English Country Dances

The Collier’s Daughter or the Duke of Rutland’s Delight 1719

Longways for as many as will

A1 With 4 steps The first Couple cross over, with 4 steps they go one place down the outside and with 8 steps they 2h turn partner 1 and 1/2 to finish proper in the second Couple’s Place.
A2 And then with 4 steps they cross over, with 4 steps go one more place below, and with 8 steps 2h turn partner 1 and 1/2 to finish proper in the third Couple’s Place,
B1 Then with 8 brisk walking or skipping steps lead your Partner up to the Top and caste off one place to finish proper in progressed place and with 8 brisk walking or slip steps Hands quite round and turn all four single about over l.sh.
B2 Then with 8 brisk walking or skipping steps (2 counts for each of the 4 sides of the minor set) Right Left quite round and with 8 steps 2h turn your partner

This dance first appeared in the Dancing Master in 1717 and was still there in 1728. Kate Van Winkle Keller and George A.Fogg, in Country Dances from Colonial New York, James Alexander’s Notebook (1730, Boston, 2000) note that John Manners (1638-1711) was created Duke of Rutland in 1703, that there was a song entitled 'The Collier's Daughter' published in John Watts, The Musical Miscellany, London, 1729, and that a dance derived from the Playford dance was among those found in 1730 Notebook of James Alexander of New York. Alexander's note read:
Colliers daur
Hay wt Lys, then men, x over 2 Coupl
Lead to top, cast off, r&L.

An interpretation of the original Dancing Master dance was presented by Cecil Sharp in his Country Dance Book at the beginning of last century and there have been other variants upon this interpretaion. Most of these verions, however, run contrary to the original instructions at one point or another, e.g. by not having the dancing couple return to the top of their triple minor set, or not having the circle or chain go only half around instead of 'quite round', and most end up with slackness in the A part of the dance by interpreting the 'turn partner' as to mean exactly once around and thus having the second 'cross below' starting improper. Some versions even substitute in a hands across (r.h. star) for the 'hand quiet around'. For half-a-dozen reasons I feel that the reconstruction I have suggested above (and which we have danced with much satisfaction) may be closest to that which was originally intended by the person who penned the instructions.

Firstly, it fits both the musical phrasing and also the phrasing in the DM description, as suggested both by the dots coding and the language. No figure has to be across the musical phrase and no coding needs to be disregarded.

Secondly, to make the specified turn after the ‘cross and go below’ a 1 and 1/2 turn (rather than half turn or once only turn), fits the music perfectly, returns dancers to their proper (natural) side, is consistent with the turn in similar context in my reconstruction of ‘Prince William’ and ‘Trip to Paris’ (see my discussion on these dances) and means that when going below both times you are going around someone of opposite dancing gender. The later is not only socially more satisfying but also more likely to be the origin of the figure as simplified in James Alexander 1730 notebook version as ‘x over 2 Coupl’. Indeed, the Dancing Master version as I reconstruct it here is exactly the same as the Alexander versions (as I reconstruct it below) except that it takes twice as long and has the dancing couple interrupt what could be conceive as one long loop around the opposite side and back to own side at the bottom, with a turning of partner both below the 2s and below the 3s.

Thirdly, in the 18th century it was usual for a leading back up the set to be followed to be an 8 count figure that involved dancers returning to the top of the triple minor set then casting into middel/second/progressed position. Although by the 1811 Thomas Wilson makes it clear that it was not necessary for the dancing couple to lead all the way back to the top, it being possible to achieve the progression by having the dancing couple simply move into the 2s place as the 2s moved up, it seem unlikely that this is what is intended in this dance. The instructions clearly say 'lead your Partner up to the top' and if the middle of the set is now to be considered the top, then why circle with the couple above, when from the top your inclination would be to circle with the couple below. Indeed, in James Alexander’s notes, we have the whole figure spelt out: ‘lead to top, cast off’. Although leading to the top and casting covers a lot of ground in 8 counts, it seems commonly expected that such a figure would be ‘danced’ (with chassees or step-hops) rather than walked, just as such figures are still danced in Northern English Ceilidh dancing.

Fourthly, the circle neatly occupies its own musical space in the second half of B1 and does not need to sit across any phrases as in some reconstructions. This reconstruction does not allow any ‘extra’ time or steps for the ‘turn all four single’ at the end of the circle but if the circle is slipped, then the momentum of the dancers at the end can lead them into performing a quick turn single over the l.sh. within the 8 counts provided for the circle.

Fifthly, by considering that a cast is understood to follow the lead back up, you don’t have to force a progression into the dance elsewhere by, for example, considering the ‘right left quite round’ to mean just half rights and lefts, when this is unlikely. In those days rights and lefts (or even its singular ‘right left’) invariably meant all the way around to were you started (see the discussion on my ‘Portsmouth’ reconstruction) and the word ‘quite’, whether referring to a circle, rights and lefts or a figure 8 invariably meant ‘all the way’.

Sixthly, although 2 counts for each side of a rights and lefts feels a rush if walked, it is not so if ‘danced’ on toes with a travelling step (skipping or chassee-ing). The tightness of the timing of the second half of this dance may indeed be intended to give the dancers a bit of a contrast to the first half and a bit of a lift/rush before rounding out the sequence with a partner turn and starting again. The pacing corresponds well with a possible reading of the pacing of Alexander’s version of the dance for contrary to the reconstruction offered by Keller and Fogg, it may not be Alexander's 'cross over 2 couples' that is meant to be skipped, but the final lead up, cast off and rights and lefts (all figures that I am postulating had to be brisk or skipped in the original version). Whereas Keller and Fogg structure the second half of Alexanders' dance as having B1 divided between 8 counts for the cross over 2 couples and 8 for the lead to top and cast off and then as having 16 counts (all B2) for the rights and lefts, I would suggest 16 steps (all B1) to cross over, go two places down, and 1/2 turn partner to proper side, and then divide B2 into 8 counts (skipping) to lead up and cast off and 8 to do the rights and lefts. In any event, it doesn't matter terribly if the dancers don't manage the full rights and lefts inside 8 counts as the figure that follows it in the Dancing Master version is a 2h turn with partner, a very forgiving 'elastic' figure, so if dancers need a extra count or two to complete the rights and lefts they can take it from the subsequent phrase and still probably manage to 2 hand turn their partner (a figure that can be done in 6 counts if necessary).

I do not differ from Keller and Fogg in their understanding of the first half of the Alexander’s dance - 1M hey with 1&2W and then the 1W hey with 1&2M. Though not found in the Dancing Master’s ‘Collier’s Daughter’ this pair of figures was very common in this period, so it is not surprising that someone wanting less turning in the dance, might put in these heys and drop the repeated cross over and turn partner, circle and turn single, and final 2 hand turn.

So here above we have a possible reconstruction of the Dancing Master's Collier's Daughter that satifies all the demands of the text and produces and eminently enjoyable dance - especially for the 1s. In a modern situation I might only suggest you have short columns so that everyone has a chance to be a 1 before the music concludes and that you make the turn single after the circle optional.

Dargeson (or Sedauny) 1651

For as many as will standing thus.

First man and Wo. sides once advancing with a l.double to draw r.sh. level then falling back with r.double / set left&right and turn S. with l.double over l.sh., then, with a r.double Passe forward by l.sh. past each other and continue to the next sides by the l.sh., falling back with l.double, set to the right & left and with a r.double turn S. over r.sh. and start to pass on by the r.shoulder.
As much to the next two people
and so forward (everyone 'bouncing off both side walls') till you come to your places where you began.
Armes all as you sided, turning the first all the way on the r.arm with two doubles, setting left & right, turning single over l.sh. and pass on by the l.sh., then arming next all the way on the left arm with 2 doubles, setting right&left, turning over r.sh. and passing by the right, etc, till you come to your owne places.
The single hey all handing as you pass with a double for each hand, starting l.f. as you give r.h. and starting r.f. when you give l.h. till you come to your places.

More often than not, when doing this dance Renaissance reenactors have all the action in the first part and the passing in the second part happening on the left side of successive opposites and modern English Country dancers invariably have it all happening on the right side. In the version I've presented here there is an alternation of side on which the action commences. The above version, however, has three strengths.

Firstly, it sits well with the courtly style of the late 16th and early 17th century, involving as it did a continual alternation of starting foot and sides, and being danced with nothing but singles to set and doubles for everything else. It also reflects the preference in that style to just arm one way before you set and turn, and then arm the other way... that is, to maintain the set and turn as part of each chorus and to keep each arming figure to just once around. You can reconstruct 'Newcastle' as well following these same principles.

Secondly it sits well with the text. It reflects the fact that you are invited to arm as you sided - so instead of arming each way in an asymetrical fashion to progress, you arm just one way each time, set, turn and move on behind that person to arm the next the other way. This version also reflects also the fact that the 'passe' in the text does not happen at the end of the phrase with the turn single but the beginning of the next and is linked more with the siding the next (I suggest that the turn single does not progress you, as it is want to do in most modern versions, but simply takes you shoulder to shoulder with the person you last sided (and to opposite shoulder / side as did the siding) and that the progression proper happens only when you continue on to side or arm with the next.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly of all, I feel this version brings out the thematic unity of the dance. Each of the three parts is effectively a hey - a play on the snowball hey theme that featured in such dances as Arbeau's 'Branle de la Haye' and 'Branle de la Montarde' (published 60 odd years earlier). The first part is a hey which each pass prefaced with a side, set and turn. The second part is a hey with each pass prefaced with an arm, set and turn. The third part is simply the hey itself. There is a development in exitement as you go from simply siding with each opposite, to arming them and then to doing nothing but passing them quickly, but the hey shape is maintained through all 3 figures. Indeed, all 3 parts have the 'serpentine' lines which Hogarth 100 years later in his Analysis of Beauty, regarded as so essential to the aesthetic of English Country dance.

At first glance it might be thought this alternating-sides interpretation of Dargeson is more of a challenge to teach than other versions, but it is not the case if you do the following.

