“You Can’t Mix

Husbands and

Tigers” Women circus performers and American

society from 1880-1940

Casey Gymrek Advisor: Dr. Ben Wise

Senior Honors Thesis

University of Florida 2014

Table of Contents Introduction: The Show Begins ................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter One: Roles and Occupations in the Circus .................................................................................. 7

Chapter Two: Marriage in the Circus ...................................................................................................... 22

Chapter Three: Interactions with the “Outside” world .......................................................................... 37

Conclusion: The Show Must Go On ......................................................................................................... 49

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 52

1 | P a g e

Introduction: The Show Begins

“We all live in private worlds of our own making, absorbed in our own hopes and

dreams. But circus people especially live to themselves. A circus is a traveling city complete in

itself.” As this tiger trainer’s quote suggests, the American circus was a world of its own. In the

early twentieth century, the circus was an essential component to American entertainment.

Different circus companies arrived overnight in towns across America, staying only a few days,

but always leaving a lasting impression. Consequently, the towns and people performers

encountered in throughout the season affected them. Social movements, such as Prohibition,

Women’s Suffrage, gender challenges, and racial tensions permeated the progressive era. The

circus was not immune to these issues. Many of the employees participated in protests, rallies,

and the creation of activism societies.

By far one of the largest and most well-known circuses of the twentieth century was the

Ringling Brothers Circus. Five brothers from Baraboo, Wisconsin started the world’s most

famous circus in 1884 as a one-wagon show. Like many other circuses, the brothers, Al, Otto,

Alf T., Charles, and John joined with other circuses to raise publicity, and by 1892, the brothers’

circus had become immensely popular and even challenged the top circus in America- Barnum

and Bailey. In 1904, in an effort to avoid expensive billing wars, James A. Bailey, owner of the

Barnum and Bailey circus, arranged for the five brothers to purchase half of his circus, so that

each company had shared financial interests. Doing this allowed the circuses to operate on

different traveling schedules, avoiding conflict. The arrangement lasted until Bailey’s death in

1907. The brothers subsequently purchased the rest of Bailey’s circus, thus making their circus

2 | P a g e

newly named, the Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey, the Greatest Show on Earth, the

supreme leader of American circuses to this day.1

The Ringling Brothers entertained Americans in a very critical time. In the turn of the

century, American lives, particularly women’s lives, were dramatically changing. A concept

known as the “new woman” emerged. Education for women expanded. From 1890 to 1920,

women comprised fifty-five percent of all high school students and sixty percent of all high

school graduates, and going to college became a reality for many young women. Having access

to higher education allowed these women to challenge their worldviews and place in society. By

1920, almost one million women had occupations outside of the home.2 Between 1870 and 1910,

the number of women working for wages doubled from four to eight million. Even though

women were working more, there were still major inequalities between men and women. The

greatest discrepancy was the unequal pay between the two genders. Lower wages for women

fueled activists to demand better conditions, pay, and treatment. The major targets were single

women. Even though they consisted of seventy-five percent of the female workforce, single

women had longer hours, had deducted pay for a variety of “living” expenses, and became the

subject of social concern3.

Many women worked in factories or textile mills, while men held the managerial and

professional positions. Women tended to have jobs that required little on-the-job training, while

1 Miller, Mel, Ringling Museum of the Circus: The Collection and its Relation to the History of the Circus (Library of Congress, 1963),11-13 2 Catherine Lavendar, “The New Woman,” Women in New York City, 1890-1940, http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/386/newwoman.html (accessed November 17, 2013). 3 Claudia Goldin, The work and wages of single women, 1870-1920. Journal of Economic History, no. 40 (1980): 86-87.

3 | P a g e

the expectation for men was to receive more education in their fields. Frustrations with proper

workers treatment, combined with the emerging feminist ideal of the new woman led to

significant, radical social movements. In addition, cities were growing. Historian Joshua Zeitz

explained the rise of cities:

“For the first time ever, more Americans (51 percent) lived in cities than in the countryside.

Though the Census Bureau counted any municipality with more than 2,500 residents as

“urban,” most of the country’s new urban majority lived in cities with more than 100,000

residents. In real numbers, the change was staggering. Between 1860 and 1920, the number of

people living in cities with a population of at least 8,000 jumped from 6.2 million to 54.3

million.”4

The new cities gave the circus easier access to a larger audience. Many of these new

residents were women, in search of better economic opportunities, some in the form of the

circus that came to town.

In the early half of the twentieth century, the circus was a major arena of American

entertainment. On “Circus Day,” as the newspapers coined it, people lined the streets to view the

circus parade; in some cities’ factories and stores were even closed for the circus. A Daily

Picayune articled described the audience attendance one evening: “Last night the Ringling

Brothers’ Circus came near depopulating the city. It looked as if everybody had gone to the

show. If you wanted to see anybody you had only look through the crowd, for they were all

there.”5 When the circus arrived, everyone was aware.

In regards to women’s careers, the circus was a unique place. Talent, not gender, was the

determining factor for the salary level of performers. According to historian Janet Davis,

“female stars, for one, made just as much as their male counterparts or more, and a few women,

4 Joshua Zeitz, Flapper, (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006), 30 5 “Ringling Bros.’ Circus,” New Orleans Daily Picayune, Nov. 19, 1898, 12.

4 | P a g e

such as Mollie Bailey and Nellie Dutton, became successful circus owners.”6 The performances

of Lillian Leitzel, Mabel Stark, and May Wirth highlighted the notion of higher pay for quality

work. These women and others were able to negotiate contracts and demand a certain pay. This

was an important aspect of circus life and influenced different areas of the performers’ lives such

as their position in the circus hierarchy. There have been multiple autobiographies, biographies,

and memoirs published by or about the female stars of the American circus. Contracted work

was typically limited to a year with the circus for both workers and performers, although the

bigger performers could secure multiple seasons with a single contract. Single-year contracts

allowed performers to transfer between circuses. Referenced performers in this thesis worked

with the Ringling circus as well as others, which broadened their experiences in twentieth

century America.

As previously mentioned, the Ringling brothers owned the two major circuses by 1907,

and the circuses continued to travel as separate shows until 1919, when they combined under one

tent. Therefore, in some sources, there are references to the Barnum circus, which was the

second circus owned by the Ringlings. For the purposes of this thesis, the two referenced

circuses belong under the umbrella of the Ringling Brothers Circus. If the source occurred before

1919, this thesis identifies the distinctions but since performers frequently worked for both

circuses, this thesis notes their stories and experiences as being part of the brothers’ circus.

The thesis focused primarily on women performers in the Ringling Brothers Circus, but

in order to form a comprehensive understanding of gender roles male circus employees must be

included. I was interested in their lives, performances, portrayals, involvement, and roles in the

6 Davis, Janet, The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002,) 26

5 | P a g e

larger social world at the time. Many of these women pushed social boundaries and stereotypes

while simultaneously achieving financial and personal independence. They traveled extensively,

in both America and Europe, and interacted with a vast array of different people. It was

impossible for the performers to be immune to the people and experiences they encountered. On

the same note, the circus and its performers influenced the audiences who attended the shows. In

a time before movies, circus performers were some of America’s first celebrities. Their lives and

work captivated the audience and especially the media. It is crucial to identify how both groups

(performers and audience members) affected each other, and specifically how each group viewed

one another.

Circus men and women lived outside the traditional American social norms and used

their talents to pursue their personal aspirations in spite of the gender stereotypes in place. These

women were their own bosses, rejected domestic life, and projected their different opinions

about society openly. In order to push their own agendas the women participated in the growing

social movements such as Prohibition and Women’s Suffrage. Some activists sought out help

from the circus because of their celebrity status, and their ability to expel typical gender

boundaries. These circus women used their status in society and their talents in the show

business to extend past their careers and attempt to modify the societal roles in place. Women,

such as Mabel Stark and Lillian Leitzel, used their elevated status to challenge stereotypes and

pave the way for the advancement of women. Two major circus historians, Janet Davis and

Katherine Adams, have written extensively on American society and the circus but there has

been little attention given to gender roles and the American circus. The Ringling Brothers Circus

was a complex world of mixed roles and opportunities, these performers were examples of

women who challenged the gender oppression they encountered, and their successes indicated

6 | P a g e

their abilities to overcome any opposition. These circus women not only challenged American

gender roles but also gender roles within the circus. The circus was a place for women and men

who felt alienated by social norms, where performances celebrated female power and

independence.

The people discussed in this thesis are outliers of their time. Their stories are not

necessarily the common ones that any women’s studies course book or history textbook would

typically include. However, the women were important because they sought to influence society

through their artistic work. In this culture, society forced women into domestic roles or female-

friendly factory jobs, and these circus women provide an alternate vision of the past.

7 | P a g e

Chapter One: Roles and Occupations in the Circus

Every person, woman or man, adult or child had a particular place in the circus. The

Ringlings hired all sorts of people regardless of race and gender and treated their employees

according to occupation. There was an established hierarchy among circus folk but, unlike many

industries in the United States at this time, talent and usefulness of the individual formed the

basis of discrimination rather than their cultural background or gender. The show’s star

performers, who were typically female, received the highest salaries. Prices were negotiable

throughout the seasons but it was common for every worker, including the prime acts, to be

permitted one-year contacts. This was possibility due to the high risks that the performers and

laborers encountered with every show. In addition to danger, performers needed to secure their

chances of being popular attractions with the audience so the performers used the year grace

period to prove themselves and build a repertoire.

With the lowest salary and at the very bottom rank of the circus totem pole stood the

laborers, the men who put up the tent, posted the advertisements through town, and worked with

the performers’ equipment during acts. Even though their salaries did not come close to

matching the others, the crewmembers’ pay was more than most factory jobs, plus life in the

circus also provided room and board.7 While these men contributed greatly to the daily

operations of the show, they did not directly help raise ticket sales so they did not receive the

same respect and awe that performers did. The circus was more progressive and modern than

other American venues, but the outside world has permeating influence. In earlier circus

companies, the managers segregated their workers according to race though this was not the case

7 Janet Davis, The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top, (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press), 2006, 62-63.

8 | P a g e

with the Ringlings. The occupation of the workers divided the circus and this was apparent

during meal times. It was almost an unspoken rule of the circus that similar acts and workers ate

together and rarely interacted with other different “classes.” Occupation also determined the

sleeping arrangements on the circus train. Space was crucial on the train so the lower-end

workers were often stacked together in one car with little privacy and especially very little room

for personal possessions.8 Workers of the same rank thus worked together, ate together, and

slept together.

