In December 1877, a ballet dancer wrote a letter in to the local newspaper The Era, describing the hardships of her job. “No one has a good word for us, because the world does not know one half of our trials and troubles,” she wrote.
It’s no secret that a dancer’s life is difficult – an enormous amount of dedication is required to get to the top of the field. But in Victorian England, ballet was considered a debased art form, partly because of the reputation forged earlier in the Regency era. Back then, rich noblemen used stage and studio as a kind of parlour, choosing their mistresses from amongst the dancers.
Backstage, because of their low status, dancers were not allowed in the “first” green room, which was reserved for actors and actresses of a certain position. A second green room was allocated for “the corps de ballet, the pantomimists, and all engaged in that line of business – what are called the little people …”
Ballet was not considered a proper vocation for a woman. Working conditions were poor and rehearsals went for four to six weeks, during which time the dancers weren’t paid for their work. After a long day of rehearsal they had to go home and sew their own costumes, so there was little time for rest.
Many were perpetually on the verge of starvation and dangerously close to illness, but if they spoke out against their treatment they were immediately fired. As the anonymous correspondent to The Era explained, if they were just five minutes late to rehearsal they were fined, a punishment which would have left them destitute: out of their already measly wage, they were also expected to pay for their tights, shoes and costumes.
Death by burning was an ever-present spectre. The dancers wore highly combustible muslin skirts, and there were a gaslights at the foot of the stage. Many dancers suffered serious injury or death from such accidents. Faulty trap doors were also a menace, and the ropes that pulled the dancers high above the stage, to give the appearance of flying, were often in a perilous state of decay. During one performance in Paris, in a production which starred the celebrated Romantic ballerina Marie Taglioni, two sylphs who were being conveyed on wire through the air were stuck when the rigging jammed.
During the off-season, most dancers were forced to find other work, and some had to resort to even less reputable means of obtaining a livelihood. Working overseas was no better. An article in The Town in 1837 claimed that “The Italian Opera, behind the scenes, is a perfect seraglio for the use of the wealthy licentious.” Amongst the audience were “patrician patrons … [who] seek but to put our English girls to the vilest uses …”
Marie van Goethem was the dancer whom Degas used as a model for his famous sculpture La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans (The Little Dancer, Aged 14). She and her sister earned extra money by working as artists’ models while they were enrolled in the Paris Opera School, but eventually, it was rumoured, they were both forced to turn to prostitution because of financial pressure from their family.
While dancers today must still invariably suffer hardships – packed schedules, the risk of injury, career disappointments – for the anxious fledgling ballerina it can be a comfort to remember the times when dancers used to have it really bad.
Lorelei, you’re spot on that the nineteenth century is a really fascinating period in terms of the experiences of dancers. We see great extremes between the poverty of many dancers, and the wealth and success of a fortunate few like Elssler and Taglioni.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that one of the issues which complicates the status of dancers during this period is the emergence of ballet as a music hall entertainment. In England, changes to theatrical licensing laws and a growing population (with more money to spend on recreation!) saw music hall theatre come into its own and ballet spectaculars, burlesques, etc. were popular. It meant that there were more women being employed in low-status, low-paid roles as corps dancers. At the same time, there were plenty of women willing to work in the theatre so employers could pretty much dictate terms and conditions.
It’s perhaps appropriate to say that ballet was AND wasn’t considered a proper vocation for women at the time. It really came down to what class you were standing in. You certainly would have looked down on ballet girls if you were a respectable woman of the uppercrust. On the other hand, Tracy Davis suggests that by 1860 or so “most London ballet girls came from theatrical families or were the daughters of artisans and lower-middle class tradesmen from the metropolis, and many lived in the family home.” So it seems that ballet wasn’t seen as such a bad option, even among families who were in some position to encourage their daughters to pursue other occupations. My gut feeling is that the women who had the toughest time as dancers were those who were sole breadwinners, trying to earn a living in theatre without the financial support or useful connections of other family members.
While there are plenty of generalist histories and specialist studies of ballet in the nineteenth century, we are actually still without a comprehensive work on the status of ballet and ballet dancers during this period. The picture is a pretty blurred one and the experience of dancers at the Paris Opera tends to colour our understandings of dancers’ experiences everywhere else. So, yes, a really good topic, Lorelei – one for lots of debate!!