Firstly, ensure that dancers are prepared to take doubles throughout the dance (except when setting) - either by preceding the dance on a the program with a simple one which requires just that - perhaps an Arbeau branle or another 1651 Playford dance which works best with doubles. Dances such as 'Gathering Peascods' or 'Grimstock' are not only ideal for practising doubles, but are also ideal for practising following a siding or an arming with a set and turn - and for practising alternating the side on which this action happens.

Secondly, teach the third part of the dance first, then explain that the first and second parts are just elaborations on the hey just traced.

The result is an easy to teach dance which is physically and intellectually satisfying to the dancers - and one which is aesthetically satisfying to onlookers (including band members from a stage). It makes that which Hogarth called 'a delightful play upon the eye, especially when the whole figure is to be seen at one view, as at the playhouse from the gallery'.

Deil Take the Wars

Longways for as many as will

A1 With 16 steps The 1.cu. cast off 1 place and 2h open turn partner 1 and 1/2, and then with 16 steps lead thro’ the 3. cu. and 2h open turn partner 1 and 1/2 to finish proper.

A2 The 2. cu. do the same:

B1 Then with 16 steps the 1. 2. and 3. Men hay, starting 1M facing down, others up, passing r.sh. at top and l.sh. at bottom), then with 4 steps for each hand the 1. Man draw his Partner into his place with his Right-hand, and he then draws the 2. Man into the 1. Wo. place with his Left-hand, the other two do the same (the 1^st M drawing the 2nd W into 2nd M’s place with r.h., and 3rd M into 2nd W’s place l.h. and then 3rd W into 3rd M’s place with r.h.), then the three Men being on the Wo’s side, and the We. on the Men’s side and with final 4 steps M might set while W turn to face up (2&3W) or down (1W).

B2 The three We. Hay (again starting r.sh. at top), and the 1. Wo draw the Men over into their places again, and turn her Partner in the 3. cu. place, then with 4 remaining steps lead through 2. cu [i.e. the couple in 2nd place, original 3. cu] while the other couples move up or down a little to create the space [and] while turn once on r.h., and so on.

This dance was set to music which Charles Powel had written in a popular Scottish style to carry a song in Thomas D’Urfey’s A Wife for any Man, a farce that enjoyed stage popularity in the late 1690s but is no lost. Henry Playford had already noted the popularity of Scottish flavoured songs, and The Bonny Grey Ey’dMorn appeared in 1696. The following year he published this tune and the next year, 1698 (the 9th edition of the Dancing Master), published a dance that had been composed to go with the tune. The dance and tune, both 16 bars of 4/4 long, continued in reprints up to the 16th edition in 1716. As Kate Van Winkle Keller and George A.Fogg, observe in Country Dances from Colonial New York, James Alexander’s Notebook (1730, Boston, 2000), when John Walsh appropriated most of the dances in that edition of the Dancing Master for his 1718 Compleat Country Dancing-Master, John Young had many of the older dances recast with new figures for the 17th edition of the Dancing Master in 1721. Some of the figures of the early dance were retained, but new ones were added. The new dance would seem to require not just twice the B music to the old dance (as Keller and Fogg suggest), but also twice the A music to the old dance (as Andrew Shaw observed in The She Favourite). It is this new version of the dance which James Alexander of New York noted down in his note book in 1730.

Deel take wars

Cast off & turn ptn oyr 2 same Hay wt 2d & 3d Man, yn wtr. Hand turn ptner into your place, wt Left round her back turn 2d man in her place, wt Right 2d wo in his place, 3d man in her place, hands O wt 3d. in her place, Lady dance & turn you, Lead thro 3D Couple & cast off.

In my reconstruction of the dance I have gone down the route of Andrew Shaw in believing that the A part should be repeated so that the 1s have time to fully 2h turn after the cast down around 2 and again after the lead down through and cast around 3s. There was a cast, lead through and cast back figure in the original 1698-1716 version of the dance, but no mention of the turn. This is clearly because in 8 bars of 4/4 you cannot easily fit a 1/2 2h turn in, let a lone a full 2 hand turn (and to fit it into their reconstruction, Keller and Fogg has to have the passive couples help by moving out of the dancing couples way). The turn however is mentioned in both the later Young and Alexander version, so it must have been significant and had its own clear music. I have varied from Andrew Shaw’s interpretation however, in that I think the 2h turn could be not simply once around, but 1 and 1/2 around. This means there is no slack in the dance now we are giving the 1s the whole of the A music for the sequence, and means M has the W on his r.side for the lead through. This also means we have a figure that is now closely cognate with our reconstruction of ‘cast and turn’ or ‘lead and turn’ figures in Trip to Paris, Collier’s Daughter, Prince William, St Margaret’s Hill all of which are from the same period and all of which I suggest work best with 1 and 1/2 turns.

I also vary from Andrew Shaw’s reconstruction in not finding it necessary to add a turn single at the end of either the B1 or B2. It is true that after the drawing across to opposite sides there is 4 counts of music remaining in both parts, but at the end of B1 those counts can be used having the W turn to face their appropriate direction for the hey, and at the end of B2 they can be used to perform the final figures alluded to in both the Young and Alexander text. But what was this final figure? The Young text says ‘lead through 2. cu and turn’. The Alexander says ‘Lead thro 3D Couple & cast off’. I think they are both saying lead through the couple immediately above, but the Young text is giving that couple their new position number (2.) while the Alexander is giving the couple their original number (3.). The rest of the instruction in both the Young and Alexander text is, however, problematic. As the whole of the 4 remaining counts is likely to have been taken up by the lead through, perhaps the other actions are simultaneus. Perhaps the ‘turn’ in Young refers to a simultaneous action either a continuation of the r.h. turn that the 1s had done just before the lead through so that that turn becomes a 1 and 1/2 r.h. turn maybe as Keller suggest, even a 1 and 1/2 2h open turn, while leading through. Perhaps the ‘cast off’ in Alexander alludes to the other couple’s need to cast off as the 1s lead through them so as to shorten their route and create space for them. Or perhaps Alexander’s final note to ‘cast’ is a prompt to begin the dance again from the beginning. I don’t think Alexander could intend that in 4 counts the lead couple lead all the way past 2 couples and then cast off into the middle, only to caste again to begin the dance with the next minor set.

Gathering Peascods 1651

Round for as many as will

A1 Starting l.f. Goe all two Dubles round to left, then turne S. over l.sh.
A2 That back againe but this time starting r.f., going to right and turning over r.sh..
B1 Men come in and take hands, and goe round cw in the inside, and come to your places or as far as is comfortable
B2 We. as much
C1 Men meet with a double and clap hands on the last beat of bar as feet come together, We. as much, while the men goe back, men meet againe and turn S. while W wait
C2 We. meet, men meet, while the We. go back, We. meet againe and turne S.

A1&2 Sides, turn S. using same foot pattern as in first part of dance that againe
B1&2 As before, the We. going first
C1&2 As before the We. meeting first.

A1&2 Armes all, turn S. using same foot pattern as in first part of dance That again.
B1&2 Men hands as at the first
C1&2 Men meet as the first time

I've presented Gathering Peascods here as it might be done with a courtly alternation of starting foot and passing shoulder and with doubles throughout. This is not to say it might not be done and enjoyed otherwise... and if, as is possible rounds such as this (see Sellingers' Round below) had their roots in village and maypole dances, then you have good reason not to always insist on the courtly style. You do, however, have good reason to not to follow Cecil Sharp's direction to put the clap 'on the first beat of the second bar' (that is on the 3rd count of the walk in) - an injunction that some callers still blindly. Insisting on a 3rd beat clap is not only guaranteed to cause confusion as most dancers natural tendency will be to go with the music and clap on the 4th count where there is the musical space inviting the clap, but it also makes nonsense of how these dances were divided. Even if you don't want to dance the whole dance with doubles, as with virtually all the Playford dances of this period the double is the basic measure of the dance, as it was for all the contemporary Inns of Court manuscript dances. Indeed, the word 'measure' and 'double' were almost interchangeable in dance language of the day. When men or wen are invited to meet, it is understood that they would do so with a 4 count double step - 3 steps and a pause, lift or together on the 4th count. Its one thing to substitute, as Sharpe does, slip circling for the specified 'two doubles round' (it adds up to the same number of beats) but its another thing to put the clap on the 3rd count of 'meet' and so chop the phrase short. Perhaps when Sharp was iniitally working out the dance he only had a small group and a full 3 steps in followed by a clap on the 4th count as dancers did a lift or together on their last foot, brought the dancers too close upon each other so, not working in the light of all we know today about dance language of the day and not thinking in terms of 'measures', they simply abbreviated the phrase.

Grimstock 1651

Longways for 3 couples.

A1 Starting with l.f. Lead up all a D. forwards and back, set to left & right and turn S. over l.sh.
A2 That again, though this time starting r.f., back l.f. setting right and left and then turning over r.sh.
B1&2 First cu. go down between the second, the third come up between the first. This forwards and back to your places to dance mirror heys without hands.

A1 Sides all starting l.f. and 'brushing' r.sh., set left & right and turn S. over l.sh.
A2 That again though, as in 1st part, this time starting r.f., back l.f. setting right and left and then turning over r.sh.
B1&2 First cu. go down under the second cu. arms, the third come up under the first. This forwards and back to your places to dance mirror heys with archs.

A1 Arms all with 2 double steps starting l.f., set left & right and turn S. over l.sh.
A2 That again though, as in parts 1&2, this time starting r.f., back l.f. setting right and left and then turning over r.sh.
B1&2 First cu. change places and go down the S. Hey and come up the S. Hey on her own side to dance cross-over hey.

I have presented this dance with a courtly 1651 style alternation of starting foot. Some believe in taking the Playford text literally and crossing at the top before heying down. I think this is a case of ‘Not seeing the wood for the trees’. The dance is clearly a play on the theme of mirror heys, and we build up from a plain mirror hey, to one with arches, to one with cross over and so the expectation would be that the cross over happens as you go between the next couple in line, as people tend to dance it in the Modern English Country Dance scene.