The Ringling Brothers’ strong morals drove them to uphold the sanctity of their circus. In

order to ensure that male performers and workers and the single female performers did not have

much interaction strict rules were set in place. Ballet dancers were some of the lowest paid

performers. The Ringlings typically gave this position to girls with little to no experience, which

was very advantageous to girls with aspirations to elevate in rank. The job also allowed single

girls to travel and experience places that society denied to most unmarried women. However,

the freedom these women possessed had some stipulations. The performers’ contracts outlined

the expectations while performing, traveling, and visiting towns. Some of the restrictions

included:

No intoxicants of any kind permitted in sleeping cars, dressing rooms, or show grounds.

Ladies should be in sleeping cars at a reasonable hour after the night performance, as per instruction from

Ballet Master.

Male companions during hours when not on duty, strictly prohibited.

Male performers are not to visit with the ballet girls. The excuse of “accidental” meetings on Sunday, in

parks, at picture shows, etc., will not be permitted.9

These rules further discouraged any mixing between the lowly worker men and the performers.

The man in charge of the show’s personnel, Charley Ringling, even hired a detective to regularly

8 Ibid 9 Rules Concerning Ballet Girls Supplementary In Contract, October 1912 to March 1913, Ringling Bros.

9 | P a g e

inspect the train and tents to reinforce that there were no couples together. Management could

withhold pay from its employees as punishment for going against the rules and the price usually

demonstrated the point. Occupational and circus status rank determined the punishment price.

Circus historian Dean Jensen claimed, “A camel groom or clown who was caught trying to woo

a showgirl would discover on payday that he had been docked $10. This was not an insignificant

amount when the average workman earned $25 a month, a minor performer $37.50.”10 The

measures the Ringlings took may seem extreme, but the brothers were nervous about the future

of their business. If a performer, particularly a female one, started a relationship that advanced

to marriage the circus ran the risk of losing the performer to a more traditional home and

marriage, so while the Ringlings had a moral obligation to uphold they also had to secure their

financial prospects. 11

Regardless, some women did forge friendships with their male counterparts and some

even married in the circus. Lillian Leitzel, a prized acrobat in the show, went to great lengths to

visit Alfredo Codona, the Mexican aerialist. According the family members, Codona fell in love

with Leitzel at first sight and immediately pursued her, despite the rigid restrictions. In addition,

Leitzel was part of a popular aerial and trapeze act known as the Leamy Ladies so her status was

even more elevated than a typical ballet girl’s was. Her manager and father figure, Edward

Leamy, kept a tight hold on all members of the troupe, especially Leitzel as the rising star.

Eventually, Codona caught Leitzel’s attention and the two began to visit each other privately

outside of the circus. The Leamy Ladies helped the two lovers by arranging meetings places

when they knew Leamy would be distracted. With the aid of other circus performers, Letizel and

10 Dean Jensen, Queen of the Air: A True Story of Love and Tragedy at the Circus, (New York: Random House

Inc.), 2013, 93. 11 Ibid.

10 | P a g e

Codona carried on the romance until the season ended. 12 Many other couples who met in the

circus also courted one another without the knowledge of the managers.

Circuses in the 18th and 19th centuries were typically wagon shows that consisted

primarily of a few animal or acrobatic acts. As the circus grew in popularity, the acts and

performances became more varied and challenging. By the time the Ringlings Brothers Circus

was established, the circus employed all sorts of talents. In addition to acrobatics and animal

acts, performers were now able to be clowns, showgirls, tight rope walkers, trapeze artists,

equestrienne stars, and motorcade daredevils to name a few. Some of these occupations had a

historically gendered role. Town parades showcased the ballet girls, sometimes riding the

animals, but their primary purpose was to twirl in costume to capture the crowds’ eye. From the

sources available, there is limited, if any, information indicating that men performers dressed in

costume to gain attention in the parades. Men thrived as clowns and most clowns were indeed

men. Clowns did not have to be beautiful, on the contrary, their costumes and makeup covered

most of their physical features so clowns needed to rely on antics and talent to please the

audience. Early on, male clowns donned female costumes and used the gender switch as part of

their act. A 1938 New York Times article described the various jokes and costumes of the male

“female” clowns. The clowns dressed in exaggerated forms of women, complete with balloons

as breasts. They attempted, without success, to look beautiful and lure a mate, deal with bad

babies, cook a gourmet dinner, repair the plumbing, or fight with a drunken husband. 13Clowns

also satirized typical male personas as well, but only male clowns could portray them.

12 Ibid, 96. 13 Lewis Nichols, “Slapstick as an Art: In the Circus Thrives the Clown's Tradition,” New York Times, April 10,

1938.

11 | P a g e

In the circus, women challenged many traditional roles and expectations by putting

themselves in dangerous performing situations and traveling without a chaperone, but even in

this progressive arena, the circus had an unspoken set of gender roles. The clown roles were

predominantly male and women clowns were a minority. Some women decided to challenge this

stereotype in the early twentith century. According to historian Katherine Adams, “in appearing

as clowns, women became open satirizers of American traditions, thus abandoning past

expectations and traditions through a means more powerful than climbing aboard a horse or to

the top of the tent. As clowns, they laughed quite openly at American homes and towns.”14

Among various circuses, there have been discrepancies about the use of female clowns and when

the first one performed. In 1939, the Ringling circus was proud of the new lady clown in its

show. Mr. Butler, a public relations agent with circus, gave an interview in which he stated

“First time we’ve ever had one [lady clown], first time anybody’s ever had one, first time there’s

ever been one in fact.” The article went on to describe the look of “Lulu, the lady clown”

complete with a red heart painted on her nose and how Lulu attempted to be a showgirl at first

but was not pretty enough. 15 However, other articles announced the use of female clowns. One

such article described the life of Miss Williams, a lady clown in the Barnum and Bailey circus

that eventually joined with the Ringlings show. “My reason for becoming a clown,” said Miss

Williams, the only lady clown on Earth, according to the circus bills, “was to make money.” 16

Miss Williams’ father had been a clown and learned from him and wanted to put her training to

use. Unlike “Lulu,” Miss Williams’ aspiration was to be a clown because as she claimed “I

believe that a woman can do anything for a living that a man can do, and do it just as well as a

14 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 183. 15 “Circus Remodels New Lady Clown,” New York Times, April 5, 1939, 33. 16 “Why Miss Williams is a Clown,” New York Times, March 31, 1895, 27.

12 | P a g e

man.” People laughed at her when she first performed but, after seeing her talented antics, she

gained respect and earned as much as the male clowns and as she put it “getting paid for her

ideas.” Women who challenged the clown stereotype not only challenged traditional American

female roles but also were innovative in challenging gender stereotypes and prejudices within the

circus itself.

Other areas of the circus world ostracized women as well. For instance, animal trainers

were typically men, which was largely due to the dangerous nature of their acts. In the death-

defying acts of high-wire stunts, trapeze shows, and even horseback riding acts, the safety

depended on the performer and his or her equipment. The impressive feats of these acts wooed

and exhilarated audiences, but in a sense they appeared safer than ones that involved animals.

Ticket buyers considered animals frightening because the performers could not control the

animals could as easily as the physical equipment used in other acts. There were numerous

publicized cases of things going awry and the animals’ temperament changed drastically within

seconds. In some situations, the animals involved not only attacked their trainer but went after

the audience as well. Newspapers relished on headlines claiming “Tiger Attacks Trainer,” or

“Circus crowd flees as dangerous beasts escaped.” These reports echoed the familiar foreboding

tone of nineteenth century circus articles.

The language the reporters used instilled a sense of fear among the readers, especially

female readers. In one particular article, the writer explained the horror that followed after a lion

escaped during the town circus parade “crying in terror, spectators lining both sides of the street,

many of them women and small children, ducked into store or took refuge in distance as Gilbert

[the lion] leaped to the street.” 17 Similar articles used vivid imagery to amplify the danger by

17 “Parade Crowd in Panic as Circus Lion Escapes,” The Washington Post, September 20th, 1934, 1.

13 | P a g e

using words such as “mauled,” “enraged,” and “gores” among others. Almost all the articles on

circus animal attacks follow the same general pattern. Most of the articles discussed the

extended experience of the male trainer, the age and resume of the animal in question, gory

details of the attack, and the reaction and safety of the audience with special attention given to

women patrons. Highlighting the fear of women audience members reminded readers that the

circus could still be a dangerous place for both female ticket buyers and performers.

Acknowledging the unpredictable and wild qualities of the circus animals both promoted

and hurt the animal acts. On one hand, the attacks exemplified the exciting features of the act

and demonstrated the bravery of the trainer, which caused increased interest in the animal acts,

but at the same time, it also created negative connotations. Fearful of the animals, some patrons

even demanded the acts be removed from the show or the dangerous animals be euthanized.18

With all these conditions in place, it is understandable why women were discouraged

from becoming animal trainers. However, this did not deter a number of women from trying. As

previously stated, the best way to secure ticket sales was to appeal to the town using the female

performers. The chosen women were essentially beautiful walking advertisements. Historian

Katherine Adams suggested that men needed to portray themselves as strong and masculine but

not as sex symbols. As a result, the first interactions trained animals had with the circus were

with the women performers. Typically, a performer was dressed in complete theatrical attire and

makeup then showcased around the town parade riding the animal. This usually involved exotic

animals such as elephants or tamer animals like horses. The trainers handled the more

potentially unhinged animals like tigers, lions, and bears. By riding the animals but not actually

18 Janet Davis, The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top, (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press), 2006, 162-163

14 | P a g e

training and working with them, women became human ornaments.19 Tiny Kline, a famous

acrobat in the Ringling circus, described the theory perfectly: “Elephants are downright drab

looking, but a girl dressed in colorful raiment adds vividness to the act. She is agile and strikes

pretty poses when mounting, whereas a man would only sell the tricks he taught the elephants.”20

Women who had aspirations of becoming full-fledged animal trainers understood the needs of

the circus and circus advertisement and used the needs to advance their personal careers.

The journey to respected female animal trainer was problematic. There were prejudices

from both the circus and the outside world. Unlike clowns who did not have female participants

due to a gendered tradition, there was a blatant rejection of lady trainers. Established male

trainers, as well as circus owners, did not want to invest time or money in a venture that they

believed was impractical and exceptionally dangerous. There was a universal notion that trainers

needed to be gruff and dominating, personality traits that many did not think women possessed.

