Maybe it was just a cultural difference Simon, someone maybe who had over exaggerated speech and mannerisms (not common to the british).
Or could they have meant somebody who appeared gay? Or the clothing?
Hard to say.
What were London theatrical men like back then I wonder?
This is what I had previously suspected on here but the idea was dismissed. I have an amateur interest in Shakespeare. I remember reading that Shakespeare's ear-ring signified roughly what ear-rings do today; a bit flamboyant and fashionable. I think Schwartz may have worn Victorian equivalent of a bit of bling, and perhaps a few frills on his clothing too. Im imagining Schwartz looking part gypsy, part dandy. Perhaps with a fetching looking hat.
My guess would be, for the period, somewhat loudly Simon. Mismatched patterns, dramatic moustache, that kind of thing. Attention seeking.
Schwartz being in "the theatrical line" must surely mean in an official capacity; managerial staff or official.
Henry Irving was not only a leading man, but a theater manager.
His street attire reflects his position in life. Here he is seen leaving the Lyceum (in top hat - center).
Apologies for the size of this pic, didn't have the means to reduce it.
Victorian Britain being the distinctly class-based society it was expected everyone to dress according to their position in life.
Today we find this difficult to visualize, we cannot tell a banker from a doctor, a lawyer, or a clerk. But in the 19th century there were very definite articles of clothing which set one profession aside from another.
Regards, Jon S.
Last edited by Wickerman : 06-11-2017 at 06:48 AM.