Holborn March / Princess Amelia

Longways for as many as will.

A1 The 1^st Cu. set for 4 counts cast off for 4 counts and turn once around to 8 counts.
A2 The 2d Cu. do the same.
B1 To 8 counts either set twice each way or do a more elaborate setting just once on each foot, to 8 counts The 1st and 2d Cu. r.Hands across half round, to 8 counts set again, then to next 8 counts the same on l.h. back again.
B2 Then to 16 counts the 1st Cu. cross over, go below and 1/2 Figure of 8 up through the 2s to finish in progressed position on proper side, then with next 16 counts rights and lefts with 4 counts for each hand.

The above text in bold is from Wright’s Compleat Collection, vol 1 (1740): 31. Shimmer and Keller in The Playford Ball, observe that the High Holborn was the name of the main thoroughfare running from Newgate Prison and the Tower of London, through the suburb of Holborn, to the gallows at Tyburn, and suggest that this tune may have been played by a military band or fifer as they marched through the streets.

This dance manual was clearly not the first use of the tune. Shimmer and Keller note that the same music and dance appeared in 1731 under the title ‘Princess Amelia’, in reference to a daughter of George II. I’ve not been able to cite this text, but the ‘Princess Amelia’ in the 1726 edition of the Dancing Master is a very different dance and tune. At some point between 1726 and 1731 another dance and tune clearly became popular under the heading of ‘Princess Amelia’. It is this later dance that can be found under the title ‘Princesse Amillia’ in a beautifully engraved book a Dutch dancing master named Willsim dedicated in 1755 to Caroline, daughter of Willem, Princes of Orange-Nassau (1747-1751) and Princess Anna, daughter of Geroge II of England. In Willsim's book the dance is presented in diagrams accompanied by text instructions in French. The system of diagrams would seem to be an early form of the system to be used later in by D'Auba St. Flour in his Cent Conredanse (Ghent, c 1757), La Cuisse's Le Repertoire des Bals (Paris, 1762) and in Landrins's publications in the 1770s. Though relatively new, the system offers a very clear impression of the dance and it is possible to tell that the tune accompanying the Dutch dance is exactly the same as that accompanying the Playford dance, but the dance varies in two respects. Firstly, both versions have the 1s set, cast and 2h turn (A part of tune), but where Playford has the 2s then do the same for all to return to place, the Dutch has the 1s repeating this same figure but in the opposite direction so all return to place. Secondly, while both versions have a r.h. across followed by a l.hs across and a cross, cast and half figure 8, the Dutch version inserts an 8 count set before each of the stars (the editor of the Dutch version has the 8 count set only before the first star, but both the diagrams and French text clearly have it before both) and adds a rights and left figure at the end.

I believe the differences noted above between the English and Dutch sources may point to a possible evolution in the dance from a long version to a shorter version. Although the manuscript in which we find the Dutch version is later than that in which we find the English, it might, for 2 reasons, be that it more closely reflects the orginal form in which the dance took in England. The first reason is that although the Playford text presents only 32 counts of dance instructions for the B part, the Playford music manuscript presents 64 counts of music for, like the Dutch one, clearly has the B part of the tune repeated (indeed, the Playford text states ‘Each strain twice’). This suggests the B part was originally repeated (as in the Dutch version). The second reason is that it seems more probable that the version in which the 2s do the A part figure the second time evolved out of the more tedious 1s repeating the figure back to place, then vice-versa.

What I have offered in my reconstruction above, is a version that has elements of both versions not so much a hybrid as perhaps a guess at a half-way point in the evolution from one to the next. I’ve left the Playford’s dance A part as indicated (and not adopted the more tedious Dutch A part), but have sort to filled out the Playford dance’s B part with the extra figures indicated in the Dutch dance, so that you can play the B part twice through as the Playford text itself says you should.

The Hole in the Wall 1721 midi

Duple minor proper Longways for as many as will.

A1 With 6 steps The 1. cu. Cast off below the 2 c. and with another 6 steps lead up in the middle.
A2 With 6 steps The 2. cu. Cast up and with another 6 steps lead down the middle
Long B With 6 steps The 1. Man cross over with the 2. Wo. and with another 6 steps the 1. Wo. with the 2. Man, so all, with 6 steps, can go four hands cw half round, and with a final 6 steps so cast off into the 2. cu. Place, and in the duple minor longways-for-as-many-as-will fashion, the rest do the like.

Jamaica 1670-1728

Part 1
Short A1 With first 4 counts The first man take his Wo. by the right hand, then without letting go of r.hs take partner also with his left, and with next 4 counts and so holding hands, change places by turning on crossed hands 1/2 cw,
Short A2 then do the same to the 2. Wo. the first Wo. and the 2. man do the same
B Then with 4 counts fall back from your own, with another 4 counts come forward, the first couple being in the second place, then with 8 counts 1s go the half Figure of 8 up through 2s and around into progressed position on proper side.
Do this to the last by recommencing this same Part 1 figure until all dancing and then keep the sequence and progression happening until all arrive either back in original position.

Part 2
Short A1 The first man take hands with the second Wo. and turn her cw round once
Short A2 the first Wo. and the 2. man do as much.
B Then the two men take hands and two Wo. take hands and 2h cw turn once and a half into exchanged places, and then 2h cw turn your own once.
Do this to the last by recommencing this same Part 1 pattern until all are dancing and then keep the sequence and progression happening until all arrive either back in original position.

There are two main differences between the above version and Cecil Sharps' version as presented in The Playford Ball.

The first is that in the B of Part 1, Cecil Sharp does not respond to the instruction 'fall back from your own' and fills out the whole B with a full Figure of 8, and he then has to insert an unindicated crossing of the set to get the couple proper. In my version I respond to the 'fall back' instruction by suggesting an 8 count fall back then meet, interpret 'go the Figure of 8' as meaning do 1/2 a figure of 8, the sense in which the phrase is most commonly used in the late 17th century (see my notes on Mr Beveridge's Maggot - if they wanted a full figure of 8 they might say 'go the whole figure of 8' as in Mr Isaac's Maggot), and I do not then have to add anything else to the dance as the dancers are already in progressed position on the proper side. Another advantage of dividing the final B into two 8 count figures (a 'fall back and meet' and a '1/2 figure of 8 up') is that it responds neatly to the music which is also broken into two distinct phrases.

The second difference is that in the Playford Ball version the do this to the last expression at the end of each part is ignored and the 1s roll down the set alternating between Part 1 pattern and Part II pattern. This is almost certainly not what was intended. The expression 'Do this to the last' means keep repeating this same pattern - the only question is whether to keep repeating it till all get back to original place as I've suggested here or until the set is inverted as I've suggested in Nonesuch. Either would work but for two reasons I have here favoured all the way home. Firstly, it is followed by another figure that progresses in almost the same way and as it was almost certainly intended that the original 1st couple lead this figure too, it would seem strange to run this second part pattern up the set from bottom to top - whereas the final figure described in Nonesuch can easily be run from the bottom of the set up. Secondly, the exact same expression 'Do this to the last' is used at the end of each part of 'Under and Over', another dance from the later Dancing Master editions, and in this dance there are 3 parts, each introduced by a standard chorus (Up and back, siding, arming). If you hope to have all dancers finish the dance where they began, then they must finish each part where they began. The inverting interpretation of Nonesuch would not get everyone home, as three inversions would end with people the set inverted. It seems what we have in these late 17th century contras are often medleys, all parts of which could be led by one couple, usually from the top of the set, and which must have gone on for quiet a while. This is entirely analogous with lots of other dancing traditions - and make sense in an age when you didn't have a caller up front on a microphone, but rather a dance leader on the floor. Thus you had branle medleys in 16th century France probably being prompted by a dancer in the ring, late 18th and early 19th cotillions/quadrilles being a collection of almost different dances separated by chorus figures, medleys of 19th century 'German' dance games being 'conducted' from the floor by a lead dancer, and dancers in a modern Eastern European kolos being led by a leader from one variant into another and then onto another. Just as when putting a medley together in any of these other dance forms the leader will be choosing complimentary sequences, so to it seems the first and second 'parts' of Jamaica were brought together because they compliment each other, the turns in the 1st part all being cross hand while those in the 2nd part are open 2 hand, the action starting in the 1st part across and up and down, while that in the 2nd part it starts diagonally across the set.

It might also be noted that the above interpretation of Playford's 'Jamaica' is entirely consistent with the description of 'La Bonne Amitie' offered by Feuillet in his Recuil de Contre Danse (Paris, 1706). Feuillet's is exactly the same as the Jamaica tune and the figures of the dance are exactly the same as those here presented for the first part of the Jamaica (with the exception that whereas Playford has 'fall back (and come forward)' Feuillet has dancers come forward then fall back. The fact that Feuillet's dance is only the first part of Playford's dance supports the proposition made above that the dance as presented by Playford is a medley of 2 discrete sequences/dances.

The Kettle Drum 1651

A1 Meete all and back
A2 That again
B1 We. meete, giving their right hands and pause, men meete, giving their right hands, then everyone slides from holding same same sex hands to holding partner's hand and turne every man his owne Wo. by the right hand as all retire back to place
B2 then men put in the left hands and pause, We. their left hands, then everyone turne every Wo. her owne man by the left hand as all retire back to place

A1 Sides all by r.sh., back again
A2 That again by l.sh., finish everyone taking r.h. in r.h. with partner.
B1 The top and bottom couple meet, then as they fall back The 2. Cu. on the sides meete and then as they fall back and swivel about on their joined r.hs to face out of set, the next Cu., the top and bottoms again, meete, and the M take each others Wo. by the right hand sliding from holding r.h. in r.h. with their partner to holding r.h. in r.h. with their opposite and facing their partners, and as they fall into the Co. rner places on the sides caste into top and bottom position.
B2 then the other Cu. , the 2s who were originally on the side but are now at the top and bottom, meete and fall back, and the first Cu., now on the sides, do the like - meeting while the others fall back, then the 2s leade in, taking the opposite We. by the right hand, and as they fall back r.h. in r.h. to their original sides the original tops, presently on the sides, swivel and cast off to your places.