These were difficult hurdles for women who wanted to become trainers. Lucia Zora’s late

nineteenth century account of her elephant trainer beginnings exemplified the prejudices she had

to overcome. During her first attempt, the menagerie was under the command of a man who

neither desired women trainers nor believed that any feminine performer could possibly develop

herself into a position of control over wild beasts. A few years later, in another circus, Zora

made another request. The circus managers voiced their opinions, “A woman was actually going

to attempt to handle ‘the big herd’! That was news! All for the simple reason that it never had

been done before.” Almost instantly, discouragement arose. The same men claimed, “A woman,

by instinct, is timid and furthermore women lacked the requisite knowledge, concentration of

19 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 158. 20 Janet Davis, Circus Queen and Tinkerbell: The Memoir of Tiny Kline, (Illinois: University of Illinois Press),

2008,173.

15 | P a g e

thought and effort, and assertive personality to control large beasts.” Despite the lack of faith,

Zora’s managers gave her the chance to train elephants. While she was extremely successful and

an excellent trainer, the show kept her full involvement a secret in order to preserve the

previously founded gender stereotypes.21

As employment opportunities for women blossomed, cultural attitudes towards female

trainers started to change. Many female trainers had similar beginnings, starting as the tiny and

beautiful human decoration to assistants for male trainers to finally obtaining a solo act. Often,

the female trainers were married to male trainers and participated in their acts until permitted to

have their own. The women who performed with their husbands gave the audience a sense of

security regarding their safety as well as hers. Marketing strategies for female and male animal

acts were quite different. Resembling the other gendered acts of the circus, female animal acts

focused on the fragile and dainty features attributed to women while the male animal acts

promoted the brute strength, courage, and power the men had over the terrifying jungle beasts.

The circus posters showed the women in fluffy and impractical clothing in large cages with

multiple animals surrounding them. Posters advertising men illustrated the performers in safari

or military clothing and armed with weapons. Some acts, such as the virgin sacrifice act of

trainer Jules Jacot, portrayed the trainer as an innocent girl who awoke when she encountered the

exotic animals. 22 Female trainers needed to rely on determination and personality to snag a solo

act. In 1937, the Ringling Brothers billed a new big-cat act with Maria Rasputin entitled

“Daughter of Imperial Russia’s World-Famous Mad Monk and Confidant to the Late Czar.”

Rasputin claimed to have been descended from the famous Russian and to have inherited his

21 Lucia Zora, Sawdust and Solitude, (Montana: Kessinger Publishing), 1928, 28-29. 22 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 161.

16 | P a g e

rumored mystical powers. By marketing herself as a foreign and mysterious beauty, she rose

from a lowly cabaret dancer to respected animal trainer.

In other situations, the women trainers acknowledged the marketing techniques of the

circus and used them to their advantage. Janet Davis argued that the image of a meek woman

handling beasts intended to create an act of sexual arousal and tension. One of the most famous

circus performers in the early twentieth century was a female tiger trainer known as Mabel Stark.

Many circus performers came from generations of circus families with years of experience and

established reputations. Mabel Stark was unique in this aspect and her autobiography provided

an intimate perspective into her life and career. She was born Mary Haynie in 1889 in Tennessee

to two farmers. When Stark was a young child, the circus came to her hometown and she

immediately fell in love with the animal acts and vowed to work in the circus one day despite

protests from her mother. After her parents tragically died, Stark began studying under a local

doctor and eventually became a nurse, which led her to find work in California in 1911. 23While

in California, she befriended Al Sands, the manager of the Al G. Barnes, who offered her a job as

a horseback rider in the circus parade even though Stark had made her ultimate aspirations

explicitly known. Like other lower-rank female performers, physical features rather than talent

contributed to Stark’s initial selection.

Regardless, she was determined to move up the ranks quickly and achieve her dream of

being an animal trainer, specifically a tiger trainer. During her first parade ride, she expressed

her feisty attitude and willpower to succeed. The men chided her for wanting to be an animal

trainer as a female with no experience and decided to pair her with a temperamental bronco.

Stark, having never ridden a horse was unprepared when the horse became disgruntled and

23 Mabel Stark, Hold That Tiger, (Idaho:Caxton Printers), 1938,28-29.

17 | P a g e

attempted to throw her from the saddle, causing panic throughout the crowd. Quick-thinking

Stark reared the horse towards the stable before anyone witnessed her fall. She then used the

frightening situation as a publicity stunt for her career. When the circus owner, Mr. Barnes, and

Mr. Sands rushed to check on Stark, she proudly announced, “I won’t ride anything as tame as

that horse again, I joined this circus to get a little action.”24 Mr. Barnes accepted Stark’s

explanation that the ride had been part of a stunt and promptly decided to allow her to be an

assistant to the lion trainer, Louis Roth. Roth and the other animal trainers had very little respect

for Stark and either constantly ridiculed her or ignored her completely.

Mr. Barnes was nervous about letting Stark interact with tigers because they were more

dangerous than other cats and very few male trainers even worked with them. In addition, tigers

were extremely expensive because they required importation from Asia. While he was nervous

about the danger the tigers posed, Barnes recognized the potential a female act had and told

Stark, “You’re little and blonde. You’d look good in the ring with those big brutes.” 25 Within a

year of joining the circus with zero experience, Barnes gave Mabel Stark the opportunity to

become a full-fledged tiger trainer. Stark’s quick wit and determination helped her achieve her

goal and with it came the respect of her fellow trainers. Roth began training Stark exclusively

with the tigers and soon it became apparent that she had a natural talent for working with the

“playful kitties” as she referenced them. Once given the chance, Stark quickly rose from a

simple parade performer to the first (and most famous) female tiger trainer in the world.

A new kind of training technique, known as the kindness method, emerged in the late

nineteenth century. As the name implies, this method used a type of reward system with the

animals. If an animal learned a new trick and performed well, the trainer gave them a treat.

24 Ibid, 39. 25 Ibid. 50.

18 | P a g e

Swords and tones accompanied the treats. The kindness method implemented by Stark has

influenced trainers to even present day.

Mabel Stark was revolutionary as a performer, a woman and a trainer. Other tiger

trainers, such as Stark’s famed competitor Clyde Beatty, had different approaches when it came

to training animals. The old techniques focused on a more brutal, physical punishment system

that some reasoned was borderline animal abuse. A major point in Stark’s autobiography

described her relationships to her tigers and how she believed they needed to be treated. She

wanted to treat her tigers as her children and she believed raising tiger cubs was the most

effective method. The first cub Stark raised, Rajah, contributed to her fame and her eventual

position in the “big leagues,” the Ringling Brothers Circus in 1922. With Rajah, Stark created a

circus act that no other performer, male or female, had never done before. Stark taught Rajah to

wrestle with her and designed the act to shock and thrill audiences as they watched the pair

tumble around in the ring.

26 27

26 Robert Hough, The Final Confession of Mabel Stark, (New York: Grove Press), 2001. 27 Miss Cellania, “Mabel Stark: The Lady with the Tigers,” Mentalfloss, http://mentalfloss.com/article/48808/mabel-

stark-lady-tigers (accessed February 23, 2014).

19 | P a g e

Despite her fame with this groundbreaking act, the Ringlings were reluctant at first to

hire a female trainer. She recounted years later in a letter to biographer and circus historian Earl

Chapin May, “The idea of having a woman about the animals did not go so good as such had

never been on that show, and they had me pictured as a temperamental hell cat but I finally won

them over,” and with double the money. 28

As she grew in popularity, Stark estimated that she had appeared in front of thirty million

people.29 At this time, circus performers were renowned celebrities and thoroughly influenced

audiences. Newspaper article written about Stark were similar in other media interpretations of

performers because there was a focus on her looks, especially the contrast between her and the

tigers. There were comments on her beauty and her elegant costumes, which were pantsuits

unlike the skirts, dresses and leotards that the other female acts wore. Furthermore, reporters

attempted to compare her to an ordinary American woman. A 1922 New York Times article

discussed Stark’s background. The article described Stark’s early work as a nurse and how

stressful it was on her nerves, “She had a nervous breakdown which made her seek a less trying

occupation.”30The writer ignored Stark’s personal reasons for joining the circus and her life-long

love of animals. In regards to nerves, Stark responded, “Nerves? An animal trainer can’t have

nerves. I haven’t had nerves since I gave up nursing. Every trainer is apt to waver occasionally

and when he does he gets into trouble.”31 To the reporter’s credit, the article also discussed

Stark’s methods in training tigers and acknowledged her kindness and unique techniques towards

28 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 163. 29 Kenneth Dickinson, “Women, Society and the Circus,” (Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1997), 65. 30 “She Quits Nursing to Subdue Tigers,” New York Times, April 2, 1992, 37. 31 Ibid

20 | P a g e

her tigers. The writer put readers at ease when he portrayed Stark as very motherly and simply

“playing” with her cats.

Throughout her life and career, Mabel Stark projected a different perspective on

twentieth century American women. She fought relentlessly against the prejudice that followed

her, “Because I was a woman and grew tired of hearing men trainers say that a woman could not

do this or that, I broke a twelve tiger act sixteen years ago and began wrestling tigers eight years

ago. And now I’m going to have my twenty tiger act – the biggest tiger act in the business!”32

Stark established a precedent for female trainers and her notoriety made it easier for women to

become trainers. She distinguished herself from the female trainers by working with the animals

she trained, primarily tigers which most women also did not work with. Stark’s tigers attacked

her numerous times, some even occurred during performances. Her philosophy, like so many

other performers, was “the show must go on,” and in order for Stark to keep training with tigers

she needed to show the audiences that her act was not as dangerous as it appeared. Stark’s tigers

and career were everything to her and she was determined to not let anything or anyone take

them away from her. She described a particular attack after which the staff rushed her to a

nearby hospital; she argued with doctors, “Don’t you dare give me an anesthetic. I’m not going

to stay in this hospital. I’ve got to get back to the show.” 33

While Mabel Stark asserted her freedom and rejection of typical female performer

stereotypes, she also understood the need to please the audience and the circus owners. In order

to do this, she used her femininity to connect to ticket-buyers. Rolling with tigers and getting up

close showed vulnerability and naivety. Male acts needed to reassert dominance so they would

32 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 164. 33 Mabel Stark, Hold That Tiger, (Idaho:Caxton Printers), 1938,28-29.

