Colin Hume's Interpretations

---

If you've ever looked at the original Playford notation, or indeed most books of dances from the 17th and 18th century, you will be aware that they are in need of interpretation (or reconstruction, as they say in the States).  The instructions are very condensed, with lots of errors, probably intended as a quick reminder to people who already knew the dances.  Playford says “Sides all” and everybody knew what he meant; now we discuss it for hours.

Graham Christian objects to “Playford says”, since Playford was just the publisher, and the same is true of Johnson, Thompson, Young, etc.  There's no evidence that these people edited or even compiled their books; they just published them.  In some cases we do know more: Kynaston was the editor (and possibly the composer); Walsh was the publisher.  And of course if Playford were publishing a book by Purcell I would say “Purcell says” rather than “Playford says”.  But we don't know who contributed the dances or edited them; the only name we have is Playford so that's what I use.  I could say “The instructions in Playford's book say”, but that seems unnecessarily wordy.

My book Playford with a Difference, Volume 1 contains a number of my interpretations, together with my reasoning behind them.  There are dances which I've interpreted since that was published, and I'll be putting some of them on this page.

Here are my Rules for Dance Interpretation:

I have run workshops on Dance Interpretation at Festivals and Dance Weeks in England and the States — if you'd like me to do one please let me know.

---

Draw Cupid Draw       

Source: Dancing Master Volume 2, 1710: John Young

Original wording:

The first Couple go the whole Figure of Eight with the second Couple, and then cross over and turn  .  Then the other Couple do the same  :  Then cross over and Back to Back, then Right and Left quite round. 

The instructions do not mention any repeats, but the A and B music are each 16 bars, giving a standard 32 bar length.

It looks straightforward, but there are at least three other interpretations.  Bob Brand has done one but he didn't realise that “cross over” means “cross and cast” and he did some unusual stuff in the second part.  Graham Christian has a much more unlikely version in CDSS News — he admitted that this was a very loose interpretation and if he looked at it now he would come up with something different.  Andrew Shaw likes to keep everyone moving, so he has double figure eights and both couples doing the turns both times, which I think spoils the dance.  It is quite clear that for the first eight bars the ones are doing the figure and the twos are watching them (and possibly learning the figure).  In the second eight bars the twos do exactly the same.  We seem to be losing the concept of watching the active couple — if we're not moving we think we're not part of the dance.

I don't think there's much doubt what John Young intended for the first half.  The ones do a full figure of eight down through the twos.  The ones cross and cast, twos moving up, and the ones two-hand turn.  There's certainly enough music for a turn all the way, leaving the ones improper.  It's possible that it should be 1½ to finish proper; we'll reserve judgement until we see what happens later.  The twos do the same, finishing with the ones above the twos, probably with both couples improper.

The ones again cross and cast, again with the twos moving up, then the ones do a back-to-back, so they are below the twos on their original side — just where you would expect them to finish the dance.  And then four changes of a circular hey.  That's fine for the ones, but the twos are still improper.  And if we decided the turn in the first half was 1½, we would now have the twos proper but the ones improper, so that won't help.

Andrew has the twos doing a right-hand turn half-way as they move up, but this strikes me as very unlikely (and they sometimes forget to do it).  Remember the basic principle: the twos (and threes, for a triple minor) are only there to help the ones as needed.  See the comments on the section Adapting Triple Minor Dances.  So my suggestion is that the ones do four changes but the twos only join in as needed, in other words starting with the second change.  Is it right?  I don't know.  Is it more likely than other suggestions?  I'll leave you to decide!

Draw Cupid Draw

Format: Longways duple minor.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

A1:	Ones full figure eight through the twos.
	Ones cross and cast; twos lead up.  Ones two-hand turn.
A2:	Twos the same, all finishing improper.
B:	Ones cross and cast; twos lead up.  Ones back-to-back.
	Ones do four changes of a circular hey — twos don't join in until the second change.

Easter Thursday       

Source: Caledonian Country Dances, 3rd Ed., c. 1733: John Johnson.  Interpretation: Colin Hume.

Original wording:

Katherine Street

The first Couple Back to Back with the second Couple, and then with their partners.  This to the first Strain play'd once.  The first Couple turn the second Couple, then turn their own.  This to the first Strain play'd twice.  Meet all four and Sette, then turn single and clap Hands, all four going quite round.  This to the last Strain play'd once.  The first Couple go the figure through the second Couple, and cross over and turn their own Partners.  This to the last Strain play'd twice.

Sadler's Wells

The 1st cu. back to back with the 2d cu. and back to back with their own Partners  .   The 1st cu turn the second cu. and turn their own Partners  :   Meet and sett, all four turn single and clap hands, all four go quite round  .   The 1st cu. go the Figure thro' the 2d cu. and cross over, and turn their own partners  : 

Easter Thursday

I don't have the wording for the A part to hand, but I know it's very similar to the previous two.  Will someone who has access to a facsimile (or an original) please enlighten me!

Meet all four and sett, then turn single and clap hands all four going quite round  .   Then the 1st Cu. go the figure thro' the 2nd Cu. and cross over and turn their own partners  : 

I know of three dances with exactly the same figures — this happened quite a lot in the eighteenth century.  The first is Sadler's Well from the Dancing Master Volume 3, 17th Edition of 1728.  The second is Katherine Street from the Dancing Master volume 2, around 1710.  Charles Bolton has a version in “Retreads, Volume 7”, though he has cut down the action for the ones and introduced more for the twos He also dances it improper.  The third is Easter Thursday, and it's even possible that the figures were put to the second tune by mistake — the tune is in 3-time.  Bernard Bentley, who wrote the “Fallibroome” series of books, is always very honest about what he's added or left out, unlike some other dance interpreters.  In this one he says “NOTE.- B1 a clap and hands four has been omitted”.

When you listen to the A music it has perfectly clear phrasing — it's obviously three phrases of two bars each.  Six steps, six steps, six steps.  But the instructions in Fallibroome 5 just say “Neighbours back to back.  Partners back to back”.  And that's how a lot of callers call it — because they haven't thought it through.  I can only see two choices.  You can do one back-to-back in one phrase of the music — 6 steps — and the other in two phrases — twelve steps.  Or you can do what I recommend, which is to take 9 steps for each back-to-back and accept the fact that the second one starts in the middle of a musical phrase.  Here's where it's no use the caller saying “The music will tell you” — it won't!

You could argue that the instructions are addressed to the first couple, so only they should do the second back-to-back and the second turn, and indeed the final turn.  Or you could make the case that throughout the instructions the word is “partners” rather than “partner” meaning that both couples should participate.  I'm sticking with Bernard Bentley; we're interpreting these dances for present day dancers and in this case I have no hesitation in letting both couples move.  There are other cases where I don't feel that way, as you will see when reading through this web page.

In B1 Bernard Bentley thought he couldn't fit it all in, so he left out the circle and instead put in a balance forward and back, followed by a set.  I'm sure we can fit it all in, provided you go from the turn single immediately into the circle left.  Four bars is twelve beats — that's four beats for the turn single and eight beats for the circle — standard timing.  In fact I've suggested three and nine in my interpretation, since the music is in threes, but there's really no difference.  As usual, “cross over” means “cross and cast”.  The half figure eight and the cross and cast are much tighter in “Sadler's Wells” and “Katherine Street” — 4 steps for each rather than 6 — so I prefer Easter Thursday (and I like the tune too).

Since you're dancing a lot with your neighbour in the A part, I choose to teach this with the ones improper.

Easter Thursday

Format: Longways duple minor Improper       Note: the tune is in 3-time.

A1:	(6 bars:) Back-to-back neighbour (9 steps).  Back-to-back partner.
A2:	Two-hand turn neighbour (9 steps).  Two-hand turn partner.
B1:	(6 bars): All set moving forward (RLR, LRL); Turn single (RLR) clapping on first beat (3 steps), circle left (9 steps).
B2:	Ones half figure eight down (6 steps); ones cross and go below the twos who lead up (6 steps); all two-hand turn partner (6 steps).