A1 Armes all right
A2 That again on the left.
B1 All joyne both hands with your We. and with l.f. double swing with your hands all inward, then with r.f. double breake off your hands, first the inward most hand, then the next so as to turn back to back with partner, and kisse the Co.rner Wo. twice (perhaps l.f. single to kiss r.cheek, then r.f. single to kiss l.cheek) then
B2 with l.f. double swing with the Co. We. all outwards, then breake off your hands outwards, first the outward most one then the next, then turne to face original partner, take hands with her, kissing everyone his owne Wo. twice (as before), turne to face into set and so ende.

There is no doubt that this is a problematic text. Although some people try to reflect in their reconstructions of this dance the asymmetry often suggested by the wording, I have gone the other way, and suggested reading the text in such a way that you can have perfect symmetry. Although the latter involves 'adding' or 'reading into' the text more unnotated instructions than you would normally feel comfortable about doing, and down playing the clearly notated final instruction to 'turne', the resulting dance has such symmetry, thematic integrity, and comfortably pacing, that the solution is very tempting. Here are some further notes on the reconstruction at these two points.

With respect to the 2nd figure the interpretation I offer above owes a lot to an interpretation posted on an ECD list in 1996 by T.T. Bannister of Rochester, NY and to a suggestion made by Michael Barraclough of the U.K. in a paper on the dance Newcastle, that the 'grand square' he sees in the second figure of 'Newcastle' is somewhat like that in 'The Kettle Drum' and 'Hudson House'. Bannister makes the observation that you need only to drop the assumption that 'Co.places' means 'Opposite places' and that because the cast off is mentioned only at the end of B2, there was no casting off earlier, in order to arrive at this 'Grand Square' interpretation. Indeed, Bannister's interpretation can be strengthened on both counts. Firstly, as the 'Co.Wo' in the third part, even if it is an abbreviation of 'Contrary Woman', is clearly not the opposite W but the neighbouring or Corner Woman, than so too might the 'Co.places' in the second part be simply the Corner places - the tops thus going to the sides, an easier direction 'to fall' for both the M and the W if holding r.h. in r.h. Secondly, a related figure would seem to be described in 'Newcastle', and there a cast off is mentioned after the first leading in and out figure. My own interpretation, whoever, departs from Bannister's in that I have been led by the wording in the B2 of the second figure to see the 'grand square' like figure as being preceded not by a simple leading in of the side couple, but by a leading in and back of the top and bottoms, echoed by a leading in of the sides. Exactly such an echoing lead in can be found in 'Fine Companion', with almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same point in the dance - the beginning part of the second figure. Although this interpretation requires us to insert into the B1 of Part II an opening forward and back for the top and bottom couple (in addition to the final cast off for the side couple), it does help create a symmetry between B1 and B2, it help the dance so well that it is perhaps no longer a surprise that they forgot to mention the sides casting to the top position at the end of B1 because if they were doing the echoing of an opening forward and back by the tops, then they would have but one double to caste into position for leading in from the top - and it might almost seem as if the caste/separation is forced by the circumstances of the other couple falling immediately on their heels into their place. It is also clear that such echoing figures were well favoured in 1651 - the short phrasing to the music supporting it. Thus, in 'Gathering Peascods', there is echoing by gender in the clapping figure, in 'The Fine Companion' there is echoing by gender in the first figure and echoing by side in the second figure. In the Kettle Drum, we effectively have the same. In the first figure, there is echoing by gender (first one gender puts hand in, then the other, then everyone does something) and in the second figure there is echoing by side (first one side goes in, then the other, then everyone does something - the first side going in again and leading out on the angle, the second sides falling back and casting).

With respect to the third figure, the expression 'turne and so ende' has been interpreted by some as meaning 2 hand turn your partner (a natural enough interpretation), and led some to squeeze kissing both corner and partner into B1 and fillout B2 with a 2 hand turn. This interpretation, however, gives too little time to the kissing and too much to the turning and creates an assymmetry which need not be. Better perhaps to just think of B1 as turning using 2 doubles to face and kiss in a measured way the corner, to think of B2 as turning to and kissing partner, and to interpret the 'turn and so end' as simply inviting people to detatch ('unpluck') themselves from their partners and face back into the set to end.

The whole dance suits a l.f. start and double steps throughout (except perhaps when kissing, though even the kisses can each be done to a double count).

Lilli Bulero 1690.

A1 The first man lead his Partner down through the 2. cu. and cast up to his own Place,
A2 and the 2. cu lead up through the 1.cu and cast off into their own places,
B1 then to 4 counts the 1. man cross over r.sh. with the 2. wo. and to 4 counts the 1. wo. cross r.sh. with the 2. man, / then to 4 counts fall back just a little way, and with 4 counts [meet and turn S. then] cross over by the r.sh. finishing 1s facing up, 2s down
B2 and the men. Back to back all the way around, the we at the same time doing the like, then the two men right and left 4 quick changes all the way around the minor set, 2 counts for each hand, the we. at the same time doing the like, till the 1.cu. comes into the 2. cu. place.

The origin of the tune, the dance and the tune/dance title has long been cause for speculation. Some see it as coming from an anti-Catholic song that ridiculed the Catholic James II (1685-88) onward, others as coming from an Irish anti-protestant song that ridiculed the Protestant William III (1687-1702). Others see the tune as a Purcell composition. Whatever the case, it became an extremely popular tune - becoming not only a feature of late 17th early 18th century song-collections, instrumental books, dance manuals and theatre pieces, but also the signature tune today for BBC World Radio.

The origin of the title is equally problematic. Some have speculated that it was password phrase used by the Irish papist in their massacre of the Protestants in 1641 the words being used in a ballad from1687 before the words ‘bullen a la’ which some have said comes from the Irish words Bal inn an La, meaning ‘to us will be the day’.

This reconstruction of the dance is different from that in The Playford Ball. There, in B1, you do all use 4 counts to ‘meet and turn single’ before going Back to back with your neighbour. As this reduces the time for the ‘Back to back’ to just 4 counts it is suggested that you simply reverse past your neighbour into their place, and because this then puts the 1st back above 2s, the rights and lefts is just a 3/4 chain to progressed place. This solution has never appealed to me. Firstly, reversing into exchanged places on the side is not, to my knowledge, clearly required by any other Playford dance and I do not know of a Playford dance where ‘Back to back’ did not clearly mean all the way around. Secondly, æ chain are an easy way to get a top couple into progressed position, but they leave a little slack in the dance at the end and almost always seem to be the result of an error in reconstruction and a failure to actually get the 1st couple into progressed position before the rights and lefts. Nearly all rights and lefts from this period can be shown to be final 4 hand figures in a sequence executed once the 1s are already progressed. How then do we get the couple into progressed position before the chain? We make the ‘Back to back’ a full do-si-do. How do we find the time for a full do-si-do? We don’t ‘meet and turn Single’ then ‘cross over’, as in the instructions, but simply cross over and turn to face corner. This figure then becomes identical with that in Barbarini’s Tambourine, where dancers fall back, cross over then go back to back with neighbours.

The above reasoning results in a dance very similar to that presented in The Art of Dancing, Dancing of the Early Georgian Period, The Dolmetsch Historical Dance Society, Hengrave Hall, 1985, 18th Annual Summer School, p. 47: ‘All fall back from partner, come forward to meet, turning single, cross with partner, with skips’. Here the reconstructor suggest we have both the turning single and the crossing over, and encourages the dancers to use a skipping step throughout. It is indeed the case, that if the music is played slowly and the dancers move briskly, all the above figures can be accommodated and produce a very jolly dance. But why, if the dance notator wanted couples to turn single while crossing did they not say that. Why the ‘then’, and if they wanted dancers to just fall back and cross in 8 counts then go back-to-back with neighbours for 8 counts, just like in Barbarini’s Tambourine, why didn’t they use the same simple language as in the instruction for that dance?

The answer to the above questions may be that in the Playford dance description elements from two versions of the dance may have become combined. The notator may have had two different versions of the dance in mind at the time of writing, or one version the dance may have been incompletely corrected to become another version of the dance. We know, that in France there were at least 3 dance sequences being enjoyed to this same tune under virtually the same name- Feuillet notating them under the title ‘La Lirboulaire’ in his 1706 Receuil de Contredances. While Feuillet’s 2nd and 3rd pattern have virtually no element incommon with the Playford dance, his 1st pattern is nearly identical and the respects in which it differ can help explain some of the language in Playford description. The French version starts with the 1s leading down and casting back up, then the 2s leading up and casting back (but neither actually having to travel so far as to go through the other couple). There is no corners crossing. All go back and come forward turn æ about (1st corner over l.sh., 2nd corners over r.sh. or over outside shoulder if you think of you and your neighbour as a couple) to face neighbour (Playford’s ‘meet and turn Single’), then, without crossing the set because you don’t need to, all do a complete back-to-back with neighbour (Playford’s ‘back to back’) on own side. There is then no rights and lefts. With 8 counts r.h. turn this neighbour once and with 8 counts r.h. turn partner and caste down 1 place. It is possible that a version similar to this was being danced in England sometime before 1690, but then someone decided to change the awkard r.h. turns at the end into a simple quick chain all the way around. This freed up enough space to introduce earlier in the dance a corner crossing sequence, and the introduction of that figure meant that in between the ‘meet and turn single’ and the ‘back to back’ with neighbours, they had to introduce a crossing of the set. They might have thought this not a problem as crossing the set before going back to back with neighbour may have already been in use (and it is indeed in Barbarini’s Tambourine), but by leaving in the instruction ‘meet and turn single’ (a relic of the other dance version) and putting a ‘then’ before the ‘cross’, the seeds of confusion had been sown as it should really have been either ‘meet and turn single’ (as in turn the long way to face neighbour) or ‘cross’ (and turn to face neighbour), not both. The version which I think is here intended is the latter.