21 | P a g e

be unable to use the same persona as Stark, a woman, could. Stark dramatized her acts and

incorporated the audience. When the act started, she faced the audience while the tigers behind

her made aggressive pawing motions, which prompted the audience to exclaim warnings towards

the trainer. Stark thrived on making her act different from her male counterparts, bringing

attention to society’s conception of women. The act continued as a tiger pounced on her and

smacked her to the ground, they wrestled and then Stark won the match and proceeded to a take

a bow. The tiger act with Stark was unique in its ability to capture the audience by appealing to

Victorian ideals of womanhood. Stark used the ideals to promote her act and her costumes to

appeal to the societal beauty pressures.

The twentieth century ushered in a myriad of changes for both the American circus world

and American society. Circus women were able to secure higher-paying jobs than some of their

male counterparts. The circus was progressive in recognizing that employees deserved pay

based on talent rather than gender or race. New jobs opportunities opened in the circus that

appealed to all classes and genders. Female performers challenged stereotypes and ignited the

beginning of a new type of feminism. These performers were able to use some of the society

expectations of women to market their acts and launched their careers. Audience members

glorified the women and respected them for their craft. As the women grew in popularity, their

political power in the circus also increased and the hierarchical nature of the circus provided

mobility for an even greater career advancement.

22 | P a g e

Chapter Two: Marriage in the Circus

As industrialization increased, women found work outside of the home more, and

American attitudes towards marriage began to change. Marriage became less of an alliance

between two groups or families and more based on romantic notions and interests. The Victorian

era, coined after Queen Victoria, ushered in a time of romance in the nineteenth century as well

as new social expectations. Simultaneously with the growing popularity of the circus, society

judged American women under the ideals of the “Cult of True Womanhood” by four values:

piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity.34 All sorts of women, from housewives to

entertainers acknowledged these four characteristics. Some women followed the ideals blindly,

others attempted to modernize them by incorporating new roles and occupations, and some

women refused to adhere to the gendered rules. Circus women fit into all of these categories and

had to find a balance between their careers, their romantic relationships, and their audiences.

Emerging social theories and tensions challenged these ideals and caused a divide among

the performers. Some performers tried to hold onto the Victorian ideals while other women

objected to the traditional views on women and marriage and embraced feminism. Marriage in

the circus had implications for women; their sexy images could be changed, husbands could

demand their resignation, stipulations could be placed on their independence and even on their

contracts, women’s living situations were changed, and childbirth could alter the bodies of the

performers or put them out of work entirely. Circus men also had marital implications. It was

often emasculating to marry a star performer and marriage posed potential problems. Some

husbands experienced jealously due to other men watching their wives perform in costumes.

34 Barbara Welter, “The Cult of True Womanhood,” American Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, 152.

23 | P a g e

Consequently, men who were also performers dealt with feelings of inadequacy and had to create

a solution to uphold their own fame while maintaining a healthy marriage.

Fred Bradna (nee Ferber) was a man well acquainted with the trials of married circus

life. Fred was a stage manager and equestrian director with the Ringling Brothers Circus for

over forty years and his wife, Ella, was a star bareback rider. In his memoir, Fred discussed

every aspect of circus life and his account of the private lives of the employees presented a

unique perspective on marriage. Fred, unlike like his wife, was not from a traditional circus

family, which produced some prejudices. In fact, he came from a family of brewers; his parents

had even arranged a marriage to a rival brewer’s daughter in an attempt to merge businesses and

thus Fred’s marriage to a circus performer preposterous. Likewise, Ella’s parents were

vehemently against the betrothal. Ella’s father, a circus manager exclaimed that he had not

trained his daughter in equestrianism from the age of three just to run off with the worthless son

of a bourgeois brewer. Her father was stubborn. The circus was her life; the man for her was a

fine athlete who understood circus tradition and would keep her happily at work. 35 Ella’s father

was concerned that if she married an outsider, Ella’s career would end and her life would amount

to nothing more than a traditional wife and mother.

Despite the struggles and opposition, the two lovers eloped, resulting in Fred’s

disownment by his family. Fred’s father-in-law recognized his new son’s devotion and promptly

prepared him for a position in the circus. For his assignment, Bradna worked on his wife’s act,

cared for her horses, and provided whatever the star needed. In this situation, the new husband

assumed a subservient role to his wife, an uncommon position for a husband in the early

twentieth century. When Fred signed his contract, he received in an even rarer role. Due to

35 Fred Bradna, The Big Top: My Forty Years with the Greatest Show on Earth, (New York: Simon and Schuster),

1952, 15-16.

24 | P a g e

Ella’s experience and growing fame, the circus signed as Fred as “Fred Bradna,” changing his

last name to his wife’s. Bradna was a more valuable name than Fred’s was because it had a

history associated with notoriety and fame. Ella was the star act, not Fred, and it was essential to

her performance and public persona that she retain her maiden name. In the memoir, Fred

described feeling little attachment to his own name and desired the Bradna trademark so quickly

after he signed on to the circus, Fred Ferder legally became Fred Bradna. 36

The Bradna’s marriage situation was unorthodox for the time, but if Fred felt any

resentment or emasculation from changing his name, he did not mention his feelings in the book.

However, some gendered aspects of the circus did cause Fred some frustration. He wanted to

gain respect for his own talents but was still an outsider, “I was reminded every day that I was a

circus employee only because I was her husband.”37 Within a few seasons, Ella used her stardom

to influence the circus managers to secure a higher-ranked position as the Equestrian Director

and Master of Ceremonies for her husband, a position he held for the rest of his circus career. As

much as Fred aspired to advance in show business, he was passionately committed to developing

his wife’s performance and dreams. He knew firsthand what future his wife could have had. He

had witnessed many girls reach the critical stage of the performances, show great promise, then

marry and retire. 38

For the Bradnas’, there was a mutual understanding and a common desire to aide each

other and foster lasting careers. This was not the case in every circus marriage. Tempers and

jealously were rampant among performing couples. The only way to gain influence, respect, and

power in the circus was to be of important use to the circus owners, and the best way to

36 Ibid, 17. 37 Ibid, 45. 38 Ibid, 174.

25 | P a g e

accomplish that was to become a star performer, one that would generate revenue for the circus

via a strong fan base. Female employees received this attribution since they made up a large part

of the show. In regards to circus hierarchy, husbands and boyfriends of these performers had to

accept a degree of emasculation. In addition, a majority of the headlining stars were female with

vast amounts of adoring fans that often sent gifts and flowers to the performers. The admiration

from fans contributed to feelings of jealously among married couples. Fred Bradna relayed a

story about a circus love triangle infused with jealously. An acrobat came to Bradna

complaining of a clown who blocked the view of the acrobat act from the audience. Bradna later

discovered that the real issue between the two performers had been the clown’s affection towards

the acrobat’s wife, a fellow performer. The acrobat had concocted the previous complaint out of

fear that chastising the clown would get him fined for brawling. 39 The women performers had to

be exceptionally careful to keep their husbands at peace while simultaneously being appreciative

of the gifts from fans.

Probably the most well-known circus couple of the twentieth century was the

tempestuous duo, Lillian Leitzel and Alfredo Codona. Historian Dean Jensen provided an in

depth account of Leitzel’s private and public life and her turmoil with marriage and relationships

in his book, Queen of the Air: Love and Tragedy at the Circus. Leitzel, at the height of her

career was the world’s greatest circus performer and had the adoration of thousands. She

descended from a family of European circus performers and began working and training at a

young age and was contracted by the Ringling Brothers in 1908 at age 15. She appeared with

her mother, a famous performer, and two other women in an acrobatic troupe titled the Leamy

Ladies. Soon, after signing with the Ringling Brothers, young Leitzel became an instant fan

39 Ibid, 115-6

26 | P a g e

favorite; men lined the door to her tent every night hoping to catch the eye of the performer.

While Leitzel was under the management of Edward Leamy, only Alfredo Codona was

successful in attracting the starlet within the first few days of the 1909 season. Charlotte Shives,

a close friend of Leitzel’s described her determinedness, especially when it involved romance, “I

think this was all a game for her, at least at first. Even then, she was a big star and Alfredo was a

nobody. It wasn’t until Leitzel found out that the show’s other girls were gaga over Alfredo that

she paid any attention to him. I loved Leitzel, but she was fiercely competitive, whether playing

Chinese checkers or trying to show up the other performers. As a star, she seemed to believe she

was entitled to anything that made her heart flutter.” 40 Unfortunately, when the 1909 season

ended so did Leitzel’s and Codona’s relationship. The two did not meet again for sixteen years.

During those sixteen years, Leitzel and Codona worked on perfecting their craft and

fame. Leitzel branched off into a solo act and fans adored her more than ever. She toured

exclusively in the United States with the Ringling Brothers and along the way married three

times, with the first two ending in divorce. Her first marriage was to a circus dancer, Alexis

Sousloff, who had intended to use Leitzel for her fame and money. The engagement was only a

month long and marital issues began soon after. Sousloff explained to the couple’s

boardinghouse property owner that he had revealed to his wife that he had plans to enter into

retirement, even though he was only in his twenties. Sousloff viewed Leitzel as his meal ticket,

which infuriated her. This attitude in conjunction with Sousloff’s extra-marital affairs caused

Leitzel to file for divorce just a few short weeks after the wedding.41

40 Quoted from, Dean Jensen, Queen of the Air: Love and Tragedy at the Circus, (New York: Crown Publishing),

2013,96. 41 Ibid, 115-6

27 | P a g e

Leitzel continued to travel and perform with the Ringlings, and in 1924, she met and

subsequently married a fellow circus employee, Clyde Ingalls, the manager of the circus

sideshow. Some who knew Leitzel suggested that the match might have been more for political

gain, rather than actual love. Different biographies, such as Tiny Kline’s and Fred Bradna’s

describe the pair as “odd,” and “mismatched.” Leitzel was four feet nine inches tall and Ingalls

was a large man over six feet and twenty years her senior. Merle Evans, the band conductor for

the Ringlings for fifty years, remarked, “The pairing of Clyde and Leitzel seemed no less

astonishing than the creation of the first centaur. Who would have predicted that there would be

an attraction between two beings that were so distinct from each other?”42 These skeptical

opinions indicated that Leitzel and Clyde might have married for other reasons than romance and

possibly even for the advancement of their careers.