Hobb's Wedding       

Source: Dancing Master 17th Edition Volume 1, 1721: John Young.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

Original wording:

Hobb's Wedding: A Kissing Dance in the Country Wake

The 1. cu. cast off half way, the 2. cross over at the same time, then lead up and turn from each other, the Man to the Right and the Wo. to the Left  .  Then meet the 1. cu. the Wo. the man, and the Man the Wo. then the 1 Man turn the 2. Wo. Left-hands round, the 2. Man doing the same with the 1. Wo. till they come all on a-row with their Left shoulders to each other, the Men with their faces down, and the We. with theirs up  :  Then pass by till you come to a Square, the Men with their faces down, and the We. with theirs up, then all turn S. to the Left-hand with their faces to each other; then Right and Left three times, the 1. Man beginning with the 2. Wo and the 2. Man with the 1. Wo  .  The 1. Man pulls the 2. Wo. back, and the 2. Man puts the 1. Wo. from him till the 2. cu. comes back to back, each Man kissing the contrary Wo. then the 1. cu. cast off, the Man to the Left-hand and the Wo. to the Right, the 2. cu. casting up both to the Right-hand till they come in their proper places. 

The Country Wake (1696) was a comedy by Thomas Doggett, staged at Lincoln's Inn Fields Theatre and later revived by Cibber in 1711.  Dogget originally played the part of Young Hobb himself.

The tune is a jig: four bars for each A and eight bars for the B.  The instructions imply that each is to be repeated, giving a 24-bar dance.  The instructions give lots of detail and reassurance to an interpreter, but what are we to make of “cast off half way”?  Presumably the ones cast off but finish level with the twos rather than below them.  It will need to be a wide cast, or a meet, move up and then cast, as it takes the 4 bar A1, during which the twos turn half-way, lead up (presumably not very far, to meet the ones) and turn away from each other to face out to the ones.  A2 is left-hand turn neighbour, and indeed once around will leave the men facing down and the women facing up as required.  So B1 starts by passing neighbour left shoulder so that the women are above the men, then turn single left (presumably half-way) to face neighbour up and down the set.  Assuming “Right and Left three times” means three changes of a circular hey, this will be up and down the set, again finishing with the women above the men.  We could allow four steps for the pass through and turn round, and four steps for each of the three changes.  B2 starts apparently with a quarter poussette to bring the four people into a colume up and down the set — crowded but possible — four steps for that and four beats for the kiss.  But now comes the progression.  At the moment the first man is at the very bottom and his partner is at the very top.  She can cast off to her right hand, though it seems somewhat forced given that she is already facing down, but he can't cast off anywhere — he needs to cast up.  I've given this a lot of thought, it seems to me that the column needs to be across the hall rather than up and down, with everyone proper.  So suppose after the pass through at the start of B1 we have the dancers looping one place to their right (clockwise) rather than turning single to their left.  I know that's not what it says, but just consider it.  This puts everyone proper with the second man and first woman above.  The three changes will now be across the set as normal, bringing the other two to the top, and the quarter poussette is also across.  Now indeed the first couple can cast off, the man left shoulder and the woman right shoulder, though they have eight steps and not very far to go — perhaps an invitation to linger a little longer on the kiss.  The twos somehow need to cross over and move up, and at the moment they're facing out.  That's why we get the odd instruction “the 2. cu. casting up both to the Right-hand till they come in their proper places”.  If they both pull their right shoulders back, the woman can move up as she crosses to her own side while the man starts by turning down and then moving up on his own side.  It gets them to the right place, but it is what John Young meant?  I think it may well be.  How else could he have described it, without using a lot more words?

The timing of B1 is now not so obvious.  Four steps to pass through, turn left and move one quarter round?  Or should we take eight steps for this and then surge into life to dance the three changes in eight steps as in Indian Queen?  I think I prefer the latter — but try it both ways and see what you think.

But the basic problem is that the wording is so precise: “all turn S. to the Left-hand with their faces to each other”, and yet I need people to loop to their right.  As I've said before, I don't know all the answers!

Hobb's Wedding

Format: Longways duple minor.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

A1:	(4 bars)   Ones meet and then cast to finish outside the twos (8 steps) while twos 2-hand turn half, lead up, turn out to face opposite-sex neighbour.
A2:	Left-hand turn neighbour once around, finishing with men facing down, ladies facing up.
B1:	Pass through left shoulder; loop right, move round a place clockwise.  Face neighbour across the set: dance three changes of a circular hey with hands.
B2:	First man pull, second man push until twos are back to back in the middle; kiss neighbour.  Ones cast to progressed place, second lady move up and cross to own side, second man pull right shoulder back and follow her to progressed place.

I've learnt that you don't call kissing dances in the States — they love all that eye-contact, but kissing is going too far.  In England I often say that it's up to the ladies how and where they receive the kiss — they could just offer their hand.

Irish Lamentation       

Source: 3rd Book of The Complete Dancing Master, c.1735: Walsh.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1995.

Original wording:

First Man dances the Minuet Step to the 2d Wo. & turns her  .   the 2d Man the same to the 1st Wo  :   the 1st Cu. cast down & up again then cross over and half Figure  .   then right hand and left quite round and turn your Partner. 

I heard this on Bare Necessities' “Take a Dance” album and loved it.  The notes didn't say where the modern interpretations were found, so I went to Cecil Sharp House, studied the original wording and produced my version.  Then I discovered that Tom Cook had reconstructed it in “Again Let's Be Merry” (1979).

Let's look at Tom's version.

A1	Take hands four.  All “step-set” (left foot to the left, cross right foot over and beyond left foot, transfer weight back onto left foot — same to right) twice, then first man and second woman turn, returning to places.
A2	Again take hands four and “step-set” as in A1, then the other two dancers turn.
B1 1‑4	All move up the set and face their own wall (that is, half turn single, men to left, women to right).  Neighbours take inside hand and first couple move round outside second couple in as “assisted” cast, all to progressed places.
5‑8	All move down the set and face their own wall.  Neighbours again take inside hand and first couple move round outside second couple in an “assisted” cast up, all to original places.
9‑16	First couple cross and cast down, then go half figure eight up through second couple (who lead up) to progressed places.
B2 1‑8	First and second couples, partners facing, circular hey taking hands, four changes.
9‑16	First and second couples dance round each other, returning to progressed places (ballroom hold is suggested).

Tom is at pains to point out that the dance isn't a waltz, and that the basic rhythm should be six beats long not three, but I defy anyone to take ballroom hold and dance round the other couple to this music without waltzing.

So, two questions:

• Is it a good dance — or more personally: Do you like it?
• Is it a good interpretation?

The first is partly a matter of opinion.  I don't like the “assisted” cast business at all; it's fussy and I don't see the point.  And I don't like the anachronistic “waltz round”.  To answer the second, let's look at the original wording.

Most English Folk dancers couldn't do a minuet step (and wouldn't want to), so Tom has replaced it with his “step-setting”.  Yes, but surely that loses the point that it should be just the first corners involved; the second corners have their chance in A2.  I agree with getting rid of the minuet step, but what could the first corners do in four bars before their two-hand turn?  The obvious choice is set and turn single — in fact the setting in 3-time turns out to be similar to Tom's step-setting, though I wouldn't want to start it on the left foot.  You could say that my way is just as “wrong” as Tom's, but I think it's more in keeping with the original.

B1 starts “the 1st Cu. cast down & up again” — just as you would in the English traditional dance “Soldiers' Joy” or the American contra “Chorus Jig”.  In fact because there are three steps to the bar you would get further than in those dances; it's a good strong positive movement.  I suppose Tom thought this was boring for the twos, so he's got the twos turning out and helping the ones along — I think it destroys the flow of the movement.  Ken Sheffield does the same in “Guardian Angels” where the ones cross and cast, cross and cast — I don't like that either.  So let's do it as the original obviously intended.

“Cross over” practically always means “cross over and cast down a place”, and by implication we're still talking to the ones, so a half figure eight up will bring them to their progressed place proper — no problems with that.  The underlined dot says that this is once through the 16-bar B-music, which all fits fine.  But what about the second B?  “then right and left quite round and turn your Partner”.  Four changes of a circular hey at three steps per change is four bars, and a turn is no more than four bars (12 steps) — total 8 bars.  We can slow down the four changes by allowing six steps per hand, but this still gives us 8 bars (24 steps) for “and turn your Partner”.  This is where Tom puts in the waltz around (and admittedly you are “turning” with your partner) — but that's so out of character!  My suggestion is a right-hand turn and a left-hand turn.  There's still a lot of music to fill up — four bars (twelve steps) for each turn, but I think it works.