Mr Isaac's Maggot 1698

Duple minor proper Longways for as many as will

A1 The 1. man turn the 2 wo. with his right hand once around, and cast off on own side below the 2 man into progressed position (2M move up),
A2 the 1 wo. turn the 2 man with her right hand once around, and cast off on own side below the 2. wo into progressed position (2W moves up)
Long B The two men take hands and fall back 3 steps, the two we. doing the same at the same time, then with another 3 steps all four meet and turn S. (perhaps all over r.sh.) then, from this progressed position with 18 steps 1s cut up between 2s above and go the whole Figure-of-eight through to arrive back in the progressed position from whence they started the figure, and indeed to overshoot a little to finish facing up between the 2s (2M-1M-1W-2M), then with 3 steps up and 3 steps back all four hands abrest, and then with 6 steps 1s lead through original non-progressed position on own side and cast off into progressed position.

The editors of The Playford Ball wrote (p.74): 'Highfill quoted John Essex, from The Dancing Master (second edition of 1731), in praise of Isaac: 'The late Mr. Isaac 'had the Honour to teach and instruct our late most gracious Queen [Anne] when a young Princess, [in the 1670's], first gained character and afterwards supported that Reputation of being the Prime Master in England for 40 years together; He taught the first quality with Success and Applause and was justly stiled the Court Dancing Master' (xc, Highfill, 104). Although there is no question of the Royal connections and that Isaac, a patron and colleague of John Weaver, was one of the most important teacher/choreographers of his period, he has defied persistent attempts to discover his name, national origin or details of his life. A dancing master named Isaac instructed the French court in English country dances in 1686 and 'Les Folies d'Isac' was printed with diagrams in Feuillet's Recueil of 1706 and is closely related to this dance. Although it seems reasonable to do so, without further proof we cannot confidently link the French references to the London master'.

This version differs in several important respects from that in the The Playford Ball. Firstly, in my version the hand turns in the A part are not 3/4 of the way, but, as you might naturally expect, all the way back to place, and the casts are not up but, as you might more naturally expect, down. This means that at the end of the A, beginning of the B part, the 1s are not above the 2s but below them. Secondly, the fall back is not 6 steps each way but only 3 step. This is analogous with the 'all four hand abreast' up and back which features later in this dance (and in 'Mr Beveridge's Maggot') and is also analogous with the falling back a double in so many other dances (he the 3 steps is the equivalent of a double). It also seems to fit the music better. One bar to fall back and a melodically related 'echo' to then come forward. Thirdly, the 'meet and turn single' does not have to be part of the 6 step coming forward figure, it can be a figure in its own right after having already completed 3 steps back and 3 steps forward, and it can be used to bring the 1s even closer together (indeed ideally 1s finishing this figure between 2s) . Fourthly, in my version 1s then do a full figure of 8 from below (go the whole figure through) to return to progressed position below 2s. They don't have to do 3 hands of a circular chain, nowhere refered to in the text, in order to end up below the 2s, and once again, the figure which is specified by in the instructions fits the distances and music perfectly, you do the first half of the figure 8 (looping around opposite gender person) to a 2 bar (6 count) high melodic theme, then do the second half of the figure, looping around same gender neighbour) with the repeat of that same 2 bar theme. Fifthly, you don't have to follow the four hands abreast figure with another lead up (not mentioned in the text), you can simply cast off.

All the above makes for a very pleasant and straightforward dance. It also makes for a dance which is very similar to Mr Beveridge's Maggot as I've described it (not as described by Cecil Sharpe or the editors of The Playford Ball) - with both involving the 1s coming from below to figure up through the 2s above (in the case of Mr Beveridges the 1s starting and finishing this figure improper, but in the case of Mr Isaac's starting and finishing proper.

Newcastle 1651

Round for Eight Start holding hands in a circle of 4 couples, numbered acw.

A1 Meet all, back againe set to your owne and to the next.

A2 That again
B1 Armes all with your owne by the right, men all fall with your left hands into the middle. We. go round them to your places
B2 Armes againe with your owne and We. left hands in, men goe cw about them towards the left to your places.

A1 Sides all with your owne, and change places with them

A2 Sides with the next change places with them,

B1 The first man and 3. Wo. take hands and meet the first Wo and 3 man, lead out again then holding up your hands, the other foure, cast off and come under your armes and to their places.
B2 The other foure like

A1 Arms all with your We. and change places
A2 Armes with the next and change places Now every man is with his owne Wo. in the Co. place.
B1 Fall back from each other, foure and foure a brest to each wall, turn and change places with your opposites

B2 Fall back from each other foure and foure along the roome turne. S. change places with your opposite So each falls into his place as a first.

The text quoted is from the 1st edition of Playfords English Dancing Master (1651). Virtually the same text is found in the 7th (1686) edition of the same work. The most common reconstructions of this dance are so well known I won’t go over them but common to them tend to be 3 problems. 1) How do you, in the one setting, set to both ‘your owne’ and to ‘the next’? 2) How do you orbit all the way around a circle in just 8 counts? 3) How do you caste out go under a side arch, into the middle, back to place and turn and face in all in just 16 counts? A hand written text which survives in the British Library as an undated Manuscript (MSS 41996F), offers us an opporunity to reconstruct the dance in a way that avoids all 3 problems:

Newcastle a round daunce for eight only.

Take hands all & goe halfe round then set & turn all round single, then take hands all again & goe backe into your places all holding hands together, then set again, & turne all round single againe, then every man take his mate by ye right hand & turne her, & put in his right hand into ye midst of ye ring, and soe all fowre men ioyning hands a cross goe halfe round that way as their faces are turned, & ye women’s faces being contrary to ye mens goe round single at ye same time also till each woaman meets his man, ye woemen all standing on ye right side of their men; then each man take his woman by ye left hand, and turne her & all the woemen put in their right hands into ye midst of ye ring & so they fowre goe round with their hands a cross whilst ye-fowre men goe round single on ye outside of them till each man meets with his mate in ye same place where he was at first.

Every man sides with his owne mate at ye same time & back againe then change places with them, then every man sides with ye next woaman backe then those two Cupple that stand at each end of ye roome opposite one to ye other meete each others in ye midst of ye ring ioyning hands with their owne mates, & when they are met each man takes ye contrary woaman, & leads her between ye other two cupple that stand still one cupple goeing betweene one of the other Cu. yt stand still and ye other takes ye contrary woaman, & leads her between ye other two cupple that stand still one cupple goeing betweene one of the other Cu. yt stand still and ye other betweene ye other, & soe each man meete his mate all fowre goeing round about ye Cupple they went betweene, then ye other fowre doe ye same.

Every man turne hands with his woaman, then change places with her, then turne hands with ye next woaman, & change places with her all at ye same time, & now every man meetes with his owne mate he had at first, then two men & two woamen hold hands & stand apart from ye other fowre a cross ye roome then meete all fowre & change places to ye contrary side, then fall fowre hand in hand to one end & fowre to ye other end of ye roome & soe meete, & change places, this brings every man to his owne place as they were at first.

Mike Baraclough, who has kindly sent me the above text, has argued in his paper ‘Newcastle United’ (http://www.michaelbarraclough.com/michael/notations.html) that the manuscript and the printed texts effectively describe exactly the same dance. I’d say they describe essentially the same dance - but some differences are so marked that it is possible the author of the Playford dance might have been positively trying to present a variant on a more widely accepted (and workable version). I might quickly go through the dance.

Lets now return to the questions we had in the light of this manuscript.

1) How do you, in the one setting, set to both ‘your owne’ and to ‘the next’? It would be nice to think the Playford text is misleading us and we don’t actually have to set to two different people in the same setting pair, and here in the manuscript it is clear that you circle then set, circle back then set again.

2) How do you orbit all the way around a circle in just 8 counts? It would be nice to think you didn’t have to circle all the way around, and sure enough, in the manuscript, you are told to go only half way.

3) How do you caste out go under a side arch, into the middle, back to place and turn and face in all in just 16 counts? It would be nice to think you didn’t have to cast out and go in under arches , and sure enough, in the manuscript you take a shorter route, going in, leading out under an arch and return to place.

Lets now go through the dance bit by bit.

The first Chorus. I agree with Mike that the ‘meeting’ described in the Playford edition and the circling’ described in the MSS are two readily interchangeable openings, and that the MSS makes it clear that after the first pair of doubles you need only address your partner with the setting (and implied turn single) and that you can save setting to you corner to after the second forward that is, there is no need to set to the corner straight after setting to partner (as in the Modern ECD version). I differ from both Mike and MECD, however, in believing that the dance works best if you have dancers start l.f., use doubles for all the travelling steps and employ an alternating starting foot.

The first Figure. I agree with Mike and other’s who see no need to rush all the way around - and am pleased to see the MSS actually specifies ‘halfe round that way’. Half way is also as far as a pair of doubles is going to take you. I have not, however, taken the MSS up on their invitation at this point to have the men star on their r.hs as that does not flow as well as does the M staring, as Playford suggests, on their l.hs. It is the case, however, that the MSS order of hands and description of this first figure does produce an end that offers a better transition into the second chorus. So its literally 'swings and roundabouts'. You can dance the Playford version with cw stars and acw round the outside and have a good transition out of the first chorus but a poor transition into the second chorus, or you can dance the MSS version with acw stars and cw round the outside and have a poor start transition but a good finishing one. Which ever way you go, its reassuring to note that while we struggle today to reconstruct how a 17th century dance should be danced, there may have been no agreement in the 17th century how a particular dance should be best danced.

The second Chorus. As with the first chorus, I believe it should be done with alternation in starting foot and starting shoulder and to achieve this, I would go for a two bar change figure which consists not of an honour and double forward (as in MECD) or a paunch-to-paunch 8 count turn-as-you-pass (as advanced by Mike) but a double to pass on and a 2 step reverance to greet the new opposite and be ready to start with new foot and new shoulder. I suspect lots of people did different things to fill out changes such as this as people knew they had more than enough music, but a setting to the person you are leaving or an honour (as suggested above) to the person you are meeting seems to fit with the dance language of the day (occasionally such situations seems to be filled out with a turn single before the change and in Playford’s Dargeson they seem to have it both ways with a set before the change and then a turn single as you go into the change). Perhaps this is one reason why someone ended up putting ‘Row Well Ye Mariners’ to ‘Meillionen’ as the 6 bar phrasing of the second half of Meillionen tightened up that change (giving only half the time - one double- for it, so no need to do anything other than change).