From behind the tent, Leitzel was infamous for a fiery personality as well as the ability to

get whatever she desired. Throughout her adult life, Leitzel had little concern for the traditions

of marriage; when the two met, Ingalls was already married to another woman. However, in

1919 Leitzel pursued the manager, proceeded to have an affair, and convinced Ingalls to divorce

his wife within a few weeks. Friends questioned the motives of the relationship. Leitzel was by

far the highest-paid performer and Ingalls, according to Evans, “didn’t have pot to pee in,” but he

could be helpful in convincing the circus owners to give in to Letizel’s demands. Regardless, the

two wed in 1920. Similar to other circus marriages, the Ringling Brothers and particularly,

Charley Ringling used the opportunity to spin a publicity stunt in their favor. The Atlanta

Constitution called it “a marriage in circus high-life…Queen of the Flying Rings and Prince of

side show men and the greatest exploiter of freaks in the world.”43

42 Ibid, 143. 43 O.O M’Intyre, “Bits of New York Life,” The Atlantic Constitution, February 28, 1920, 8.

28 | P a g e

The romance was, however, short lived. Ingalls, like Sousloff, was fast to exploit Leitzel

for her money. He had developed a gambling problem and constantly bombard Leitzel for more

and this lead to intensely heated fights. In the last extreme fight, Leitzel even sliced off a bit of

one of Ingall’s fingers with a kitchen knife, which in turn silenced his future protests.44 Even

though the couple’s marriage had badly deteriorated at this point, they accepted a deal with a

European circus. Captain Bertram W. Mills wanted to sign Leitzel as his headliner and, as

custom; her husband also received a job, as sideshow manager and announcer for arena shows.

Once the European season had ended, they returned to the United States, but their problems

continued. Ingalls only made one-twentieth of what his wife made which caused him to beg for

more money, and Leitzel, finding no more use for Ingall, started to visit the beds of other men.

Within a short time, the two decided to divorce.

Leitzel had a number of affairs during and in between her marriages. There were always

admirers, high-profile society members like Henry Ford or Charlie Chaplin but some visitors

were midnight callers with other admiring intentions. One brother, John Ringling, was

adamantly against any immoral activities. After discovering Leitzel’s escapades, management

wrote her a letter that read:

“We have always had a rule that persons not connected with the show are not to be admitted to sleeping cars

or dressing rooms. This has never been considered a privation by anyone, and should not be so considered by you as

there is nothing personal to you in its application.”45

Undeterred, Leitzel continued seeing men outside of the show. She was well aware of her power

and influence and used them to propel herself above the other performers. One relationship that

followed Leitzel was her romance with Colonel H. Maxwell Howard who was an exceptionally

wealthy businessman who maintained a relationship with Leitzel but was the one man who she

44 Dean Jensen, Queen of the Air: Love and Tragedy at the Circus, (New York: Crown Publishing), 2013, 152. 45 Ibid, 127.

29 | P a g e

could not convince to be with her publicly. Colonel Howard’s continual rejection of Leitzel

caused her turmoil but she never severed ties with him, even when she married a third and final

time.

After sixteen seasons apart, Alfredo Codona and his troupe, the Flying Codonas, returned

to the Ringling Brothers. Within weeks of his return, Alfredo quickly fell madly in love with

Leitzel all over again, despite being married to Clara, his trapeze partner. Clara attempted to

hold her marriage together and was hopeful when Alfredo accepted a job in a movie in

Hollywood, thinking the time away from the circus would cause him to lose interest in the affair.

However, Alfredo returned home from Hollywood a changed man; he was irritable, moody and

above all finished with Clara and they were divorced soon after.46 Codona, like Leitzel, did not

value marriage as seriously as other Americans did at the time.

The two famous stars were now at liberty to display their relationship publicly. Both

performers had a magnificent fan base and many were delighted at the prospect of another major

circus marriage. Circus weddings were spectacles that circus owners manipulated to generate

good publicity with the media and future audience members. Leitzel and Codona’s wedding

would be the pinnacle of all circus weddings. An admiring Chicago reporter wrote, “The

marriage of these two comets in the galaxy of circus stardom would brighten heaven. And it will

– it must – take place. It is preordained.” 47 Leitzel and Codona were married on July 28, 1928,

much to the excitement of their fans.

Unlike Leitzel’s previous marriages, her third marriage appeared more genuine and based

on love, rather than on political or financial opportunistic gain. Both stars were making

46 Ibid, 184. 47 Fred Bradna, The Big Top: My Forty Years with the Greatest Show on Earth, (New York: Simon and Schuster),

1952, 192.

30 | P a g e

substantial amounts of money. In 1928, a brand-new Ford roadster sold for $385, Codona alone

made $500 a week, and Leitzel surpassed all performers with a weekly salary of $1200.48

However, problems still arose. While Leitzel’s previous husbands had no issue with her

enormous salary, it seemed to cause problems within this new marriage. Like his wife, Codona

had been training for the circus business his entire life; he had no desire to retire and live of

Leitzel, in fact, Leitzel’s financials stirred jealous emotions in him. Leitzel was constantly

showering her new beau with expensive and exquisite gifts; including clothes that she felt were

more fashionable which all took its toll on Codona. To make matters worse, the pair both had not

ceased their extra-marital affairs with other performers or admirers. Leitzel was incessantly

jealous of Vera Bruce; a trapeze artist she suspected was Codona’s mistress. Likewise, Leitzel

did not stop receiving Colonel Howard every time the circus came to his town. Ultimately, the

jealously, infidelity and erratic emotions led to yet another troublesome marriage for the lead

star.

Problems with the couple continued to escalate and eventually they decide to separate

into different off-season circuses in order to get some distance. Luckily, their tactic worked and

husband and wife reconciled, however, their remaining time together was brief. On February 13,

1931 Leitzel was performing in Copenhagen when the brass ring she used in her

acrobatic/strongwoman act broke, sending her crashing twenty feet down to the concrete floor

below.49 A few days later, the beloved queen of the circus had passed away. Circus and Leitzel

fans were in utter shock and despair, but no one was a devastated as Codona.

48 Dean Jensen, Queen of the Air: Love and Tragedy at the Circus, (New York: Crown Publishing), 2013, 204. 49 Ringling Online, “Lillian Leitzel,” The Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey: The Greatest Show on Earth,

http://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45835&section=45825 (accessed March 14, 2014).

31 | P a g e

Lillian Leitzel was unlucky in matrimony for most of her adult life. The constant affairs,

lazy and ill-fitted husbands, and the intense jealousy surrounding all three marriages caused

Leitzel pain and unhappiness. Her (and her husbands’) lack of regard for the traditional marriage

of the 1920’s indicated that marriages in the circus did not have universal rules and were outside

the typical American social standards. Divorce rates in America from 1916 to 1930 were

between ten and sixteen percent, a low number compared to the 2002 national average at twenty-

nine percent.50 According to the sources that are available, Leitzel was an impulsive and

determined young woman who might have honestly believed in all of her marriages; however, it

is easy to note that she did not always find reciprocating love. Some of the men in her life saw

her as a way to an easy life, one with lavish goods and circus mobility. In addition, as shown

with other circus marriages, jealousy became a major contributor to the downfall of Leitzel’s

relationships. Her marriages and affairs provide insight into the complicated and intricate world

of twentieth century circus life.

Another circus performer’s reasons for marriage are less questionable. Mabel Stark, the

famed tiger trainer, and Leitzel differed in a number of ways, especially in regards to their circus

craft. The occupational roles in the circus determined everything from circus hierarchy to

salaries to respect from other employees. During her lifetime, Lillian Leitzel challenged what it

meant to be a woman in twentieth century America. She had more influential and financial

power than any other performer as shown with her ability to override the Ringling Brothers’

authority to get whatever she desired. In spite of all this, Leitzel‘s circus talent was one that was

typically considered to be performed by a female. Her famed act consisted of raising Leitzel

twenty or so feet in the air and attaching a brass ring from the roof of the tent or stage. Leitzel

50 U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 100 Years of Marriage and Divorce Statistics United States,

1867-1967, December 1973, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_024.pdf (accessed March 13, 2014).

32 | P a g e

then flipped herself over her shoulder in one-arm turns and the audience interacted with counting

how many times the dainty beauty spun. Like Stark’s tiger act, Leitzel’s was highly sexualized

with revealing costumes and antics from Leitzel, who relished in the crowd’s adoration.

Due to the womanly qualities of her act, Leitzel did not have to go to extra measures to

convince circus owners she was capable of performing. Mabel Stark, however, had much more

difficultly gaining the respect Leitzel possessed. Leitzel’s family background also provided a

cushion of support that Stark did not have. As previously mentioned, Stark faced opposition

from nearly all factions of the circus. Male trainers were not comfortable with a woman in the

cage because she challenged social norms and created competition and circus owners were

fearful of lawsuits and animal attacks. Stark’s autobiography, Hold That Tiger, thoroughly

detailed Stark’s beginnings as an orphan, her training practices, and vivid imagery of some of her

worst tiger attacks. However, the autobiography neglects information on some of Stark’s

personal life including her marriages and divorces as well as her political activism.

Stark needed additional assistance beyond her own talents to succeed in her career. In

her mind, the best solution was to get married for opportunistic reasons. The men she married

had connections to the upper ranks of the circus and she needed them for her own career

mobility. In her letters to Earl Chapin May, Stark relayed these ideas and views on marriage and

men.

With no prior circus background, Mabel Stark had little experience, if any, with dealing

with wild animals. Though determined, Stark knew she would not succeed on her own which is

why she decided to marry her first husband, Louis Roth, a famed animal trainer in the circus.

Roth stepped forward and taught Stark the basics of training when no one else would help her.

Stark knew that the marriage would be beneficial because it placed her closer to the animals and

33 | P a g e

to training techniques.51 Despite some early troubles with infidelity from Roth, the two married

on May 20, 1913. The marriage was not destined to be a happy one; Roth drank excessively and

was extremely vain while Stark neither smoked nor drank. Within four years, Roth had quit the

circus and moved to Florida but Stark did not follow. Above everything and everyone in her life,

Stark’s tigers were of the utmost importance. She refused the forced retirement that came with

following her husband and Roth sued her in divorce to which Stark successfully counter-sued.

