating in the stage Yankee best remembered now, Asa Trenchard in Our American Cousin (1858). Stage appearances of the character would often consist of an improvised narrative, the "Yankee story." Theater historian Francis Hodge has called the practice of the stage Yankee "the American commedia dell'arte," and his role in drama was often that of a Harlequin, as a uniter of lovers and a catalyst of transformation.

The Yankee man was an almost surrealistic mixture of naivete and cunning. He always got the better in a bargain or a swap, but was childishly innocent in the matters of fashion, language and politics. His clothes were peculiar, in the manner of a man unused to city ways: striped trousers, often too short; bright flashy waistcoats; an oversized "bell-shaped" hat; suspenders or "galluses"; a long coat almost to the ankles, or a swallow-tail jacket; a chin beard. This should sound familiar -- it was the origin of our "Uncle Sam". He spoke in a nasal twang, with a stage accent based on western New England dialect, studding his conversation with homely metaphors and outlandish words ("splendiferous," "absquatulate."*). The changes in dramatic taste after the Civil War meant that the stage Yankee faded out in all but the most cliched stage pieces, but the type was important in establishing national taste in the theatre and in representing America across the sea.

*See link at left for Bartlett's Dictionary of Americanisms (1848)-- while not confined to Yankee talk, it has many, many examples, including "sockdolager", famous from Our American Cousin.

PLAYS MENTIONED IN "THE STAGE STRUCK YANKEE"

The manager-and-star couple, Douglas Double and Fanny Magnet, speak to each other in allusive theatre jargon, often using play titles that reflect their situation.

The playbills here include the titles the Doubles quote. Notice the format of a typical evening at the theatre: a long play and a farce, generally, often studded with musical interludes.

BASIC MELODRAMATIC STAGE CONVENTIONS

[The attached pictures are from an early 19th-century acting manual and demonstrate gestures for "terror," "joy," and "anger." Notice weight is on one leg or the other -- not in "neutral stance". Arms are moved from the shoulder, not the elbow and the head is held at an angle.]

1. Actors trained through apprenticeship: joining a company and starting with walk-ons and non-speaking parts, watching more experienced and famous actors. They would develop a “line of business” (stock character), e.g.: hero, villain, low comic, light comic, walking gentleman or lady
2. Most actors had had training from a dancing master, as did most of the public (Dickens showed these even in the poorer neighbourhoods) in dancing as well as: polite carriage, entering and leaving a room, proper bows and courtesies, forms of introduction, etc. Many more had elocutionary training.
3. Delivery of speech and motion was vigorous, spirited, “exaggerated.” The whole body displayed feeling through foot stamping, sudden starts, eye rolling, “windmill” arms, etc.
4. Actors articulated musically and emphatically; they employed large gestures and positioning of body and worked for “points” (traditional places of emphasis in speeches, highly emotional phrases, where actors aimed to elicit applause). As a rule, they did not talk while moving across stage.
5. Entrances and exits were meant to attract attention: actor primarily an ACTOR, not character. An actor entered confidently, directed self towards footlight focal point, and planted oneself firmly before beginning to speak.
6. If an actor received loud or continued applause (including foot-stomping, whistles, shouting, or throwing of wreaths of flowers on stage), speech might be encored 3 or 4 times back to back.
7. Gestures somewhat categorized: serious/comic, male/female, hero/villain, upper class/lower class. The pace slowed for serious moments, sped up for comic ones. Serious or good characters showed more curve, grace and beauty; comics and villains were more angular and sharp.
8. All the tradition and plot similarity allowed “gagging” – that is, being able to play a part without thoroughly memorizing it. Standard company would be performing one play, rehearsing another, and memorizing a third in the same week; changing performances every week.


SOME NOTES:
Neutral stance: Modified fourth position, weight on balls of feet
Chest out, chin in, shoulders down
Back straight and arms curved, elbows slightly out
“THE ARMS ARE NOT STICKS”*

FORWARD: Objective (towards an object) – moments of description, love,
revenge, authority – any emotions directed out
NEUTRAL: Doubt, reservation, neutrality
BACKWARD: Subjective (introspective) – thought, meditation, fear, experience

GESTURES: “BE FREE IN MOVEMENT, VIGOROUS IN ACTION”
Ascending: Appeal to heaven, indication of something above, acclamation (the ideal)
Middle: Indication, description, sincerity or deep feeling (e.g., Aversion)
Descending: Indication, contempt, affirmation, denial

*Quotations are from contemporary acting manuals.

1870S Composite Photograph -- Actors and Actresses

FOR ACTORS: VICTORIAN DEPORTMENT

Like all of my text on this blog, the below is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced or distributed without my permission:

VICTORIAN DEPORTMENT AND APPEARANCE

Respectable Victorians (and most Victorians at least aspired to respectability) had a different group of expectations than ours on which to judge and create deportment.

1) Separate spheres for men and women

2) Acceptance of hierarchical society, signaled by dress, movement and speech

3) Clothing and deportment as display and interaction in society, rather than as self-expression

Above all, there was an acceptance (even in America, the “class-free” nation) of incorporating class differences into modes of interaction and dress. People embraced identity as part of a group.