The second figure. The rush which is necessitated by the MECD interpretation of this figure disappears completely if we interepret Playford here in the light of the manuscript which seems to completely support Mike’s interpretation of this figure as a kin to the square-tracing figure in ‘The Kettle Drum’ and ‘Hudson House’ the couple who go do not simply turn around and come back out as in the MECD, but lead their opposite (original partner) out on the right angle, through the people standing on that side and then cast back as individuals to place.

The third Chorus. You don’t need to make the dance dizzy by arming each person both ways, as in MECD, but can, upon analogy with the first and second choruses, simply arm the first person right, then set and pass on, then arm the next person left, set and pass on.

The third Figure. Mike favours dropping the turn single which is so conspicuous in the MECD version but not specified in the MSS in favour of another paunch-to-paunch pass, but its mention in the text before the change, does suggest it happened first (Sharp) and there is music enough for that. The question seems more at what point in the musical phrase do you form the lines and perform the turn single. On these points I find MECD quiet consistent with the wording both in Playford and the MSS, you start to form the lines at the end of the previous phrase but complete doing so as you fall back on the first bar of t century dance shouhe new phrase, you come forward as a line on the second bar, turn single on the third and pass through (and into new position) on the fourth.

Nonesuch 1651

Longways for 8.

A1&2 Starting l.f. Lead up forwards and back. That again
B1&2 set and turne single, that againe

A1 First Cu. take 2hs and with 3or 4 quick small side-ways slip steps slip down face-to-face to just between the 2. Cu. then with a double step turne our faces to them,
A2 Taking 2 hands with them and using one double put them back by both hands, and with another double halfe turn them cw till 1s face in,
B1 With one double forward 1s put them back, and with another double 1s release hand below to open out and set them as they were, 2s above 1s, both facing in,
B2 Just the 1s turne your own in the 2. place.

Doe thus to the last - meaning until all are back in original place

A1&2 Sides all, that againe,
B1&2 set and turn S. that again.

A1 First man slip before by taking 2 quick chasses or a double into centre of set, and stand with his face downewards, then the Wo. slip before him and stand faces up to your owne,
A2 the 2. Cu as much,
B1 the third Cu. as much,
B2 the last Cu. as much... till all in a single file in centre of set

A1&2 Armes all as you stand by the right, that again by the left,
B1 slip all to the left hand (with 4 quick slip-step or a sideways double), and back to your places (same step choice),
B2 then as much to the right hand... finishing back in the single file

A1 First man slip with a double to the left hand so as to finish on the W's side of the dance, and stand the Wo. as much to her left hand so as to finish on the M's side of the dance, both facing down
A2 the 2. Cu. as much finishing facing up,
B1 third as much, finishing facing up
B2 fourth as much, finishing facing up.

A1&2, B1&2 Then the snowball or progressive single Hey starting with 1s giving r.hs to their neighour all handing downe with a double for each hand and individuals turning around when they get to the top and crossing the set when they get to the bottom, and come up on your owne side to all finish back in original place.

The reconstruction below has very little in common with the most commonly danced modern version of this dance, but, I believe, fits the original instructions and intent a lot more neatly. Where the modern English Country version has one of the 3 main 'chorus' figures, the arming, starting on the B part of the tune this version fits the structure of the music exactly with all chorus figures being danced to A parts of the tune (a slipping figure substituting for the B part set&turn single after the arming as setting&turning single normally involved moving forward and falling back and in the single file formation there is no space for this). Where the modern version introduces a curious 'jumping' into a line, the whole of this version, with either double or slip steps (where the original has 'slip' a sideways double or a short stride 4 step sideways slip or chassez will work equally well). Where the modern version diverges markedly from the original instructions in the specification for the duple minor figure and the final hey, this version manages to satisfy the original instructions to the word. I won't clutter these instructions with suggestions on starting feet (the pattern described above for 'Grimstock' can be used with a small modification for the opening pair of lead ups). Where in the modern version dancers don't necessarily ever return to place (you would think this a sure give away that something was amiss with the interpretation), in this version you have the satisfaction of all returning to place on the B2 part of the music. In developing this reconstruction I’m indebted to Michael Baraclough, whose admirable text-faithful and music structure sensitive reconstruction at http://www.michaelbarraclough.com/michael/notations.html I did not know of when I was first started developing my version. The main point of difference between Michael and my reconstruction used to be that I had the 1s stop their progressive figure at the bottom of the set and have them start the hey with each other from the bottom of the set (that is from the middle of the U not the ends of the U) this enabling dancers to finish more with the music than did Michael’s version and being like a bend Dargeson hey. I’ve since, however, come around to thinking the progressive figure really should return the 1s back to the top as Michael has it, so the hey should start from the ends of the U. In other words, my reconstruction has now converged with Michael’s.

Parsons Farewell 1651

For foure - couple facing couple holding partners inside hand.

A1 Meet all with a double forward, then, as a couple, foure slips sideways to the left hand
A2 Back all a double, then foure slips to the right hand finishing back in place
B1 Men rise once, We rise once, rise all foure times (nodding not necessary, but could nod to opposite, corner, partner then back to opposite), then take 2hs with opposite and turne each others Wo.
B2 As above but W start: We. rise once, men once, rise all foure times (again, if you like nodding to opposite, corner, partner and opposite), turne each others woman.

A1 Meet all with a double forward, then turn back on partner and offer inside hand to opposite to leade each others Wo. a D. to the left hand
A2 Change hands by turning in and about, meet againe with a double towards your partner and then turn your back on your opposite, give inside hand to your partner, take your owne We. and with a double return to your places
B1 Men meet and cross right hands, then release r.hs and give l.hs, then left shoulder passe over, turne each others Wo. with your right hand (the W shortening the M's route by arcing around into the middle on their own side to create a straight axis for the M's figure and ready to present appropriate hand), crosse to your place againe pulling quickly past other M by the l.h. and and turne your own W (who has moved across to her left and got her r.h. ready) on r.h. just enough to send the W in with their l.hs outstretched
B2 We. as much with the Co.ntary hands, giving l.hs, then r.hs, then pulling past other W by r.h., turning opposite M l.h., and passing back by the same combination, r.h. past other W, l.h. to 1/2 turn original partner back in place.

A1 Take your owne by both hands, and meet with fours slips to the M's left into the set, then switching to holding opposites hands take the Co.ntary Wo. foure slips to the M's left hand
A2 Meet againe by slipping other shoulder leading back in with your corner, take your owne and slip to your places
B1 Turn your own with your right hands all the way around, and while the W go in a wide loop to come into a diagonal line with the M the men crosse by the l.sh. to start a simple 1/2 hey, and go all the S.Hey to the Co.ntary side and turne your owne partner by the r.h. in the opposite place - if you can only manage a 1/2 turn to finish 1M in 2W's place, 1W in 2M's place, that is fine.
B2 Turn your owne with the left hands till the W face in (all the way if you managed a complete turn on the r.h. just before, only 1/2 way if that was all you managed on the r.h.), and while the M then loop acw to get into a line with the W (on the other diagonal to before) We. crosse by the r.sh., go the single Hey to your places, and 1/2 turne your owne partner by the l.h. in home place, finishing W on the right of M facing back into set.

This interpretation of the 'Parson's Farewell' turns the dance to this well loved tune from the awkward hurried challenge which it is in the 'Modern English Country Dance' tradition, based on Cecil Sharp's interpretation repeated in The Playford Ball, into a well paced accessible dance. This version is different from the Cecil Sharp version mostly in the B part of the 3rd part, but also a little in the B part of the 2nd part. In this version of the 2nd part you now have time for a complete 'movementi' (as also found in 'Zephrys and Flora' and in 'Jamaica') in time to the opening bars of the B part and you only turn you parter as much as necessary at the end of each crossing. In this version of the 3rd part you don't need to introduce an unindicated circular hey, 2 hand turns and any awkward twists for the W. In this version of the dance there is no need to skip or rush - indeed all the B parts can be done simply walking. There is even perhaps enough time to do them using doubles. Equally significantly, a clearer story line emerges. Just as the A part chorus are all variants of each other, so a relationship between the B part figures become apparent. All three B parts have figures intiated first by the men then followed by the women. The first B is everyone introducing themselves, the second B is M-led weave across the set and back, then a W led weave, and the 3rd B is the M leading a hey, followed by the W leading a hey. In the 2nd figure it is also possible to see the set momentarily inverted before righting itself.

Stripped of the turns and features that are not specified in the text but which have been added or thought to be implied, you will discover you end up with a beautifully neat simple dance. It seems possible that the dance had its origins not so much in an English country dance, but in a well-devised choreography based on an Italian model. In many Italian renaissance dances couples face couples, change places and then change back, and the changing of hands may be an echo of the 'shading' or 'shrugging' of alternate shoulders which the elegant Europeans called 'movementi'. Indeed, the 'rising' in the B part of the first part is a straight echo of jumping sequences that can be found in Negri's 'Bizzarria d'Amore' (for a reconstruction of which see Del's Dance Book, 6th edition, 26 March 2003, pp.130, produced by Delbert von Strassburg, Barony of Rowany, Kingdom of Lochac) - and I am in debted to Del (D.Elson) for presenting this dance in my presence so that I may appreciate some of the many similarities between this dance and The Parson's Farwell. The tune also has clear Italian connections, being virtually the same as one in a Praetorius collection.

Portsmouth 1709

Duple minor proper Longways for as many as will.

A1 The first man Hey with the first and second woman, starting 1M giving r.sh. to 2W
A2 the first woman do the same with the first and second man, starting hey 1W giving l.sh. to 2M
B1 then the first couple cross over, and cast off and Figure of 8 in and up through 2s to finish in progressed position on original side
B2 then, with 4 steps for each of the 4 hands, right and left quite round.