Regardless of the marital issues that surrounded them, Stark was always appreciative of the

training she had received from Roth and his support of her career aspirations. Roth had even

vouched to the circus management on Stark’s behalf, which subsequently enabled Stark to

advance her act in even a few instances. 52

Stark’s second marriage was to Al Drivin, a bookkeeper and administrator with the circus

where Stark was working. The circus owner, Al Barnes, even orchestrated the match. His

reasons for doing so could have been that he thought Stark’s marriage to someone involved with

his circus would keep her from leaving to go with another circus. Stark claimed she agreed to

marry Drivin because he was attractive, they were friends, and she thought his relation to the

show could be beneficial to her career. 53 Unfortunately, like Stark’s first marriage, her marriage

to Drivin suffered with problems. Drivin was lazy and proceeded to live off Stark’s salary,

which infuriated the fiery independent Stark. In addition, Drivin attempted to dictate how Stark

should perform her act, something that was unappreciated by the star. Later on, the Ringling

Brothers show contracted Stark and originally the brothers did not want to offer a position to her

husband because he had forged checks years earlier when he had worked for them, but their

51 Quoted from Kenneth Dickinson, “Women, Society and the Circus,” (Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1997),

73-74. 52 Ibid 53 Ibid,75.

34 | P a g e

desire for Stark was greater so Drivin was rehired. Quickly after, Stark wanted to divorce

Drivin, but was fearful that any more scandal would dismiss her from the Ringlings’ circus.

Eventually, all the undermining Drivin had done to Stark proved to be too much and on February

21, 1925, the state granted her a divorce. 54

One relationship in Mabel Stark’s life seemed to be the only one based on love and not

on career opportunities. By this time, Stark had finally secured a name for herself and did not

need to rely on anyone to further her own aspirations. A year after her divorce to Drivin, she met

Art Rooney who was the head animal man with the Ringling show. Rooney did not seem to hold

any prejudices against Stark for being a female tiger trainer; in fact, he was extremely supportive

and proud of her accomplishments. Unfortunately, Rooney died before the wedding date. As

evidence for her genuine devotion to Rooney, she confessed in one letter to May “He was the

one I really loved. I gave up tigers from him. Then, just when the whole world seemed sunshine

for me, he was taken.” 55 However, his death reinforced her commitment to her tigers claiming

they were, “the only things that afford me happiness, and don’t ask anything of me.” Stark

married for the final time in the late 1940’s, but her husband, animal trainer Eddie Trees, passed

away in 1954. As Stark did not discuss in Trees in detail, there is not much information

regarding their relationship.

Possibly due to her unlucky finds in love, Mabel Stark had strong feelings about

husbands and marriage. In a Minneapolis Star article from 1934, Stark claimed, “you can’t mix

husbands and tigers.”56 She further explained her beliefs in another letter to May,

“Why do I like tigers better then husbands? I know where the tigers are all the time…They ask nothing of

me…all a husband, to me, is good for is to collect my salary and argue because I won’t neglect the tigers

and pay more attention to him.”

54 Ibid 55 Ibid, 76. 56 “You Can’t Mix Husbands and Tigers, Trainer Says,” Minneapolis Star, July 2 1931, 1.

35 | P a g e

In regards to her failed marriages, Stark had plenty of opinions. She believed that her husbands

were unable to deal with the public’s impression of her as the dominant partner. She also

thought that her husbands were jealous of the relationships she had with her fellow trainers, most

of whom were men. Stark worked with her tigers seven days a week and ate lunch with her

workers, not respecting the established circus hierarchy, another frustration of her husbands. All

of Stark’s marriages were to circus men, and a majority of whom were animal trainers. Stark’s

personal feelings towards male trainers could have affected the outcome of her failed unions. In

a letter to May she explained, “A man wants to be the big bad bully boss, and if the animal did

not do exactly what was expected, he (the man) never tries to coax the animal, in most cases he

uses brutality.” 57 After Stark’s fourth marriage, her attempts at romance ended and she

proceeded to live the rest of her life taking care of her beloved tigers.

Married life in the circus was a trying and difficult relationship for any couple. In

addition to all the typical problems any marriage would have, these men and women had to

conquer feelings of jealousy, inadequacy, and personal independence. Some marriages, like Fred

Bradna’s were mutually beneficial as well as founded in love and respected. Often times,

marriage in the circus was a way for one or both parties to advance in their own careers.

Infidelity was not unheard of and often practiced by both genders. Either way, circus marriages

were unique in their ways of challenging American social norms and expectations. Many circus

women did not quit their jobs when they became a wife and this allowed them to have greater

independence than their female audience. Circus men also had to confront basic social

stereotypes of what it meant to be a man, a husband, and a breadwinner of a household. No

circus marriage was alike; all involve different people and situations with different outcomes. It

57 Quoted from 57 Kenneth Dickinson, “Women, Society and the Circus,” (Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1997),

79.

36 | P a g e

is important to note that it was not a requirement to get married in the circus nor was it a goal for

every performer. The restrictions the Ringlings placed on their employees actually discouraged

marriage, but this did not stop performers and workers from pursuing one another. Married life

in the circus was not impossible and was successful for many couples. For others, like Lillian

Leitzel and Mabel Stark, the price of stardom was too high and was influential in the downfalls

of their marriages.

37 | P a g e

Chapter Three: Interactions with the “Outside” World

Prior to the innovation of the motion picture, circus performers were some of America’s

earliest celebrities with cult-like followers and frenzied paparazzi. The performers elevated their

celebrity status by performing in films, which made them even more fascinating to their fans.

Due to this, the adoring public thirsted for personal information on the famous stars and thus

numerous circus performers entered into the literature world and published biographies and

autobiographies on their life experiences. These books were successful at captivating their

intended readers. In addition, the biographical stories provide insight into how influential the

circus had become to mainstream American and vice versa. The first half of the twentieth

century was an influx of different social and political movements that challenged gender, racial,

and social inequalities. The people the circus encountered on the journey across America

influenced the performers and made the circus’ involvement with these movements was

inevitable. Men and women performers actively participated in events with the outside society

from Suffrage marches the promotion of war bonds in the First World War. These experiences

shaped their ideas about circus life and affected them for the rest of their careers.

The fight for women’s rights was a social and political battled that spanned several

decades, resulting in the pass of the nineteenth amendment in 1920, which gave women the right

to vote. While the movement had originated in the nineteenth century, it was not until the early

twentieth century that the leaders gained traction and were able to make a difference. For these

leaders, it was important for them to have strength in numbers; they accomplished this by

reaching out to famous men and women for support. Activists wrote letters, created information

pamphlets, sold their own newspapers, and held protests and pickets in metropolitan cities. The

modern suffragists differed from their older counterparts by changing their protesting tactics

38 | P a g e

towards more intense methods. For example, during Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration he was

dismayed to discover that the crowd that had come to greet him had moved to witness a women’s

suffrage parade on Pennsylvania Avenue. The five thousand women in attendance, led by Alice

Paul gained enormous publicity for the cause. 58 Some women, like Alice Paul, even staged

hunger protests when arrested for picketing. Having powerful men and women on their side was

central to the suffragists; they reached out to celebrities as well as the wives of presidents,

including Caroline Scott Harrison and Julia Dent Grant, both of whom were avid suffragettes.

It is easy to understand why suffrage leaders wanted to extended their plea to circus

professionals. To the suffragettes circus women were ideal women; many of them made and

managed their own money, they had rejected Victorian ideals by choosing careers over

domesticity, they challenge gender stereotypes with their remarkable acts, and they had an

established and powerful notoriety. As frequent travelers, circus workers observed first-hand the

need for change. The forerunner for change was equestrian star Josie Demott Robinson.

Robinson was from a circus family and had begun performing at a young age. When she was a

teenager, her act, which included somersault on a bareback horse (something no other performer

had mastered), caught the attention on the Ringlings. In circus hierarchy, the top performers had

a great deal of influence and prestige among peers, especially the bareback horse riders. Given

her background, Robinson, like many other leading ladies, had specific ideas towards gender

norms and the rights of women. Other circus women supported her ideas and in 1912, they

created Women’s Equal Rights Society with Robinson serving as president and Kate Sandwina, a

58 PBS, “Battle for Suffrage,” American Experience, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-

article/eleanor-suffrage/ (accessed March 18, 2014).

39 | P a g e

strongwoman, as vice president. Another famous horseback rider, May Wirth, was instrumental

in communicating with women from other circuses.59

The group became The Suffragette Ladies of the Barnum and Bailey Circus with eight

hundred members who held meetings with other activist groups. Holding the circus troupe in

high regard, these other associations educated and supplied their circus sisters with necessary

information. After circus performances had ended for the day, the suffragettes took the

opportunity to hold rallies and give speeches. During a “Votes for Women” rally in Madison

Square Garden, the circus women made the suffrage movement their own by announcing the

name of a new baby giraffe, ceremoniously named “Miss Suffrage.”60 Robinson frequently tried

to establish a cooperation with local women’s groups and was usually successful. As the

president of the circus society, Robinson was engaging and encouraging. “You earn salary. Some

of you have property. You have a right to say what shall be done with it. You want to establish

clearly in the mind of your husband that you are his equal. You are not above him, but his equal.

You are not slaves.” 61

A few days after the rally in Madison Square Garden, the Woman’s Political Union

invited the circus suffragettes for tea. An article written about the event mentioned the lack of

husbands and men in general, indicating that not all circus men were supportive of the

movement. Robinson made a statement explaining why circus women would be interested in a

social movement outside of the circus,

“The circus women live in a little world of their own, roaming all over this country, and sometimes in other

countries, until age or accident knocks them out. They are thrifty, hard-working people…they do daring

deeds, of a kind unknown to the people outside…we discuss the laws of the different states we visit. From

59 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.),

2012, 59. 60 “Enlists Suffragists for a Circus Holiday,” New York Times, April 1, 1912, 7. 61 Ibid

40 | P a g e

these debates we feel sure there is no one who needs the franchise more than ourselves. And there is no

class of women who could be of more assistance to the cause, than we women, who are constantly

traveling. But we are infants in this, and we want instruction to be told what to do.62

She went on to share the difficulties with gender discrimination she faced outside of her circus

career. The New York women were extremely pleased with the circus group, member Elizabeth

Cook proclaimed,

“There is no class of women who show better that they have a right to vote than the circus women, who

twice a day prove that they have the courage and endurance of men. The time has gone by when a woman

can think only of herself. If a circus woman is ill-treated it is my concern; if I am underpaid it is something

for you to see to. We are all part of a great sisterhood, and that is what suffrage is.” 63

The Ringling brothers were supportive of their suffragettes and even two of the brothers’ wives

were members of the Suffrage Society at Baraboo, their hometown. In addition to that

membership, the brothers allowed different suffrage groups to hand out literature to their

audience members before each show.64 The brothers also allowed some of their performers to

perform outside shows in support of the cause and even allowed the women and men to wear

suffrage sashes during their circus acts.