I wrote to Tom and asked him what he thought of my version — that's something I can't do with Cecil Sharp.  He said in his reply: “…I have come to regret my 9-16 suggestion [that's the dance around] …  and have experimented with a whole-poussette + quarter-turns…  Your suggestion is much simpler, and of course is just as good.” He preferred the fussy bit because he likes people to take hands when the music allows — which I totally agree with, but I don't think the music does allow this, because the ones should be moving well down the hall.  He didn't object to the set and turn single as such, but he felt you needed to be moving to the right immediately before the two-hand turn — that's why he starts the step-setting to the left.

Nicholas Broadbridge has a version condensed to a single B.  I expect he decided there wasn't enough going on in B2, so instead of the waltz around or the slow right- and left-hand turns he's squashed the whole thing together — instead of the ones doing their long cast down the outside and back, he has a short cast going immediately into a figure eight up.  But can you really justify that when you look at the original?

Irish Lamentation

A1:	First corners set and turn single.  Two-hand turn.
A2:	Second corners the same.
B1:	Ones cast, go well down the outside.  Cast back to place.
C1:	Ones cross; go below the twos who lead up.  Ones half figure eight up.
B2:	Four changes of circular hey with hands (6 steps each).
C2:	Right-hand turn partner (12 steps).  Left-hand turn.

Mad Moll       

Source: Dancing Master 9th Edition, 1695: Henry Playford.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

Original wording:

The 1. cu. take hands and draw into the 2. cu. place, the 2. cu. at the same time hands to the 1. cu. place; then each cu back to back with their Partners  .   The 2. cu. does the same, which brings the 1. and 2. cu as they began  :   All 4 Right-hands a-cross half round, then Left-hands a-cross back again to the same  .   Then the 1. cu. cross over above the 2. cu. to the 2. cu place, then go the whole Figure of Eight, which brings the 1. cu. to the 2. proper

I had never heard of this one until I played the “Interesting Times” CD by Momentum.  It's a good lively slip-jig, so before my next booking with them I looked at the original instructions.  It didn't seem complicated.  The music has two A's and two B's, each of which is twelve beats (four bars).  I know that “Draw poussettes” are fashionable these days, but I don't believe they are the genuine 17th century article so I'm using the normal push-pull poussette, though either would work.  Three steps to push, three to pull and six for the back-to-back sounds fine to me.  For the stars I would just specify six steps each, and not worry that with a walk or skip you will actually get more than half-way round in that time.  So what about the final twelve steps?  For once the phrase “Cross over” is qualified by “to the 2. cu place”, so there's no arguing about it — it's a cross and cast, which is tight in six steps but can be done if the twos move as required.  I would probably dance this with a single-skip — not a skip-change which doesn't fit a slip-jig.  But then Playford says “whole Figure of Eight”.  This is certainly not possible in six steps, and anyway would leave the ones on the wrong side; having crossed over they need to do a half figure of eight to finish proper.  Usually Playford says “Go the figure” and leaves the interpreter to decide whether it's a half or a whole, but in this case he's been very specific and yet it's not possible.  My conclusion is that whoever contributed the dance got it wrong — possibly he had forgotten that the ones would start the move improper.  To me this seems the minimum change necessary to make the dance work, and I really don't believe anyone is going to come up with a better version!

I asked on the ECD List about draw poussettes, and the two people whose opinion I particularly value on these matters both said they thought a “draw poussette” was a modern misunderstanding of the original instructions, so my interpretation is as follows:

Mad Moll

A1:	(4 bars): Half poussette, first man pull (6 steps).  All back-to-back partner.
A2:	Half poussette, second man pull.  All back-to-back partner.
B1:	(4 bars): Right-hand star (6 steps).  Left-hand star.
B2:	Ones cross and cast; twos lead up (6 steps, single-skip).  Ones half figure eight up (single-skip).

The Mask       

Source: Dancing Master Appendix to the 7th Edition, 1688: Henry Playford.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, date unknown.

Original wording:

Note: The first Strain twice, and the last but once over.

The first man goes above the first woman into the second womans place, the second woman into the second mans place, and the second man into the first mans place ; then all four turn single.

---

The first woman goes above the second man into the second womans place, the second man into the first womans place, and the second woman into the second mans place ; then all four turn single.

---

All four hands across half round ; then fall back, and hands across half round.  Back again.  Then lead to the wall the two men, and the two women at the same time.  The other do the like.  Then all four meet and jump, and clap hands , then take hands half round, and so cast off; then lead down,and the other lead up; then all four meet and jump,and clap hands all together ; then turn their own Partners. 

The tune is a notey jig, which suggests to me that it should not be played too fast, with an 8-bar A, an 8-bar B and repeat marks for both.  The first paragraph seems straightforward, though busy for the first man.  The second is straightforward once we realise that “place” means “current place”, and we finish with the twos above the ones, all improper.  It's odd that although there are horizontal lines dividing the three paragraphs, the first two seem to be four bars each and the third must therefore be the remaining 24 bars, but I don't see how we could elongate the first and second paragraphs to 16 beats each.  “All four hands across half round” presumably means “right-hand star half-way”, then fall back on the side.  If we remove the full stop and capital “B” from “hands across half round.  Back again.” it means “Left-hand star back again”, and presumably fall back on the sides as before.  Then the men lead to the wall, and the women do the same — but who are “The other” who are supposed to do the like?  I feel inclined to miss out the “jump, and clap hands” — maybe that's just personal prejudice.  “Take hands half round” presumably means circle left half-way, which gets everyone home, then “and so cast off” is directed at the ones, giving the progression.  In total, “Lead out, lead back, circle half, ones cast” sounds like eight bars, so we provisionally assign this to B1.  The phrase “then lead down” is directed at the ones, and this time it's clear that “the other” means the twos.  So the couples lead away from each other, lead back, and turn partners, giving B2.  I had envisaged this as being a very short lead, acknowledging new neighbours before turning and leading back, but when I called the dance both sets decided that the ones would lead down the centre and the twos would move individually up the outside, so I think I will stick with that version.

The Mask

A1:	First man cross, go round partner to second lady's place while twos move one place clockwise; all turn single.  First lady cross, go round to second man's place while twos move round one place clockwise; all turn single.
A2:	Right-hand star half (home); fall back with neighbour.  Lead forward; left-hand star half-way.
B1:	Lead neighbour out to the wall; change hands, lead back.  Circle left half-way (home); ones cast, twos lead up.
B2:	Ones lead down, twos move up the outside; come back.  All two-hand turn partner, fall back.

I have missed out “jump, and clap hands” half-way through B1 and B2.

Mr Beveridge's Maggot       

Source: Dancing Master 11th Edition, 1701: Henry Playford.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

Original wording:

Note: The first Strain twice, and the last but once over.

The 1. Man cross over and go back to back with the 2. Wo. then the 1. Wo. cross over and go back to back with the 2.Man at the same time  .  Then meet and turn S.then 1. Man turn the 2. Wo. with his Right-hand, and 1. Wo. turn the 2. Man with her Right-hand at the same time, then 1. cu. take Left-hands and turn into their own places  :  The 1. cu cross over into the 2. cu. place, and go back to back with their Partner, then all four lead up hands a-breast, then go the Figure through, and cast off into the 2. cu. place  . 

The tune is in three-time: four bars for each A and eight bars for the B.

The two best-known interpretations are by Cecil Sharp (with two B's) and Pat Shaw (with one B).  Playford says there is only one B and I see no reason to doubt him.  It also seems clear that the back-to-back in the B section is for the ones alone, whereas Sharp has both couples doing it.

A quick glance at Playford's instructions might lead us to think that the first man does the move and then the first woman does it, but then we notice that A1 ends with “at the same time”.  Sharp says “First man and first woman cross over and change places”, but one assumes there would be some kind of acknowledgement to fill out the six steps.  I don't have a written version of Shaw's version to refer to, but it's always done with a “Hole in the Wall” cross — three steps for the ones to cross and face, finishing close together, and three steps to fall back from each other.  This can be a beautiful and satisfying movement, but I don't know any historical justification for it; Playford's instructions for “Hole in the Wall” just say “The 1. Man cross over with the 2. Wo. and the 1. Wo with the 2. Man”.  There's also the odd feeling that having done this intimate movement with your partner you immediately abandon them to dance with your neighbour.