This reconstruction is the same as the standard Cecil Sharpe and modern English country dance tradition in the first half, but varies by not trying to cram all the second half movement into one B, but giving the dance the more natural repeated B, and inferring a cast between the 'first couple cross over' and 'figure in' so the half-figure of eight can start from below, not above the number 2 couple and finish in new progressed positions on proper side, and so the 'right and left quite round' can be just that, 4 hands all the way around.

The editors of The Playford Ball wrote (p.86): This dance was probably originally named in honor of the city of Portsmouth which from the 1540s, was the home of the Royal Navy'. In the 1660's, Charles II strengthened the fortress at the habor mouth, making it the strongest in Britain.

Row Well ye Mariners 1651-

Longways for as many as will

Part 1
4 bar A1 Lead up a D. forwards and back. That again.
4 bar A2 That again.
2 bar B1 First Man two slips cross the Room one way, the Woman the other, possibly having the M going behind the W.
2 bar B2 Back again to your places with the M again going behind the W, before turning to face partner and take hands in long lines.
2 bar C1 Fall back both
2 bar C2 Meet again.
4 bar D1 Clap both your own Hands, then clap each other's Right-hands against one another's, clap both your own Hands again, then clap Left-hands, then clap both hands again, then clap your Breasts, then meet both your Hands against one-another.
4 bar D2 The same again, only clap Left-hands first.

Part 2
First Man sides with the next Wo. and his Wo. with the next Man. doing the like till you come to your own places, the rest following and doing the same.

People who attempt to reconstruct this dancequickly realise that the task is not as easy as it looks. Its not been made any easier by the most commonly published versions of the tunes having a repeat sign after the first four bars, but no other repeat signs. The task is, however, made a lot easier, if you conceive of all four sections of the tune (clearly marked in the original with double lines) being repeated, if you conceive of each of the four sections of the dance Playford describes 'above the line' as refering to one of these four parts, and if you conceive of the instructions 'below the line' as refering to a second part intended to follow at the end to as many times through the whole tune as was necessary to get all the dances back to where they started (just as in 'Jamaica' the instructions below the line are clearly meant to be another part after the first part is repeated as many times as necessary to get all home). So conceived the dance has no structural problems. You do not need to mesh the two parts or jettison anything from either part (as Cecil Sharp seems inclined to recommend). It is not a problem that there is no figure in the first four parts that progresses couples up or down the set. The progression is saved for Part 2 - a part which is indeed nothing much more than siding and progressions. The only problem that remains is how was Part 2 intended to work? Part 1 ends with all proper but Part 2 starts with 1M siding 2W and 1W siding 2M. It is clearly not men with men, women with women as Sharp suggested. What seems to be intended is a snowballing hey-like siding (by alternating shoulders) progression which starts with the 1s couple crossing over and facing down. It is no coincident that this is the way we dance Meillionen these days, as that architypal 'Welsh' dance was first recorded in a Walsh publication, and seems to be nothing more than 'Row Well Ye Mariners' to the famous Welsh tune (the snowballing siding working better with the phrasing of the Welsh tune than it does with the 'Row Well' tune.

In an article on Siding that appeared in the EFDSS Social Dance and Ceilidh Special Interest Group Newsletter, number 5, winter 1994 Colin Hume noticed that this Playford dance has much in common with 'Les Mariniers' published in Dezais' 1712 Recueil de nouvelle contredanses. Although the Dezais diagrams do not come through in the version of the article reproduced at http://home.btclick.com/esoft6/dance/style/siding.html and although I have no other access to Dezais manuscript (anyone help me?), if Colin Hume's description of the diagrams is correct, then the main difference between Playford's and Dezais' versions is that in the latter's work the dance has become duple minor with a progression at the end of the clapping sequence, and the siding has been brought out of the now unnecessary second part into the body of the main sequence (where it becomes an opening partner siding instead of an up-and-back a double).

For social dancing today, I myself find myself drawn to a combination of the above Palyford and Dezais versions - dancing the first 3 figures of the Playford dance just as described, but then in lieu of Playford's non-progressive and rather complicated clapping, using Dezais simpler clap right with partner, together, left with partner, then turn single up and out to finish facing neighbour with whom you do the same clapping sequence before progressing (by r.sh.) to new position. You don't then need to do the 2nd part siding-hey, you can just start again from new position. Although leaving the up-and-back a double as a repeated opening figure in a progressive duple minor dance produces an historically unlikely dance (the former largely out of favour by the time the later was in favour) it does produce a fun dance which captures the spirit of the title, for the repeated up-and-back a double, continually returns the set to the formation you would expect sailors to take when preparing to row a long-boat, and just as when rowing a long boat, you face one way but progress another, so in this dance, you start and finish facing up, while the 1s progress down.

Saint Margaret's Hill

Longways for as many as will. Note: The first strain but once and the last twice over. Dancing Master 1710 to 1728.

A The 1st. cu. Cast off both together, turn partner 3/4 cw the man falls in between the 3rd cu. and the wo. falls in between the 2d cu to facing lines of 3 across the set. Then fall back, and taking hands in a circle of 6 hands half round.
B1 The 1st. man turns the 3rd wo. (cw with 2 hands) and his partner turne the 2d man at the same time (cw with 2 hands), then turn your partner a little more than half round (3/4 cw with 2 hands) to finish W on left of M (proper) facing down, and lead her though the bottom cu. and come up and turn her 3/4 cw, then
B2 the 1st wo. turns the 3d man, and her partner, 1M, turns the 2d. wo. both at once, then with the 1M on the M's side between the 3&2W and with the 1W on the W's side between the 3&2M take hands in a circle of 6 and turn hands half round to finish 2s and 3s back on original side in original orientation but 1s improper in the middle, and 1s come in and lead up through the upper cu. and cast off and turn 1/2 to place.

This version differs in a two main respects from the 1962 Bernard Bentley version that is reprinted in the Playford Ball. Firstly, where Bentley has some of the turns you do with your first corner as r.h. turn and with your next corner later on as a l.h. one, and has some of the turns you do with your partner variously 2h turns, l.h. and r.h., I recommend cw 2 hand turns throughout. I do so partly because the text at no point specifies a particular hand and I am inclined to think it would if it was to change so often, and partly because the cw 2 hand turn flows more naturally into and out of the straight lines, circles and lead throughs that are required. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, in Bentley's version the expression turn hands half round in the B2, is interpreted as '1st couple turn right-hand three-quarters' to end in middle place improper', and the instruction final injuncture to turn is take as 'All turn two-hands half-way to end proper'. Although this interpretation of 'turn hands half round' actually make a nice symmetry between the B1 and B2 and although this interpretation of the final 'turn' makes for a little more dancing for everyone, and although these interpretation enable Bentley to convert the dance from longways triple minor to a 3 couple set form without having to introduce a final swing or slip down to the bottom for the 1s, these interpretations ends with the 3s above the 1s when the pretty well unfailing expectation in a longways triple minor dance from that period is that the sequence would end with the 2s above the 1s - the 1s thus ready to start again with the 3s below. This peculiarity is a sure sign that the original text deserves a closer look. Sure enough, the language used for the figure in B2 that falls between the turning corners and the lead through is not the same as the language used in the B1. In B2 the instruction says turn hands half round while in B1 the expression used is turn your partner. The former has more in common with the expression used in A2, hands half round, and if indeed at that point you all circle half way around the 2s and 3s are straight away deposited back in their original proper position, as you would expect towards the end of a triple minor. Only the 1s remain improper- and although they are improper still after their lead through and cast, the final invitation to turn can be taken as an instruction intended for the 1s alone, just as were the two preceding figures (the lead through and the cast off) were intended to be done by the 1s alone, and this is the turn that can make the 1s proper ready to start from their progressed position. Now, when you bring together the two areas in which I am at variance with Bentley, you discover that the reinterpretations I'm offering tend to support each other. A l.h. turn with the corner at the beginning of the B2 wouldn't flow at all well into 6 hand half round, but a 2h cw turn flows perfectly into the later. None of the above is intended to detract from the merits of the dance which Bentley created, but is to suggest that a slightly simpler, slightly more to be expected and slightly more flowing dance may have been intended by the author of the original instructions. One feature of the earlier reconstructions which this reconstruction preserves is that all the partner turns, except the last to place, are effectively 3/4 cw turns. As Linda Lieberman has kindly observered to me, moving to 2h turns need not affect this.

Sellenger's Round or the Beginning of the World 1670-1690.

Round for as many as will

A Take Hands and go round twice (if possible) to the left with 16 walking or slip steps,
B1 With another 16 steps circle Back again.
B2 All set to the left and turn S. with a double to the left / that again but this time setting to right, left, then turning single over the right.

A Sides all r.sh. / That again with same foot work but this time siding l.sh.
B1&2 As before - 2 singles forward, double back, set and turn single - then repeat.

To make the dance easier, do as most people do today, and reduce the circling to just 8 steps each way and filling the B parts with the same chorus as in the other sections of the dance.

Thomas Heywood, in his play A Woman Killed with Kindness ('A woman kilde with kindnesse', acted in 1603, printed in 1607), has friends, in the company of some country wenches and musicians at the wedding of a country gentlemen argue over which dance to do, 'The Shaking of the Sheets', 'Rogero', 'The Beginning of the World', 'John Come Kiss Me Now', the 'Cushion dance', 'Tom Tyler', 'The Hunting of the Fox', 'The Hay' or 'Put on Your Smock a' Monday'... till one finally declares 'Come, for God's sake, agree of something: if you like not that, put it to the musicians; or let me speake for all, and we'll have Sellenger's Round.' It is possible, indeed that both the dance and tune are of still greater antiquity. Many of the other tunes and dances mentioned in Thomas Heywood's play are known to go back a long way (e.g. 'Rogero' and the 'Cushion Dance') and the fact that these tunes/dances are being named in the context of a rural wedding would suggest that they are all part of a very familiar folk repertoire - and perhaps none was so familiar as the one upon which they finally all agree, Sellenger's Round. Given the figures (and its alternate name as 'The Beginning of the World', it is indeed possible, as Violet Alfred and Rodney Gallop posits in their book 'The Traditional Dance' that the dance goes back to a round that was danced around a Maypole, the 'Beginning of the World' being a grandiose image coming out of the sense of a 'Beginning of a new year'.

