О "довороте" дамы за талию в шене дам
Думаю, многие привыкли в шене дам встречать даму и "доворачивать" ее за талию. Из наиболее известных примеров - видео с прото-Летучей Мышью из библиотеки Конгресса.
Но насколько такой вариант приемлем для 19-го века? Для ампирного времени как-то признают, что не возможен. А для более поздних периодов?
Под катом - ответ на этот вопрос от Сюзан де Гьярдиолы (на английском)
Oh, good, an easy one.
It's not phrased historically as "lead the lady." It's simply "turn by
the left hand" or similar. I'd say with fairly high confidence that
for a Victorian/CW setting, those callers are wrong.
As far as we can tell, the whole hand-ond-waist etc. is a later
(20thc) development, and by that I mean not just having the man put
his hand on her waist but the entire concept of the man walking
backward during that part of the figure. That's not part of the
original ladies' chain -- it's simply a left-hand turn. And if you do
it like that, then there's no worries about the man's right hand; it's
nowhere near her waist.
How do we know this? (1) moving backwards does work well with the
figure as done originally with steps, and (2) the visual evidence we
have for the mid-19thc (when, in America at least, steps had fallen by
the wayside) is against it. You can see for yourself:
http://memory.loc.gov/musdi/093/0071.gif
Why people took a simple turn by the left hand and turned it into a
weird figure where the man walks backward, not to mention putting a
hand on his partner's body -- eww -- is a mystery to me. But people
who carry that back into the 19thc are projecting modern contra dance
tics backward.
Susan
(getting ready to go teach some 1920s English stuff)
из рассылки.
Но насколько такой вариант приемлем для 19-го века? Для ампирного времени как-то признают, что не возможен. А для более поздних периодов?
Под катом - ответ на этот вопрос от Сюзан де Гьярдиолы (на английском)
Oh, good, an easy one.
It's not phrased historically as "lead the lady." It's simply "turn by
the left hand" or similar. I'd say with fairly high confidence that
for a Victorian/CW setting, those callers are wrong.
As far as we can tell, the whole hand-ond-waist etc. is a later
(20thc) development, and by that I mean not just having the man put
his hand on her waist but the entire concept of the man walking
backward during that part of the figure. That's not part of the
original ladies' chain -- it's simply a left-hand turn. And if you do
it like that, then there's no worries about the man's right hand; it's
nowhere near her waist.
How do we know this? (1) moving backwards does work well with the
figure as done originally with steps, and (2) the visual evidence we
have for the mid-19thc (when, in America at least, steps had fallen by
the wayside) is against it. You can see for yourself:
http://memory.loc.gov/musdi/093/0071.gif
Why people took a simple turn by the left hand and turned it into a
weird figure where the man walks backward, not to mention putting a
hand on his partner's body -- eww -- is a mystery to me. But people
who carry that back into the 19thc are projecting modern contra dance
tics backward.
Susan
(getting ready to go teach some 1920s English stuff)
из рассылки.