Josie Demott Robinson was the face of Circus Suffrage movement. In her

autobiography, she recalls how captivated she was as a participant,

Before long I was in the midst of it too. I suppose I was rather a valuable acquisition, for I had horses and

could make them do anything the leader of our district wanted. I could ride Comet and make him stand

straight in the air, while I waved a suffrage banner with a firm hand and a high arm.65

Unfortunately, not everyone was supportive of Robinson and her cause. A Brooklyn Eagle

article claimed “Josephine Demott, suffrage leaders, bodily thrown from exhibit building,” and

furthered accused suffragists as unlawful women that required forced ejection to get them to

leave.66 Robinson did not realize the set-up; the reporter had asked her to throw herself from her

62 “Suffragists at Tea with Circus Women,” New York Times, April 8, 1912, 7. 63 Ibid 64 “Ringling Brothers Help Wisconsin,” Woman’s Journal, July 13, 1912. 65 Josephine Demott Robinson, The Circus Lady, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell), 1926, 276-77. 66 Ibid, 219.

41 | P a g e

house under the pretense that it was a publicity stunt for her circus act. The article proved to be

her downfall because after publication the New York suffrage director asked Robinson to leave

the movement. While the circus’ involvement with the Suffrage movement was brief, it showed

how important these women were to society and how influenced they were by the outside world.

As previously mentioned, early circuses did not have wholesome reputations before the

Ringling brothers. Newspaper articles chastised female performers for the “inappropriateness”

of such work or for their costumes’ lack of concealment. According to historian Katherine

Adams, newspaper reporters used the circus as schools of scandal. Headlines, such as “Fall from

Trapeze Kills Girl in Circus,” caught the attention of readers and then engrossed them in articles

that detailed every aspect of the accident and death.67 These articles discouraged women and

young girls from finding occupations in the circus, however, performers were not the only ones

targeted. Audience members were as well. Headlines like “Circus Crowd Flees While the Tent

Burns” painted a negative image of the circus and discouraged women and children from

attending the circus due to its dangerous nature.68

The brothers wanted to publicize their show as a family affair and in order to do so the

brothers had to be aware of political and social issues in America. During the height of their

circus, America was easing out of the Victorian ideals of the nineteenth century. The circus

owners also needed women audience members to boost ticket sales and thus had to alter their

approaches to advertising and the overall performance of the show. It was clear that the circus

was becoming an important part of American life, and the “corruption” that reporters felt

eventually decreased in fervor after the rise of the Ringling Brothers. To make their circus a true

67 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.,

2012),23-25 68 “Circus Crowd Flees While the Tent Burns,” New York Times, April 12, 1906.

42 | P a g e

family affair, the brothers’ implemented different rules and regulations for their performers and

enticed the public by appealing directly to families.69 The Ringling circus was a forerunner in

producing a positive and wholesome picture of the circus and this was successful in making the

media an ally.

The Ringlings made successful alliances with the media, which boosted their fame and

credibility. New transportation, such as automobiles, made American lives easier and allowed

for more time for families and entertainment. The circus was at the forefront of the American

entertainment arena. Memorabilia, literature, and movies about the circus circulated. Children’s

books regarding the circus appealed to both genders. Romantic notions of life in the circus filled

these stories but the authors had different agendas regarding books for boys and books for girls.

According to historian Kathrine Adams, between 1880 and 1940 about four hundred children’s

novels were written about the circus or running away with it.70 Most of the literature appealed to

boys but some novels attracted girls. Those intended for boys wrote of danger and adventure,

some were earlier versions resonated the despised view of the circus encouraging boys to be

good and not to run away from home.

Later books focused on young boys running away to the circus and becoming star

performers or brave heroes like the boys in Edgar B. P Darlington’s The Circus Boys on Flying

Rings, or Making the Start in the Sawdust Life, where two boys save a performer caught in a

stirrup.71 Some popular stories written for or about girls focused on the morality and proper

69 Mel Miller, Ringling Museum of the Circus: The Collection and Its Relation to the History of the Circus, (Library

of Congress, 1963), 24. 70 Katherine Adams, Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940, (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.,

2012),36 71 Edgar Darlington, The Circus Boys on Flying Rings, or Making the Start in the Sawdust Life, (Ohio: Saalfield

Publishing Company, 1910).

43 | P a g e

behavior of girls. Often portrayed as spunky for wanting to go to the circus these fictional

characters appealed to young girls but unlike their male counterparts, most of the novels did not

have their female characters wanting to leave home and join the circus. Other books depicted the

circus-going girls as being fearful of the acts rather than excited like the boys. In Mary S.

Deering’s An Average Boy’s Vacation a young girl named Louise sneakily follows her brothers

to the circus but is shocked by some of the acts, “Next the trapeze. Louise thought it ‘perfectly

horrid’ but the boys watched every motion and Phil and Rob decided between themselves that

there was a first-rate chance for two trapeze bars out in Uncle Tom’s barn.”72 Authors tried

different approaches to literature. In Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, girl characters are more

interested in the costumes and “sparkle” of the circus rather than the acts. Indicating that girls

should be frightened by the circus or interested in the glamour attractions showed the different

gendered view of the circus life and the appropriate behavior and occupations for young

children.

Aside from pleasing the media, the Ringling brothers needed a stronger connection to

their audiences. One of the easiest ways to appease their customers was to support the ticket

buyers’ desires, which meant the brothers needed to take a stance on public causes. This was

beneficial to the brothers because many women became involved in the social movements of the

1910’s and 1920’s. Prohibition was an ideology that was attractive and necessary for the success

of the Ringling Brothers Circus. It was a movement against the sale or creation of alcohol that

originated in the late nineteenth century and many of the supporters and advocates were the very

wives and mothers that the Ringlings’ were trying to get in their seats.

72 Mary Deering, An Average Boy’s Vacation, (California: University of California Libraries, 1876), 130.

44 | P a g e

The foundation of the brothers’ circus was rooted in proper and moral behavior. This

mentality expanded beyond their advertisements; they wrote in their autobiography that they

never signed official contracts with each but rather relied on blood loyalty and split all profits

evenly. A common motto was that the circus was a family, not strangers, who labored

together.73 While the performers were predominantly women, the laborers were all men.

Laborers were easy to come by since a job with the circus paid well, provided lodging and food,

and had adventurous qualities. However, the laborers had extremely restrictive rules placed

upon them, especially in regards to alcohol. The Ringlings wanted their shows to run smoothly

and believed that alcohol hurt job performance so they demanded a dry workplace. In order to

do this successfully, the brothers had a system of docking pay for alcohol-related offenses.

According to workers’ contracts, there were rules that stated that workers found drinking on or

off the job would not receive their holdback pay at the end of the season, and if circumstances

were severe enough, a worker risked termination.74 Performers could not drink either; however,

they had much more leniency regarding alcohol. Like the middle-class women they were trying

to appeal to, the circus owners viewed drinking as a working-class problem.

The circus provided more than simple entertainment to Americans. During this time,

waves of European immigrants migrated to the United States. This wave of immigration

contributed to the alcohol issues and produced a loud opposition of moral crusaders. Greater

numbers of American women participated in paid labor and public activism than ever before.

Similar to the female activists of the nineteenth century, these Progressive reformers argued that

their maternal nature made them concerned for the welfare of the nation and they needed to

73 Janet Davis, The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top, (Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press), 2006, 61. 74 Ibid, 77.

45 | P a g e

strike down all immoral activities and venues. Labeled especially heinous were any immoral

activities that concerned sex, such as prostitution.

However, the circus became an exception. In order to satisfy all parties, circus

performers needed to retain their revealing costumes while upholding their decency. The

American public created a justification that claimed the women wore costumes due to athletic

necessity. Historian Janet Davis theorized that by inviting families to the event, the circus

owners eliminated any sexuality because of the children present. On the contrary, the circus

performers, in their costumes and in their tantalizing acts provided a scapegoat for the American

people. Wives enjoyed a show with their families and husbands did not feel guilt watching the

attractive young women perform. According to Davis, “In their elaborate advertising campaigns,

proprietors used gender, race, class, and representations of empire to create an irresistible sexual

striptease under the guise of “clean” family entertainment.”75 However, the sexual exception rule

ended after the performance. Josephine Demott Robinson recalled her different outfits and the

appropriate dress for performers, “Of course skirts would endanger our lives when we were

performing so scanty attire was the thing, but the minute the act was over out came the long skirt

or cloak immediately, and I was told not to be so immodest as to stand around half naked. There

was no sense in it.” 76 The circus was different from the rest of America in many aspects, but that

does not mean circus people had immunity from all of the expectations and social rules of the

outside world. The circus performers needed to adhere at least somewhat to societal norms in

order to lose their popularity with the fans. A large fan base amplified a performer’s power in

the circus, so a strong and devoted group of followers was essential.

75 Ibid, 83. 76 Josephine Demott Robinson, The Circus Lady, (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell), 1926, 175.

46 | P a g e

Progressive social movements were not the only features of the public world that

interested circus people. In nearly all the circus biographies, writers mentioned the feeling of

being an outsider, reducing circus life to its own world under the tent. However, outside national

events constantly bombarded and affected the small, sacred circus world. An event that affected

everyone was World War One. As the United States entered the war, the circus felt the impact.

Often, young men took their dates to the circus when it was in town but after the war started the

United States government drafted many young men and audience numbers decreased

dramatically. In addition to the lull of ticket sales, the young men that the Ringlings usually

contracted as circus laborers were also enlisted which meant the Ringlings were having difficulty

finding able replacements. Without the laborers, the show was not to function as properly and

the cost of maintaining the show become exceedingly difficult. In an attempt to consolidate

spending, the brothers decided to combine their two shows at this time.

Other circus companies experienced the financial strain as well. Mabel Stark was

performing with the Barnes show during the war understood the difficulty the show faced, “The

young-man power of the country was concentrated in training camps, or was fighting in France.

It was too much of a job for the older men to haul the big top up each day and get the heavy

wagons into place.”77 The circus began experiencing more troubles, like missing shows because

of late trains. Stark was determined to prevent the show from going under. She recruited a

group of enthusiastic showgirls and offered a suggestion to Al Barnes who had announced the

closing of the show. She ventured, “I’ve been talking it over with the girls, and we’re willing to

pitch in and help. If you get us overalls, and heavy gloves we’ll wreck the big tent for you every

night. We can’t put it up, but we can carry side poles, jacks, and stakes, roll the side walls, and

77 Mabel Stark, Hold That Tiger, (Idaho:Caxton Printers), 1938, 156.

47 | P a g e

fold the big top.”78Every night for fourteen weeks, Stark’s group of fifteen girls set up the circus

and virtually saved Barnes’ business. In the Ringling show, other performers, such as Fred

Bradna took up additional roles to make up for the lack of dependable labor.