Sharp gives six steps for the ones to turn single and then do a right-hand turn all the way with their neighbour, which I simply don't believe.  To me the most worrying part in Shaw's version is that the right-hand turn with neighbour is across the music: three steps for the ones to turn single, six steps for a right-hand turn with neighbour, three steps for the ones to do a left-hand turn half-way to place.  There's another version where the ones do a turn single on the end of the back-to-back with their neighbour — but why would they do this?  Surely Playford would have indicated such an unusual move more clearly.  And that would also ignore “Then meet” which Playford puts before the turn single.

And then Victoria Bestock reminded me of the rule which I keep stressing in my notes on dance interpretation: “Cross over” means “Cross and cast”.  Suddenly the whole thing fell into place!  The ones cross over and cast below the twos who move up or lead up — certainly feasible in six steps.  These days people assume that a back-to-back is right shoulder unless told otherwise, but that's just a default — this move would naturally flow into a symmetrical back-to-back with neighbours, the ones moving up the centre to start and then falling back down the outside, finishing somewhat further away from each other than they would normally be.  Then of course they can meet and turn single.  I suggest turning single downwards, so that they both turn three-quarters — probably the same reason why Pat Shaw has them turning upwards in his version.  So this could be well-phrased to the music: three steps to meet, then three steps to turn single ¾.  Victoria has all four meeting and turning single, on the principle of giving the twos more to do, but she agrees that having just the ones move is probably more historically accurate.  And then three steps for a right-hand turn neighbour half-way and three steps for the ones to left-hand turn half-way.

For the B part I have no argument with Pat Shaw's version except that most people do it with the ones crossing right shoulder (that being the default) and after a left-hand turn I find it more natural to cross left shoulder.  This time Playford actually says that the one are crossing into the twos' place, and now we see the symmetry of the two halves — they both start with the same move, then the first half has ones back-to-back with neighbour while the second half has ones back-to-back with partner.  Obviously the twos need to move up in order for the ones to move into their places, and one of my principles is that you shouldn't suddenly have to turn back on yourselves, so after the twos moving up it's surely better for them to keep moving forward and casting onto the end of the line rather than separating and falling back.  (Using the same principle I would suggest that when the twos lead up at the start of the A figure they should turn out to flow into the symmetrical back-to-back.)  Three steps to lead up and three to lead back leaves us with six steps for the final move.  The phrase “go the Figure through” means a figure of eight or half a figure of eight; the question is whether to bend the line as it falls back so that it's a real half figure eight, or whether the ones start the move from the centre of the line.  If it were eight steps I would vote for the first option, but with only six steps the second seems a better bet.

Mr Beveridge's Maggot

Format: Longways duple minor.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

A:	Ones cross and cast below the twos, twos meet, lead up and turn out to face down (6 steps); symmetrical back-to-back neighbour, ones leading up the middle to start (6 steps).  Ones meet (3 steps), turn single downwards (3 steps); right-hand turn neighbour half-way (3 steps), ones left-hand turn half-way to place (3 steps).
B:	Ones cross left shoulder and cast below the twos, twos meet and lead up (6 steps); ones back-to-back while twos cast to the end of a line facing up.  Lead up three steps and back; ones cross and cast while twos move in and lead up.

Mr Isaac's Maggot       

Source: Dancing Master 11th Edition, 1701: Henry Playford.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1996.

Original wording:

The 1. man turn the 2. wo. with his Right-hand, and cast off below the 2. man, the 1. wo. turn the 2. man with her Right-hand, and cast off below the 2. wo.  : 

The two men take hands and fall back, the two we. doing the same at the same time, all four meet and turn S. then go the whole Figure thro' then all four hands a-breast, and then lead thro' and cast off  : 

Note: Each Strain is to be played once over.

Here's another one where it's difficult to see how Sharp came up with his version.  I've run workshops where I've read out Playford's words and invited the dancers to follow them, and they tend to come up with my version without any prompting — just a reminder that the instructions are usually addressed to the ones and that “go the whole Figure through” means a figure of eight.  So why did Sharp have the first man turning the second lady until she was home but he was below the second man, then casting up rather than off, to finish in his original place?  I don't know.  And then having established this odd procedure, he had to change the first woman's turn from right-hand to left-hand to make it symmetrical.

The A-music is 8 bars of three-time, the second half clearly related to the first half but resolving on the tonic rather than the dominant.  Twelve steps for a turn all the way and a cast seems perfectly reasonable.  Notice that the dance is not as symmetric as it appears on paper, because when the first woman turns the second man he is directly opposite her rather than diagonally below her — maybe that's why Sharp changed it.

The B-music is 12 bars of three-time, clearly in three chunks of four bars.  Sharp has neighbours falling back for six steps (usually problematic), leading forward for three and moving forward turning single for three.  Another possibility is to fall back for three, lead forward for three, and turn single for six.  Either way, that will fill the first chunk of four bars.  The second chunk is then “go the whole Figure thro'”.  Notice that in the first and third chunk it actually says “all four” — the default is that instructions are addressed to the ones.  This gives the ones twelve steps for a full figure eight — possible with some sort of a dance step, though not comfortable with a walk step.  I assume that they have to go slightly further, to finish in the middle of a line facing up.  It's certainly busy, which is why I would not want to go into it from a turn single while moving forwards, so my money is on taking six steps to do the turn single and be ready for the figure of eight.  Another suggestion is to fall back for three steps, come forward turning single for three steps, and then use the second half of the C music and all the D music to give a comfortable six bars (eighteen steps) for the figure of eight.  I really don't think this makes musical sense — surely the figure eight needs to start at the start of a line of music.  The C music is in two identical halves, making it even more unlikely that you would start something so different for the second half.  In fact the D music is in a different style from the rest of the tune — it's busy and dotted whereas the rest is smooth and flowing, as if the music were saying “You need to get a move on here”.  Then “hands a-breast” I would take to mean lead up three steps and fall back three steps.  The final instructions are addressed to the ones: they're not exactly leading through the twos, but they're leading up from the line before casting off.

I've split the instructions into four-bar chunks.

Mr Isaac's Maggot

Format: Longways duple minor.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1996.

Each paragraph is four bars of three-time.

A:	First man right-hand turn second lady (all the way), then cast to second place, second man moving up.
B:	First lady right-hand turn second man, then cast to second place, second lady moving up.
C:	All fall back three steps with neighbour; lead forward.  Turn single (6 steps).
D:	Ones dance a full figure eight up through the twos, finishing between them in the middle of a line facing up.
E:	Lead up three steps and back (stay in the line).  Ones lead up and cast while twos meet in progressed place.

Jack Pudding       

In the Spring 1998 issue of English Dance & Song (the magazine of the English Folk Dance and Song Society), Audrey Town republished an interpretation of “Jack Pudding” by Freda Tomlinson, and then gave her own change to the third figure to make it move more smoothly.  What she didn't give was Playford's original wording, so that the readers could see for themselves which interpretation was the more likely.  I realise that there are plenty of dancers — probably the majority — who just want to do the dance, and don't care who the interpretation is by or how faithful it is to the original.  But I think interpreters owe it to the dancers to keep to the original as much as possible and tell them when they have changed something.  And when I read it through it seemed to me that it wasn't just the third figure that would have the dancers scuttling around — the whole dance with the exception of the three standard introductions seems much too busy.  I suspect this would have been more visible if the instructions had specified in more detail how they are meant to fit the music.  I don't have permission to reprint the two versions, but let me say that they have a first figure with two (short) A's and one B whereas the second and third figure have two B's.  So naturally I went back to the original:

Jack Pudding             Longwayes for six             (with a diagram showing a conventional 3 couple longways set)

First and 2. Cu. leade up a D. and fall back, whilst the 3. Cu. leade up to the top betweene the other, first and 2 Cu. leade up againe and back, whilst the 3. lead downe.