My version given here differs from that in The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball in that I have the dancers circle not 8 steps each way but 16 steps, and then set and turn twice, without the forward and back which The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball interleaf on the model of the subsequent parts. My reasoning is as follows. Firstly, the instructions clearly state to 'take hands and go round twice' before going 'back again' and that that, in a circle of 8 people shown in the illustrations, can only be achieved with at least16 steps each way. Secondly, the instructions for the opening part don't say go forward and back before setting and turning, as they do in subsequent parts. Thirdly, the opening, that was only recorded from 1670 onwards, should not be treated as simply a first part of a four part dance, each with the same form and chorus, but as an introduction to a three part dance, and an introduction does not need to have the same form. Be that as it may, it is certainly easier to lead in a social setting the version with the same B part chorus on every occasion.

Spring Garden 1665

Proper Longways for eight couples 4 couples proper 3 x A BBBB

Part1
A Lead up forwards and back / That again
B1 With 8 steps 1s take hands with 2s, 3s with 4s, so you have Four to one end and four to the other, hands half round and fall back from one another and with another 8 steps change places with a half 2 hand turn, men and women in the middle with neighbour of same gender, and the ends with their own partner, so as to finish, from top to bottom, 2s proper, 4s improper, 1s improper and 3s proper.
B2 This again to finish with the set now inverted, all improper with 4s at top and 1s at bottom.
B3 & 4 Then all again twice through till all are back in place, finish opening out with the 1s and 3s facing up and the 2s and 4s facing down.

Part 2
A In duple minor sets (1s with 2s, 3s with 4s) Men change back to back, and we. the like, change each with his own to progress half-way around the minor set, then That again to arrive back in place
B1 Cast off at both ends into the middle of the rectangle, the 2. follow the 1. and the 3. and 4. do like wise, so the 1s and 4s finish in the middle facing each other up and down the sides of the rectangle, while the 2s face their each other across the top and the 3s face each other at the bottom, set to them you meet, that is 1s set to 4s on the side, 2s and 3s with partner at the ends, and change places with them.
B2 First couple, now proper in 3rd place and 2. couple now improper in 1st place (i.e. the heads of the duple minor sets), lead down one place so 1s finish proper at bottom and 2s improper in 2nd position , the other up so 3s finish improper in 3rd place 4s proper in 1st place, and change places with partner.
B3&4 All this again, finishing passing partner by r.sh. back into original place, but don't turn around, stay facing out of set.

Part 3
A With M facing left wall and W right wall in own line of 4 Lead to the wall with a double forward and a double back / then with 4 steps Turn off over own r.sh. to pass partner by r.sh. and finish improper in their place facing back into the set, and with 4 steps change with a r.h..each with his own to finish back home.
B1 First and last couple meet by leading into the set between the 2s and 3s, and the 2. and 3. fall back away from centre of dance, 2s to top, 3s to bottom of set, the men (1M and 4M) arm once and a half to change places in the middle and the 1W and 4M the same, and the ends, the 2s and 3s respectively, arm once and a half with their own so as to finish, to finish with the set now completely inverted, all improper with 4s at top and 1s at bottom.
B2 This again
B3 & 4 Then all again twice through to all arrive back home and proper.

This dance appeared in collections from 1665 to 1728. Its title is without doubt a reference to the new 'Spring Garden' at the famous Tradescant Garden at Lambeth, across the Thames from London. This garden was established by the famous plant collector John Tradescant the elder, and continued after his death by his son, another noted plant collector. It is noted that in The Playford Ball that this garden came to be called 'Vaxhall' and that a 'Spring Garden' had been established there by the time of Samuel Pepys' visit on May 28 1667:

'I by water to Foxhall, and there walked in Spring Garden. A great deal of company, and weather and garden pleasant: and it is very' cheap going thither, for a man may go to spend what he will, or nothing, all is one. But to hear the nightingale and other birds, and hear fiddles and there a harp, and here a Jew's trump, and here laughing and there fine people walking is mighty divertising.'

It is probably not, however, just the title of this dance which is intended to refer to the new gardens, but also the shape and figures of the dance itself. This reference is lost in The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball version of the dance, but brought out clearly in the above reconstruction where dancers clearly trace a rectangle in every B part of the dance. Most ingeniously in each section this rectangle is traced in a different way, but it is a rectangle none the less which is traced, and even more ingeniously, in each section the dancers don't return to their home position until the end of the 4th repeat of the B.

Differences between my above version and the standard modern version are as follows. In 1B instead of introducing balancing or lines going back and forward to take up slack, as in the The Country Dance Book or The Playford Ball version, just make the half circles and half-2h turns leisurely, and use the extra time to acknowledge partners at commencement and end of figures. In 2B instead of lines across the hall turning into lines up and down (as in The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball version) we simply develop the 'circle' within a rectangle which is introduced in the first part. The Newcastle-like lines across and lines up and down are not indicated in the text (no words to orient the dances across then move them into lines up and down), are not consistent with the text (by such lines you can't have '1s and 2s lead down, and other up' as required in second half) and do not fit the music (the middles having a long way to go to cast onto ends across and their being no music specifically for redrawing the lines up and down). Moreover, the expression 'set to them you meet', although satisfied by the lines-across reconstruction to the extent that you all end up setting not to your partner, but to a new opposite - is even more fully satisfied by the above reconstruction, for by this solution half the dancers are facing partners and half opposite, described neatly as 'them you meet'. In 3A The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball alternating leading to the M's wall, turning about and 1/2 turning partner then leading to W's wall, turning about and 1/2 turning partner, does not well accommodate the text's clear indication that the lead to the wall goes both 'forward and back' before the 'turn off', and does not sit well either the clear absence from the text of any indication that the figure be repeated on the other side. The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball interpretation of 'turn off' as simply about facing is also not consistent with the only other use of the term in the Playford repertoire but in the dances 'Ay me, or The Symphony', and 'Glory of the West' (both of which also appeared in the 1665 edition of Playford) the expression seems to imply a wide loop over a shoulder into partner's place. Moreover, The Country Dance Book and The Playford Ball figure is hard to accommodate in the time of the music, requiring half the dancers to about face, 1/2 hand turn and line up ready to go to the other wall all in 4 steps. My interpretation of M leading to their wall, W to theirs, retiring then looping over r.sh.shoulder to partner's place before changing back by the r.h. to own place fits both with the music and the text and feels quiet satisfactory. My 3B is almost the same as The Country Dance Book or The Playford Ball interpretation as it is once again another simple variant on the theme of dancing in a circular rectangle. My only difference is that I do not see the need to add an introductory balance. As the text proscribes neither an introductory balance nor slip steps for the ends to come into the middle, although both look good in a display, perhaps you could give social dancers the luxury of simply taking 8 walking steps to move into their new position - using any left over steps to prepare for the arming figure.

Upon a Summers Day

Longwayes for six

A1 Leade up all a D. forwards and back, set and turn. S.
A2 That againe.
B1 The men take all hands, and the women hands meet all a D. back againe; the first on each side goe under the others armes on their own side, and meet below.
B2 Hands againe, and the next Cu. as much.
B3 Hands againe, and the next Cu. as much
A1 Sides all, set and turne single.
A2 That again.
B1-3 As before.
A1 Arms all, set and turne S.
A2 That again.
B1-3 As before.

This dance opens Playford's 1651 manual and is another dance which works well with the alternating starting foot and basic double set proposed on this page fro other 1651 dacnes. The figures are straight forward, except that in the B part figure there are two choices. While most dancers lead down between the 2s, go out under the arches and then finish in bottom position, some dancers I know have the 1s cast and come in through the side arch and then turn into bottom position. They would not be tempted to do this if they stepped back to see the wood and not just the trees. Firstly, the figure is yet another variant on the mirror hey already sampled in Grimstock, so the tendency in 1650 would have been to go between the 2s. Indeed, we can observe that the figure is exactly the same as the first figures in The Night Peace (on the third page of the 1651 manual) except here we have it with arches. Secondly, as proposed above, no figure need be rushed, and casting out at the top and turning back in at the bottom takes up more time than the alternative.

Zephyrs and Flora 1715

Duple minor proper Longways for as many as will.

A1 With 8 steps The 1st Man and 2d Wo. (1st corners) go Back to Back, then with 2 counts 1st corners give each other their Right-hands, and then with 2 counts give each other their left hands across, and holding so with 4 steps change Places
A2 Then the 1st Wo. and 2d Man do the same
B1 The 1st Cu. being in the 2d Cu. Place Improper, cast up and half Figure-of-eight through and round the 2d Cu. which brings them into their own Places Proper
B2 The 2d Cu. being in their own Places Improper, do the same (casting up and doing a half-figure of eight through), which brings them to the 1stCu. Place.

This dance appeared in the 1718 and 1728 editions of The Dancing Master (which had left the Playford family hands in 1705 and been produced since the death of Henry Playford by John Young). Curiously, however, it appeared with exactly the same wording in the 1715 edition of John Walsh's annual publication Twenty Four Country Dances. Is this a case of Young copying Walsh's work? There was certainly a rivalry between the two men, and evidence of possible piracy both ways. Whatever the case, the dance itself poses no reconstruction dilemmas and my interpretation offered above is exactly the same as that prevailing in the Modern ECD tradition. The editors of The Playford Ball wrote: Queen Anne was affectionately known as Flora to her subjects. Her death in 1714 may have inspired this title. In Greek mythology 'Zephyrus' was the personification of the west wind and 'Flora' the goddess of the spring'. As in 'Parson's Farewell' the changing of hands in the A part may be an echo of the 'shading' or 'shrugging' of alternate shoulders which the elegant Europeans called 'movementi'.