In the 1800s, every aspect of one’s existence was controlled by one’s gender: occupation, dress, speech patterns, and gestures. Masculinity and femininity occupied strictly separate spheres, and indications of either were broadly exaggerated. Men were entering the height of their “lords of creation” era in the 1840s – across classes men walked with a swagger, stood and sat to take the most space, sawed the air with gestures and grasped and brandished possessions like canes, eyeglasses, lapels, or books. This is the time when there were the widest distinctions between male and female dress: colors disappeared from men’s clothing, facial hair sprouted on lip, chin and face, Regency jewelry and snuffboxes disappeared, and male ornaments were mainly sober watch chains, rings and tie pins. (Exceptions were aristocratic “dandies”, like Lord Dundreary, Bohemians in mid-century, and aesthetes at the end of the century.) Men firmly planted their legs when standing. Their social stance generally had one foot advanced, with the hand on the same side holding a lapel, placed on the breast, or gesturing. When directing attention, the head or the whole hand was used, but not the finger. Hands were never put in pockets – this was considered the height of vulgarity. The gaze was to be firm and frank without being belligerent or prying. Men were permitted, within polite bounds, to eye ladies appraisingly.

Women presented themselves as the exact opposite: passive to men’s activity, calm to their energy, emotional to their rationality, etc. Thus, posture and behaviour were designed to draw attention to itself through grace and poise only. Large expansive gestures, long strides, positioning in the middle of a crowd, were all unfeminine. Women took small steps and stood with hands clasped or holding some ornament, like flowers, muff, or lace handkerchief, which could be clasped to the heart while talking. Arm gestures were very limited – during the 1840s-60s, shoulder seams on gowns came several inches below the shoulder, but hands might purposefully flutter in pretty gestures: rings and bracelets were worn several together to draw attention to them. Corsets kept the upper body still, heavy skirts slowed the walk. Women’s shoes were flat slippers, and their walks were described as “pattering,” “skipping,” or “tripping.” At this time, it was considered attractive for young women to appear light-hearted and giddy and exist as an ornament to society. Their clothing was lighter, more colorful and decorative.
In interaction, married women offered their hands upon introduction; unmarried women, never. All women were taught to speak in a low voice and to avoid a direct gaze. In company, ladies kept their eyes down when speaking to superiors and gentlemen, perhaps lifting their eyes but not their heads to meet a glance. The head might be cocked to one side or the other when talking to a gentleman, to cultivate coyness and demureness. [All this will pose special problems for the actress, who must follow stage convention without too outrageously breaking social convention.]

When married women reached a certain age, they became “dowagers.” Their age and experience in social circles, as well as their removal from the marriage market and the realm of sexual attractiveness, theoretically meant they were the more suitable as social arbiters. Their gossip, matchmaking and social arrangements were taken very seriously, and led to the stern, basilisk-eyed British Matron found in most literature of the era. This was acceptable, as long as women worked through Victorian “influence” over men, and did not handle any actual “power”. A dowager was exempt from rules of carriage and deportment for belles, and indeed could be subject to ridicule if she followed them.

For all ladies, the crinoline relieved some of the weight of 19th-century skirts; before up to ten petticoats might be worn at once, but the cage crinoline took some weight off a woman’s legs and provided a cool draft. Women walked so as to seem to run on wheels; the motions of walking were not apparent; no up-and-down movement or hip motion, steps were small; hoop-swaying was kept to a minimum. Hands stayed on the front of the crinoline to guide it when walking or sitting down. Care had to be taken to keep the crinoline from catching on furniture or doorways and turning up to show anything above the ankle. When entering doorways, a woman led with one hip and shoulder, to turn the crinoline for easy pass-through. Feet should not show more than a few inches at the toe, though coquettes could manipulate their movements to show what was called a “well-turned ankle.”

As well as separate gender spheres, there was a gradation of behaviour along class lines. Poor and working classes wore ill-fitting clothes and heavy shoes, which affected their gait and movement. There were no standard sizes of clothing; suits and dresses were custom-made for middle and upper classes, with the poor wearing cast-offs or hand-me-downs.
A bow or curtsey would vary depending on whether it was to an equal, a superior, or an inferior. Men gave a short nod to inferiors, a deep bow to equals, a deeper bow to older people, superiors and ladies (not women). Curtseys were divided into a short dip of the knees, a deep curtsey with one foot planted behind, or a deeper formal curtsey with skirts held to the sides, and as much time spent arising as dipping. The higher the social standing, the more grace and time was given to bowing or curtseying to superiors.

Class, income, region, and marital status were announced in one’s clothing and stance. Conduct manuals of the time spoke of an individual’s “obligation” to his community when choosing clothes or appearing in a public setting. This was felt as comforting and grounded, rather than restrictive as we might judge today. Transgressions of any of the boundaries signaled disrespectability, insolence, or even threat (Asa Trenchard being a prime example). On stage, social class and moral behaviour can be shown by the degree to which these rules were followed.

NEW OLD THEATER

This is a blog about 19th-century theater, primarily meant for members of New Old Theater (http://www.newoldtheater.org/), an acting company dedicated to the revival of popular 19th-century drama and its conventions.

Above is a picture of Covent Garden circa 1815 -- I believe the play is Shakespeare's Henry V. Notice the positioning of actors downstage near the footlights, the extended postures of actors -- you can even tell which one is speaking at the moment -- the division of audience into pit, boxes and gallery, and the manner in which the audience is as much a matter for viewing as is the play. In our next production, featuring The Stage-Struck Yankee (1849) and Nahum Tate's The History of King Lear (1681), we will be working towards creating the feel, if not the plush surroundings, of this type of theatrical experience.

Please check my blog regularly for text of handouts, photos and drawings of 19th-century actors, material on stage conventions and announcements about our group.