Other circus women provided aid to the war effort. Women, such as May Wirth used

their publicity to promote American patriotism. Wirth was an activist for many issues, including

awareness of tuberculosis, but she was particularly active in helping promote the war by

encouraging the sale of Liberty bonds.79 Circus owners also advertised the sale of the bonds on

their circus posters. Other circus people sewed socks for soldiers and volunteered for the Red

Cross. The war effort inadvertently included Lillian Leitzel. Letizel had become one of

America’s earliest sex symbols. Young men throughout Europe had pictures of Leitzel and a

vote was carried out by thousands of Americans for the most beautiful and attractive woman in

the world. Leitzel won by a landslide and the voters issued a proclamation to her that read, “You

now stand No. 1 and in view of our absolute confidence, you need no fear that your present

position will ever be usurped by another, no matter how beautiful.” Soldiers everywhere

treasured Leitzel photos in their barracks and their lockers. 80

As much as the circus members felt like outsiders, American society integrated them to a

degree. The circus influenced America as well. In a time before movies had become

mainstream, the circus provided a unique form of entertainment for Americans. The circus

performers were the first celebrities and their lives were compelling to their audiences.

Americans and their beloved circus stars had an intricate collaboration. The public viewed the

78 Ibid, 157-8. 79 Quoted from Kenneth Dickinson, “Women, Society and the Circus,” (Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1997),

21. 80 “Big Circus Day,” Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, August 3, 1915, 18.

48 | P a g e

circus as a dreamland, a place to escape from the worries of every-day life and engulf themselves

in a world that knew no boundaries. Sometimes, performers and circus owners infiltrated the

world of their audience and used their notoriety to influence their patrons and other citizens and

gain respect on a deeper level than as simply a performer. While they did not always receive the

recognition they deserved, these men and women were instrumental in their efforts to fight for

causes important to them. Major events affected the circus like other Americans albeit in

different ways and the workers used their incredible talents to contribute in any way possible.

49 | P a g e

Conclusion: The Show Must Go On

From the 1880’s to the 1940’s, the circus surged in popularity with the American

audience. The performers became celebrities that plastered the covers of posters, magazines, and

newspapers. Each year, entire towns and cities flooded the streets for a glimpse of the glittering

costumes and magnificent animals. The “Big Top” was enchanting dream for the children, men,

and women who filled the seats. This dream influenced the literary fiction of writers and

produced exciting tales of average people running away to join the famed stars and life on the

road.

In a time before television, the circus provided the easiest form of entertainment. The

highly publicized lives of the circus performers generated enormous interest among the

American public. Articles that detailed their talents and their personal stories covered the pages

of newspapers. Further interest in their personal lives created a need for biographies, to which

many performers obliged. These biographies were crucial in portraying life outside of

performing. The authors expressed views on society, marriage, and the circus. The women

performers stood as examples of pioneer feminists. In their artistic abilities, the talented

entertainers challenged American gender roles and stereotypes. Their salary was based on their

talents, not gender and some women, like Lillian Leitzel, could demand even more privileges

than their male counterparts could. In the circus world, women had the overwhelmingly upper

hand. They became models of inspiration for other non-performing females. To the outsider, the

circus women experienced a degree of gender equality that the majority of American women did

not. In a society where domesticity was the female expectation, the circus women shattered

traditions and encouraged alternate lifestyles. Men performers contributed to these new

opportunities for women by rejecting “normal” standards of marriages. Many circus men

50 | P a g e

understood the power and prestige the circus women obtained and encouraged the challenges to

gender stereotypes by supporting the female stars. Some men, like Fred Bradna, even changed

their last names in order to promote the fame and success of their wives.

Today, the Ringling Brothers Circus has fallen a considerable amount in popularity. The

circus travels and entertains thousands each year, but is nowhere near as influential and

anticipated as it was previously. The performers consist of men and women and an

overwhelming majority still come from generations of circus families. In the twentieth century,

most performers were American. Surprisingly, the vast majority of modern performers are not

Americans but rather Eastern Europeans or South Americans. In addition, the types of

performing acts have changed. Earlier, many shows included solo performances highlighting

acrobatic or strength skills. With the exception of a slight few, most Ringling performers in the

twenty-first century perform in large groups between five and fifteen people. These new acts

also include new technologies, such as motor bikes.

In terms of gender, most performers are still female. The early circus women challenged

stereotypes in the circus by performing typically male acts; their success allowed modern women

to pursue similar occupations. Today, the Ringling Brothers Circus consists of three different

circuses and there are seven female clowns and sixteen male clowns among the three shows.

While men still dominate in the clown occupation, women clowns have better opportunities and

face less discrimination than the earlier female clowns faced.81 Animal trainers are relatively

equal in gender proportion, but nearly all of the trainers are married couples. The Ringling

Brothers website includes biographies on their performers and in regards to all the animal

81 Feld Entertainment, “Meet the Stars,” Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey, The Greatest Show on Earth,

http://www.ringling.com/SectionLandingPage.aspx?id=47833 (accessed March 30, 2014).

51 | P a g e

trainers, one trainer had little experience but the more experienced trainer provided instruction.

The more experienced trainer in all couples appears to be the husband. A few of the biographies

retell the familiar circus story. A performer falls in love with an outsider, and in order to save

the relationship the outsider becomes incorporated into the circus. To this day, circus performers

value their craft over many American traditions. Finally, there are no female large cat trainers in

the modern Ringling circus. As disappointing as this may be, Mabel Stark’s influence is still

powerful. The male tiger and lion trainers express their pride by stating that they treat their

animals as playful cats and prefer to use the sweet and tender method that Stark employed.

Early female circus performers affectively influenced American society and the circus

world. The circus, in comparison to the American society, was a whirlwind of different roles,

expectations, and rules. It stood apart from society, but remained in a delicate balance of

pleasing audiences while simultaneously refusing to accept their societal restrictions and

qualifications. Performers created their own expectations and pursued their own career interests

when their contemporaries had little ability to do so. Their stories are still relevant today as

shown by the number of circus books published in the last few years. The Ringling Brothers

Circus Museum receives thousands of visitors each year, so the legacy of these performers

endures. The unique lives of these performers contributed to a new understanding of feminism

and what it meant to be a woman in the early twentieth century.

52 | P a g e

Bibliography

Primary Sources

“Big Circus Day.” Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, August 3, 1915, 18.

Bradna, Fred. The Big Top: My Forty Years with the Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1952.

“Circus Crowd Flees While the Tent Burns.” New York Times, April 12, 1906.

“Circus Remodels New Lady Clown.” New York Times, April 5, 1939, 33.

Darlington, Edgar. The Circus Boys on Flying Rings, or Making the Start in the Sawdust Life. Ohio:

Saalfield Publishing Company, 1910.

Deering, Mary. An Average Boy’s Vacation. California: University of California Libraries, 1876.

“Enlists Suffragists for a Circus Holiday.” New York Times, April 1, 1912, 7.

Feld Entertainment. “Lillian Leitzel.” The Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey: The Greatest Show on

Earth. http://www.ringling.com/ContentPage.aspx?id=45835&section=45825 (accessed March 14, 2014).

Miller, Mel. Ringling Museum of the Circus: The Collection and Its Relation to the History of the Circus.

Library of Congress, 1963.

M’Intyre, O.O. “Bits of New York Life.” The Atlantic Constitution, February 28, 1920, 8.

Nichols, Lewis. “Slapstick as an Art: In the Circus Thrives the Clown's Tradition.” New York Times,

April 10, 1938.

“Parade Crowd in Panic as Circus Lion Escapes.” The Washington Post, September 20, 1934, 1.

“Ringling Bros.’ Circus.” New Orleans Daily Picayune, November 19, 1898, 12.

“Ringling Brothers Help Wisconsin.” Woman’s Journal, July 13, 1912.

Robinson, Josephine Demott. The Circus Lady. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1926.

Rules Concerning Ballet Girls Supplementary In Contract. October 1912 to March 1913. Ringling Bros.

“She Quits Nursing to Subdue Tigers.” New York Times, April 2, 1992, 37.

Stark, Mabel. Hold That Tiger. Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1938.

“Suffragists at Tea with Circus Women.” New York Times, April 8, 1912, 7.

U.S Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 100 Years of Marriage and Divorce Statistics United

States, 1867-1967, December 1973. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_21/sr21_024.pdf (accessed

March 13, 2014).

“Why Miss Williams is a Clown.” New York Times, March 31, 1895, 27.

“You Can’t Mix Husbands and Tigers, Trainer Says.” Minneapolis Star, July 2 1931, 1.

Zora, Lucia. Sawdust and Solitude. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 1928.

53 | P a g e

Secondary Sources

Adams, Katherine. Women of the American Circus: 1880-1940. North Carolina: McFarland &

Company, Inc., 2012.

Cellania, Miss. “Mabel Stark: The Lady with the Tigers.” Mentalfloss.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/48808/mabel-stark-lady-tigers (accessed February 23, 2014).

Davis, Janet. The Circus Age: Culture and Society under the American Big Top. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Davis, Janet. Circus Queen and Tinkerbell: The Memoir of Tiny Kline. Illinois: University of

Illinois Press, 2008.

Dickinson, Kenneth. “Women, Society and the Circus.” Master’s thesis, Baylor University,

1997.

Goldin, Claudia. The work and wages of single women, 1870-1920. Journal of Economic

History, no. 40 (1980).

Hough, Robert. The Final Confession of Mabel Stark. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

Jensen, Dean. Queen of the Air: A True Story of Love and Tragedy at the Circus. New York:

Random House Inc., 2013.

Lavendar, Catherine. “The New Woman.” Women in New York City, 1890-1940.

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/386/newwoman.html (accessed November

17, 2013).

May, Earl Chapin. The Circus from Rome to Ringling. New York: Dover Publications, 1963.

PBS. “Battle for Suffrage.” American Experience.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/eleanor-suffrage/

(accessed March 18, 2014).

Welter, Barbara. “The Cult of True Womanhood.” American Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2.

Zeitz, Joshua. Flapper. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2006.