Third Cu. leade up betweene the other, and casting off, goe on the out side under their armes, crosse over and under their armes, and fall to the bottome as at first, then the first foure hands and round, and sit while the third doe as much.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sides all  .  That againe  : 

Men round and hold up their hands, We. under their armes and turne their own, We. goe round, and each man turne his owne.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armes all  .  That againe  : 

Third Cu. leade under the first Cu. armes and come face to the We. hands you foure and round, the first Cu. fall into the 3. place, the third Cu leade under the 2. Cu. armes, and hands round, the 3. Cu. fall into the 2. and the 2. into the first place  . 

In each of the three figures the two paragraphs are actually laid out beside each other, making it clear that the three Playford introductions are for the A-music and the figures are for the B-music.  Unfortunately the underlined single and double dots which are supposed to indicate the end of each phrase of music are not much in evidence, so you can't immediately tell how many B's there are in each figure.

It's certainly not obvious what it all means, and there are several interesting points.  For one thing, it's the third couple who are in charge of the dance.  For another, it shares with “Step Stately” and very few other dances the fact that it has the three standard introductions of Up a Double, Siding and Arming and yet is apparently a progressive dance which is done from each position in turn.  The only other which springs to mind is “Maiden Lane”, and that's a confusing example because in Sharp's interpretation you only do half a hey in the first figure so the set is inverted at the start of the second figure — let's not go into that at the moment!  In Jack Pudding it seems absolutely clear that the set ends in the order 2, 3, 1, so Audrey's version (which doesn't) would have to be substantially better than Freda's to convince me to adopt it.

The first question is “How much music do we need?”.  One of my rules of dance interpretation is that if in doubt you should allow more time for the movements rather than less.  Dancers in 1651 wore heavier clothing than we do, and I don't believe they leapt about the way Sharp's dancers did when he published his interpretations.  The three introductions present no problems, except that when Playford directs the first and second couples to lead up a double and fall back, he presumably means this to be without hands, since the threes are leading up between them.  Let's look at the main part of the first figure.  I can't see any disagreement on the track taken by the third couple: they lead to the top, cast to middle place, cross under both sets of arches, and cast to the bottom.  This leaves them improper, so “whilst the third doe as much” presumably means they do a two-hand turn either half-way or 1½ to finish proper.  How many steps is all that?  Freda's version has only one B for the first figure — 16 steps — which seems very rushed to me.  Assuming the circle for the ones and twos is on the last eight steps, the threes have a mere eight steps in which to lead to the top, cast to second place, cross over under both arches and get out of the way of the circle.  I don't think so.  And what about about that strange phrase “and sit”?  I know some Playford-style callers use the phrase “Have a rest”, but that's normally after the dance is over!  What does Playford mean by “then the first foure hands and round, and sit while the third doe as much”?  My guess is that by “sit” he means “stand doing nothing” — in other words the circle at the top is first, then the threes have their two-hand turn.  And certainly that won't fit into a single B — so why not be conventional and have two B's?  This gives the threes a more reasonable 16 steps in which to finish improper in third place.  Then there are 8 steps for the ones and twos to circle left, and 8 steps for the threes to turn 1½.

After the siding introduction, the second figure starts “Men round”.  Freda assumes this means “Men round the women”, and gives her interpretation an air of respectability by relating it to The Phoenix.  But in The Phoenix, Playford spells the movement out in much more detail: “First man go down on the outside of the Wo. to the last, the rest following.  Take every man a wo. by both hands…” Freda's version doesn't specify the timing, but The Phoenix has 8 steps for the men to go half-way round the women.  This leaves 8 steps for the two lines to cross over, face, and then two-hand turn all the way — very busy, and the men aren't turning their own partners as Playford directs.  It seems more likely to me that “Men round” means “Men circle left”.  Playford's more usual phrases for this are “hands and go round” or “hands round to your places”, but he often leaves things out.  This again takes 8 steps, but this time the cross over leaves the dancers improper so the two-hand turn is only half-way — and you do turn your own partner.

And so to the third figure.  It seems to be in two halves (presumably B1 and B2) each of which involves the threes leading under an arch, circling with somebody, and finishing in a different place.  The threes can certainly lead up under the ones' arch and wheel right to finish on the outside facing the other two ladies.  And they can circle left with them — but where do they finish, and how can the first couple end in third place when the man has taken no part in the circle?  Freda's version starts the third figure with the set inverted, but I think this unlikely (and again don't quote Sharp's version of Maiden Lane).  Neither version has the arch, which is a pity as in Playford all three figures have people going under arches, and the threes finish facing the men rather than the women.  And in the second half the symmetry is lost because the first and second men have to change places.  Also if the threes keep hold of their partner the whole time, at the end of the second circle they are likely to finish improper.  I'm really not happy about this figure at all.  Audrey's version is smoother and avoids the asymmetry — but it's even less like what Playford says, and I still find the threes finishing improper.

I'm starting from the standard position.  So the threes lead up to the top, under the ones' arch, and wheel round to the right to face the ladies.  This sounds like more than eight steps to me, particularly as the man is on the outside of the wheel around.  But fortunately the next move is less than eight steps.  These four circle left about one quarter, then the third man draws his partner out of the circle so that they are in the middle of the set, proper, facing up, the first lady keeps going to finish at the bottom, and the second lady finishes in top place.  If the ones are to “fall into the 3. place”, the first man needs to cast to the bottom while the second man moves up, and the twos can now make an arch at the top.  The threes lead up, wheel round to the left to finish on the outside facing the men — and my inclination is to circle right at this point, since that's the way the threes are moving.  But now we're in trouble; I can't see any way of finishing that circle with the threes in middle place and the first man at the bottom.

So is there any answer?  John Playford and his contributors certainly made plenty of mistakes, but can we detect the mistake at this distance in time?  I'd been writing this article in a hurry (as usual), and hadn't actually worked out this figure until I'd written the article up to here — and I really didn't think I was going to work it out!  The problem is that B1 gets everyone to their progressed places, and I couldn't get B2 to work — it seems strange that if B1 and B2 are symmetrical there can be a progression in B1 but not in B2.  And then I had an inspiration.  As I said earlier, I didn't like the first man casting to the bottom in B1 but it seemed the only answer if the first couple is going to finish B1 in the third couple's place.  But suppose Playford meant that the first woman was to finish in third place while the men stayed where they were?  This means the second arch is now made by the people at the top — the first man and the second woman — rather than the twos as Playford prescribes.  Deciding what Playford got wrong is always tricky: I say that other interpreters aren't following what Playford actually said, and now I'm doing the same thing myself!  But in this way the symmetry is preserved: the women progress in B1; the men progress in B2.  And the threes finish in middle place facing up with inside hands joined — just where they want to be to lead up a double at the start of the next turn of the dance.  Is it right?  I don't know.  It's quite awkward for the second woman to finish the circle at the top, ready to arch with the second man — she wants to circle much further.

I published all this in the next edition of English Dance & Song , and finished by saying “If readers have other suggestions for this figure, please write in and give them”.  I had an amazing response to this — four letters, no less.  And if you think I'm being sarcastic here, you're wrong: I frequently wrote what seemed to me controversial articles and got no response at all!

Mike Rothon, an excellent guitarist from the Beckenham and Croydon Group who also does historical dance, said that I had transcribed Playford's original instructions wrongly, and that in the final figure it says that the first couple fall into the 2. place rather than the 3. place.  He says it's clearly a “2” in the 4th edition — and when I looked at my photocopy of the 7th edition it was a “2” there as well.  But if you have the Margaret Dean-Smith facsimile of the first edition, see what you think.  I'm pretty sure that it's a “3” with part of the tail missing, and that when they reset the type for the fourth edition they misread it as a “2”.

Mike suggests that in the first figure the third couple lead up to the top, cross and cast, lead through both arches and finish in their own places (8 bars).  Then the top two couples circle half-way, then the bottom two couples circle half-way — giving a standard progression but with the top two couples finishing improper.  Do this three times and everyone is home.  Clever stuff, eh?!  In the second figure he has yet another interpretation of the phrase “Men round”, suggesting that the men turn single half-way and hold up their hands (2 bars), the ladies go under the arches and turn back (4 bars) and all two-hand turn partner half-way (2 bars).  This is then repeated with the ladies making the arches.  In the third figure he has the ones arching and the threes leading under (4 bars), then these two couples two-hand turn partner half-way (4 bars — rather a lot of music there, I would say).  Now the threes lead under the twos' arch while the twos lead up to take their place at the top, and the threes about turn to circle half-way with the ones.  This gives a standard progression, and twice more will get everybody home, but what's happened to the symmetry?  Anyway, Mike is suggesting six B's for the first and third figures, and two B's for the second.

Jennifer Kiek, Historical Dance teacher from Bromley in Kent, prefers a right-hand arch in both halves of the third figure.  She has the threes continuing the circle movement after letting go of the two ladies, to finish facing down in middle place.  They then lead down through an arch made by second man and first lady, wheel right to face the men, circle left until the threes are in middle place, and again the threes continue the circle movement to finish proper.  As soon as I read the part about facing down I decided that it made a lot of sense, so that's the way I now teach it (as you will see below).

Jim Blagden, the man who collects the money when I dance in Ashford, Middlesex, says he agrees with my interpretation of the first figure, but wonders whether the two-hand turns in the second figure should be all the way rather than just half-way.  The ladies would then circle on the men's side, and the second two-hand turn would get everyone home.  I feel that this would be rather busy.  He also proposes a different explanation of the third figure.  The threes lead up through an arch made by the ones, then about turn and circle all the way with the two ladies (the second lady moving up into the circle and then falling back again) — leaving the threes at the top.  As the ones cast to the third place, the threes lead down through an arch made by the twos, then about turn and circle left with them, finishing 2, 3, 1.  In this version the arches would have to move as well, but Jim rightly points out that the original instructions don't say the threes have to come up under the arch.  It will certainly work, but to my mind once again we have lost the symmetry.

Andrew Shaw, the well-known caller from Manchester, says he has long had a fondness for this dance and enjoys teaching it, partly because the alternative title from the 4th edition onwards is “Merry Andrew”.  He is unconvinced by my interpretation of the first figure, which he feels is based on a very forced interpretation of the phrase “while the third doe as much”.  The second and third figures are meant to be symmetrical, and Andrew would much rather start from the premiss that the first figure is also.  He learnt this version from Tom Cook:

B1:	Threes lead up to the top and cast around the twos.  Ones and twos take nearer hands with neighbour and make arches, threes cross straight over, going under both arches; threes cast to the bottom improper while ones and twos circle left half-way, to 2, 1, 3, all improper.
B2:	Repeat the whole figure to original places.

Andrew points out that there is no instruction that the threes should finish proper at the end of B1 — only that they should finish in bottom place.

He says he has played around with the final figure for years, feeling (as I do) that when faced with seemingly irresoluble problems the best one can do is devise a figure which accords with the spirit of the original, if not with the letter, and is pleasing to dance.  The following particularly appeals to his purist tendencies for being as close as he can get to the original wording:

B1:	Threes with inside hand joined, man in front, lead up the middle under the ones' arch, turn right and go round outside the two ladies who turn right to face out.  Those four circle left half-way; the sides (2nd lady and first lady, first man and second man) move down one place as the threes, keeping inside hands, loop clockwise, moving up slightly, to face down.
B2:	Threes with inside hand joined, man in front, lead down the middle under an arch made by second man and first lady at the bottom, turn right and go round outside the two men who turn right to face out.  Those four circle left half-way; twos move up into top place as the threes, keeping inside hands, loop clockwise, moving up slightly, and fall back into middle place.

This is very similar to what I have come up with using Jennifer Kiek's correction.  I describe the circle as a quarter rather than a half, otherwise the second lady will overshoot and then have to fall back into top place.  Andrew also mentions other three-couple dances in the first edition with a progressive third figure: “The Night Piece”, “Millison's Jig” and probably “Shepherds' Holiday” and “Stingo”.  All but the last use variations on a crossing figure found also in “Maiden Lane” — where I think Sharp got the progression wrong, and the whole dance should be done from each of the three positions.  Sharp is obviously worried by “The Night Piece” ending with a progression, since he gives an alternative third figure “in order that the dancers may finish in their proper places”.  He uses the same trick in “Shepherd's Holiday” but presents this as the actual figure rather than an alternative, and he did not try interpreting the other two.  In the States they use the progressive version of Maiden Lane, and to me it makes a lot of sense.  I noticed Dorothy Frawley complaining in the last issue about callers who go to the States and come back telling people how they do English Country Dancing there, but the fact is that people over there take their Playford very seriously and think hard about it; I don't see why we shouldn't benefit from their fresh ideas.

Andrew says that Freda Tomlinson's version of “Jack Pudding” was evidently widely taught in its day, and many dancers in his area remember learning the dance from Olive Macnamara and William Ganiford.  He believes that Audrey Towns' revision addresses the difficulty of the third figure well and will be most useful to those dancers who find it difficult to drastically change the way they are used to doing the dance.

Jack Pudding

Format: 3 Couples longways.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1998.

Music: 3 x Own tune (two B's in each figure)

First Figure:
A:	Ones and twos up a double and back twice (dropping hands as necessary) while threes lead up 8 steps, change hands and lead back.
B1:	Threes lead up to the top and cast around the ones.  Arch on the sides with neighbour (ones and twos take nearer hands with neighbour and make arches), threes cross straight over, going under both arches, cast to the bottom improper and wait!
B2:	Ones and twos circle left.  Threes two-hand turn 1½ to place.
Second Figure:
A:	Side right shoulder to right.  Side left.
B1:	Men circle left, open out and raise your joined hands to make arches.  All cross right shoulder with partner, ladies going under the arches, and turn to the right; immediately two-hand turn partner half-way to place.
B2:	Ladies circle left.  All cross right shoulder with partner, men going under the arches; two-hand turn partner half-way to place.
Third Figure:
A1:	Arm right.  Arm left.
B1:	Tops (ones) face down and make a single-hand arch while threes lead up under the arch and wheel round to the right.  Threes continue wheeling to face the two ladies (who turn to their right to face them), then these four circle left about a quarter, threes continue wheeling clockwise to finish in the middle of the set facing down, first lady keep going to the bottom, second lady finish in top place.
B2:	Bottoms (second man and first lady) face up and arch while threes lead down under the arch and wheel round to the right.  Threes face the two men, then these four circle left about a quarter, threes continue wheeling clockwise to finish in the middle of the set facing up, finishing back in a longways set in the order 2, 3, 1.

Repeat the whole dance twice more, so that each couple in turn lead the three figures.

As I say in “Playford with a Difference”, I am not trying to claim that my version is right and everybody else's is wrong, just that there is more than one possible interpretation.

Anyway, that's my version; see what you think.  I've used into-line siding, since I believe that's what they did in Playford's time, but if you're into “banana” siding that's fine by me.

Love's Triumph       

Source: Dancing Master Volume 2, 1st edition 1713: John Young.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

Original wording:

All four meet and turn single, then Hands half round  .   The first Couple meet the third Couple and turn single, then Hands half round  :   The first Couple being in the third Couple's Place, cast up into the second Couple's Place, then Back to Back with your partner, then turn single, and Right and Left quite round with the second Couple  .   The first Couple being in the second Couple's Place, the first Man turn the third Woman, and the first Woman the second Man, then the first Man turn the third Man, and the first Woman turn the second Woman, then Back to Back with your partners, then lead thro' the second Couple and cast off, and lead thro' the third Couple and cast up  : 

The music consists of an eight-bar A and a 16-bar B, and the instructions indicate that each is played twice.  Looking at the similarity of A1 and A2 we conclude that A1 starts with first and second couple meeting.  But “Hands half round” surely means the two couples circle left half-way, which is not very far to go in eight steps.  Leaving this aside for the moment, the two A's finish with twos at the top improper, threes improper, ones proper.  Bernard Bentley interpreted this dance in Fallibroome 1, published in 1962, and he does the first turn single with people turning towards their partner and the second with them turning away.  This strikes me as unnecessarily fussy and likely to go wrong, and has no justification that I can see; I would suggest a turn single right to go into the circle left both times.

The start of the B is surely directed to the ones alone — cast up to the middle place, back-to-back and turn single.  Bernard Bentley has everyone doing the back-to-back and turn single, which may make it more interesting for the twos and threes but is less likely.  This is also one of the many cases where he gives instructions without explaining how they fit the music. 

1st couple cast up into middle place.  All back to back and turn single.  1st and 2nd couples four changes of a hey. 

The full stop (period) after “place” suggests that there are eight steps for the cast up, then eight steps for a back-to-back with a turn single tacked onto the end.  But is this likely?  What is the usual purpose of a turn single (when it's not part of the composite “set and turn single”)?  Surely it's a device to use up two bars of music without going anywhere, as in the A part!  So it seems more likely to me that it's four steps to cast up, eight steps (across the music, admittedly) for the back-to-back and four for the turn single.  Then there are four steps for each of the four changes at the top, as we would expect.  Whatever the timing, we now have the ones proper in middle place, as is very common in a triple minor dance — but the twos and threes are improper.  And looking at the rest of the instructions, they never have a chance to get back to their own sides.  Bernard Bentley gets round this, and at the same time converts the dance from triple minor to a three-couple set, by changing the ending (the ones leading down through the threes and casting back up to middle place) to:

Lead through the 3rd couple, who move up.  All half-turn with the left hand. 

He has the ones improper at this point, so it works — but is that a cop-out ending or what?!  I just can't accept it.  I think things went wrong right at the start — the twos and threes got improper in the circle left half-way, and there seemed far too much music for that.  So instead of a spurious left-hand turn at the end, how about doing a circle left half-way followed by a two-hand turn partner half-way in A1 and A2?  Of course you can say this is just as much an invention as Bentley's half left-hand turn, but to my mind it has two major advantages: it fits the music much better, and it's more conventional.  By 1713 English Country Dances had become much more standardised than they were when John Playford started publishing them in 1651.  The “longways for as many as will” was king, and there were no dances with the quirkiness of Dargason, Newcastle or many of the other early set dances.  It's just so unlikely that the twos and threes would spend the majority of the dance improper, that I'm prepared to say it must be wrong.

So, let's have everyone proper at the start of the B section.  The second half is a perfectly standard finish: the ones lead up through the twos and cast back to middle place, then lead down through the threes and cast up to middle place.  We can be confident that this will take sixteen steps — the second eight bars of B2.  So we have sixteen steps available for the turns and the back-to-back.  Notice that this time Playford describes the back-to-back as “with your partners” rather than “with your partner” as earlier, implying that all three couples do it.  But how can we fit the move in?  I can see one possibility, which is to do two-hand turns and drift from the first to the second.  So the first man goes down to do a two-hand turn with the third woman until he is below her, leaves her and turns her partner about half-way to finish where all this started.  The first woman is doing the mirror image at the other end.  But again it's such an unconventional move that I find it hard to believe, and it would be very busy to do all that in eight steps and have everybody ready for the back-to-back.  Bernard Bentley presumably felt the same way — he just leaves out the back-to-back without mentioning the fact.  So if we leave it out, we can do what I feel is more likely — a right-hand turn with the first person about three-quarters and a left-hand turn with that person's partner about one and a quarter.  However this leaves the first woman moving down the set, and the next move is the ones leading up.  Bernard Bentley's version has the turns on the other sides, since the twos and threes are improper, and this finishes with the ones coming in to meet from side positions.  My solution, for which I have absolutely no justification, is for the ones to meet after the two turns with a gipsy left three-quarters to finish facing up, proper.  It will work, and I suggest flowing from one turn to the next to the gipsy without worrying about how many steps you need for each move.  Do I think it's right?  Probably not, but I think it's more right than the Fallibroome version!  I agree with Bernard Bentley that for today's dancers it's a good idea to convert this from a triple minor to a three couple set, so instead of the ones leading down and casting up at the end I have the ones leading down and turning single away while the threes cast up to middle place.

Another approach is to switch hands for the turns.  The ones would then be going through the couple to start each of the turns — left with first corner, right with that person's partner — and would meet coming in from the side of the set, ready to lead up through the top couple.  But it seems natural to start with the right hand, especially having just done four changes which finish with a left hand.  And as usual the woman has the awkward transition; she's just done a left change with the top woman and she has to turn back on herself to turn the top man — she really doesn't want to think about giving the same hand twice in a row.  So I still prefer a right-hand turn first, even though we need the gipsy left to get the woman in position for the lead up.

Love's Triumph.

Format: 3 couples longways.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

A1:	Ones and twos meet, acknowledge; turn single right to place.  Circle left half-way; two-hand turn partner half-way (turn added).
A2:	Same at the bottom, finishing 2, 3, 1.
B1:	(16 bars):  Ones cast up to middle, threes lead down (4 steps); ones back-to-back partner (8 steps); turn single right (4 steps).
	Ones and twos: four changes with hands.
B2:	Ones right-hand turn first corner, left-hand turn that person's partner, ones gipsy left ¾ and face up.
	Ones lead up through twos; cast back to middle place.  Lead down to bottom place (threes cast up); turn single away.

Newcastle       

Source: Dancing Master, 1st edition 1651: John Playford.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1996.

Original wording:

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

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  .   Armes againe with your owne, and We. left hands in, men goe about them towards the left to your places  : 

Sides all with your owne, and change places with them  .   Sides with the next, and change places with them  : 

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

Armes all with your We. and change places  .   Armes with the next and change places  :   Now every man is with his owne Wo. in the Co. place.

Fall back from each other, foure and foure a brest to each wall, turn and change places with your opposites  .   Fall back from each other foure and foure along the roome, turn S. change places with your opposite  :   So each falls into his place as at first. 

Rather to my surprise, dancers in both England and the States seem quite willing to have a go at Mike Barraclough's interpretation of “Nonesuch” published in the first volume of “Playford with a Difference”, and some of them have said they prefer it to the Sharp version.  So again I'm rushing in where angels fear to tread — this time looking at that other classic Sharp dance, “Newcastle”.  Again, I'm sure some people will be horrified.  You get the same response from people who go to church regularly, believe themselves committed Christians or whatever, yet refuse to listen if anybody questions any article of faith.  They're saying: “This is what I've been taught; how dare you question it?” That's not real faith; it may be comfortable but it doesn't have any solid foundation.  Anyway, we wouldn't want to make a religion out of Sharp's interpretations — would we?

One problem is that “Newcastle” is so well-known that you can read through the original wording and convince yourself it actually says what you expected it to say — that's why proof-reading is such a difficult job.  So let's actively look for other possible meanings.

The tune is a reel with a standard 8-bar A- and B-music, so we would assume each figure to be 32 bars unless there were good reasons to think otherwise.

The first introduction doesn't say whether you take hands in a ring, take just your partner's hand (as in “Up a double and back”) or do it without hands.  I'm not disagreeing with Sharp — I think it's a gesture of solidarity at the start of a challenging dance, and the fact that you are all “meeting” rather than “going forward a double” makes the joining of hands a natural thing to do — but can you afford to be dogmatic about it?!  “Set to your owne, and to the next” — which next?  Well, of course he means your corner — that's how I learnt it!  But if I said in an American Square: “Swing your partner, and swing the next”, you'd probably pass your partner by and the man would swing his right-hand lady.  I'm not saying that's what it does mean, but it's an interesting possibility, particularly when we discover that the second and third introductions (most unusually) are where the progressions occur.

“Arm right” we think we understand (but who knows — maybe it actually meant a right-hand turn) and the men falling with their left hands into the middle must surely mean a left-hand star.  We assume the men take their star round rather than just standing there while the women dance round the outside — but Playford doesn't actually say so.  If he'd written “Men left hands across” I'd be more comfortable about it — but these are all minor issues, just to get you thinking about other possibilities behind these seemingly straightforward words.  He does however say “to your places”, which means to me that the star and the single file are once around rather than half-way as some people have suggested.  For some reason Sharp doesn't want to use the phrase “arm right”, even though that's what Playford says; instead he has “Partners link right arms and swing round once”.

However, now we come to a serious disagreement with Sharp.  If the men are doing a left-hand star and the next instruction is “Armes againe with your owne”, the natural, obvious thing would be to arm right again.  If Playford had really meant “arm left”, wouldn't he have said so?  Then he says: “Women left hands in” which nails it down.  And finally, to make absolutely sure that no-one could be in any doubt, he says that the “men goe about them towards the left”.  That's not ambiguous, the way some of the things I've mentioned earlier are; it's perfectly clear.  Sharp dismisses it (in the introduction to part VI of “The Country Dance Book”) with:

The second half of this figure was intended no doubt to be complementary to and symmetrical with the first; but it is not so noted.  The last sentence should of course read: “Armes again with your owne by the left, and We. right hands in, men goe about them towards the right to your places.”

Who would have dared to question Sharp about this?  But times have changed, and I'm always suspicious when someone uses phrases like “no doubt” and “of course”.  Sharp has deliberately changed it to an arm left, even though this makes an awkward transition from the previous movement.  So why did he do this?  I think there were two reasons.  First, he wanted the symmetry of an arm right followed by an arm left.  And if it was in the introduction to the third figure I would totally agree with him — but it's half-way through the first figure, which is quite a different context.  And second, if the women do a left-hand star and the men go round clockwise you end in your partner's place facing the wrong direction.  Perhaps Playford was aware of this, and that's why he again specified “to your places” to make sure the dancers realise they've got to get home.  There really isn't a problem; you just do a gypsy right half-way as you meet, and I'm sure you've noticed that the women have to skip round the outside much faster than the men do, because the second arming (whichever arm you use) is only half-way.  But to go from that into Cecil Sharp siding is an abrupt change of direction.  Guess what — if you side into line right shoulder to right, one movement flows perfectly into the other.

So the siding is with “your owne”, which confirms that the first figure is non-progressive.  Is it just right shoulder, or is it right then left?  In the first figure, both A1 and A2 started with forward a double and back, so I would expect the second figure to work the same way: right shoulder in A1, left shoulder in A2.  The difference this time is that instead of setting to partner and corner we're actually changing places with our partners to that we can side with “the next” — of course we all know who “the next” means even though it isn't the same “next” as in the first figure!  We could pass through in two steps, stretch it out to four if necessary, but we can't really take eight steps for it.  Sharp puts in “Partners go a single to the right and honour”, which is the decent thing to do before abandoning your partner for the rest of the dance.  I agree that something is needed to fill out the music — I'm just saying it's not in Playford.  In fact Sharp's approach means that this is the only slow movement in the entire dance, so maybe it's not a good choice.  To be more consistent with the first figure I would put in a set rather than a step and honour.

Michael Barraclough has an interpretation on his website at http://www.michaelbarraclough.com/michael/newcastlepaper.html, and he says,

I believe that one should adopt a starting point of assuming that what is required is not new.  The first question to ask, therefore, is “is there any well known choreographic unit that takes four bars for you to change places with the person you are dancing with” and the answer is YES.  The movement known as a “Hole in-the-Wall” change (which I prefer to call “paunch-to-paunch”) meets the requirements exactly, doesn't cause us to invent something new, doesn't cause us to do things that we aren't told to do, and even more importantly, seems to echo the music perfectly. 

I just don't believe this.  The modern interpretation of “Hole in the Wall” indeed has a move where you cross with someone in three steps, finishing close, and then fall back.  But there's no justification for this — the original (Henry Playford, Dancing Master 9th Edition, 1695) just says,

The 1. Man cross over with the 2. Wo. and the 1. Wo. with the 2. Man

And that's in a longways set, where you have room to fall back, and only takes six steps.  I've tried Mike's version, where you're in a square, using eight steps with nowhere to fall back to, and I'm not convinced.

In the arching and casting figure I don't have any argument with the moves as Cecil Sharp described them, but I do argue with the timing.  It looks straightforward enough: four steps for the heads (now in side position) to lead in with their original opposite, four steps to lead out again, then eight steps for the original sides to cast away from their current partner, meet their original partner, lead under the nearer arch and fall back to places with their current partner.  But in my experience that final section needs more than eight steps — especially if you're wearing period costume.  It usually looks rushed — and remember, having flung themselves back into head places they immediately need to lead forward again.  Playford doesn't specify any timing beyond saying that the whole arching and casting figure takes eight bars, and then eight for the other couples.  So I prefer the sides to lead out as the heads start their casting movement, and vice versa.

And so to the third figure.  Note that Playford says “with your We.” rather than “with your owne”, just to remind you that you're not with your original partner.  But then note how similar the introduction is to the second figure.  Quite clearly it's the same pattern, with siding replaced by arming — as you would expect.  So, arm right, set, move on to the next.  Arm left, set, move on to the next — and there you are with your original partner, half-way round the square.  But what does Sharp do?  He sees a way of getting rid of that step and honour, which he felt guilty about because it wasn't in the original — Sharp follows the letter rather than the spirit of the original wording.  Siding — whether Sharp-style or Playford-style — is a there and back movement: you always finish where you started.  But with arming you can arm right and left, push round a bit faster on the arm left, go once and a half rather than once — and you've followed the letter of the original wording: “Armes all with your We. and change places”.  With a set of good dancers you can even make it look very convincing.  But can you tell me any other genuine Playford dance where the arming movement as an introduction to the third figure gives you a progression, or where you arm right, left, right and left?

And then Sharp has that really awkward movement: arm left one and a half, and finish with the woman on the man's left (strange how it's always the women who have to make the awkward turns) in side lines close together, ready to fall back.  Yes, I can do it — I can even throw the woman into the correct place and catch her in my left hand ready to drag her backwards with the next phrase of music.  And some people who have spent years perfecting “Newcastle” bitterly resent me saying that it shouldn't be done like that at all.  But Playford doesn't say that the introductory movement for the third figure finishes in side lines.  It finishes — like the introductory movements for the other two figures — in a square (or round, if you prefer).  Can you really give me any other interpretation of the line: “Now every man is with his owne Wo. in the Co[ntrary] place”?

So we're in a square, and we've met our original partner after the progressions in the second and third introductions.  Then, at the start of the body of the figure, we fall back in side lines, since “wall” always meant the wall at the side of the dance hall.  Presumably we fall back a double: four steps.  Do the lines then lead forward?  Playford doesn't say so.  The difference between B1 and B2 is that the first says “turn” where the second says “turn S.”, and I agree with Sharp that Playford missed out the “S.” the first time — I'm sure he meant “turn single” both times.  So, four steps to fall back, four steps to turn single.  That gives us a whole eight steps to cross over and form those new lines across the hall — it's not nearly as frantic as people make out.  It's not really a difficult dance at all.  If you ask people what the hardest part of “Newcastle” is, what do they say?  Forming the lines — both times!

But when you cross over with your opposite, should you finish in those second lines?  Surely at the start of B2 you should be in the same formation as at the start of B1 — in a square.  Then you fall back into head lines.  If you're teaching this version, make sure both times that everybody falls back in the lines, though of course the ends have to fall back further.

So that's my reconstruction.  Would I call it this way at an evening dance?  Possibly not, though as I said at the start I've been surprised by the positive response to a “new” interpretation of “Nonesuch”.  To many long-term dancers, “Newcastle” is the pinnacle of Playford dancing.  They're proud of the fact that they can do it, and they'd be horrified at the thought of me changing it so that a bunch of amateurs could get through it.  I've met the same resistance to my interpretation of “Step Stately” in “Playford with a Difference” — “Oh, we got through it for the first time ever, but it wasn't the real thing — Colin Hume was teaching his simplified version”!

However, for those of you who are willing to be experimental, here it is.

Newcastle

Format: Square (or round, if you prefer).  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 1996.

First figure:
A1:	All join hands, move forward a double and back.  Set to partner; set to corner.
A2:	All that again.
B1:	Arm right with partner, then men left-hand star once around while women dance round the outside clockwise.
B2:	Arm right half-way, then women left-hand star once around while men dance round the outside clockwise, finishing with a gypsy right half-way into original place.
Second figure:
A1:	Side right.  Set right and left; pass on (right shoulder) to the next.
A2:	Side left.  Set; pass on to the next.
B1:	Original heads (now in side place with original opposite) lead in (inside hand); as they change hands, lead out and make an arch, original sides cast away from current partner, meet original partner, lead under the nearer arch and fall back to place with current partner (6 bars).
B2:	The same led by the original sides.
Third figure:
A1:	Arm right.  Set; pass on to the next.
A2:	Arm left.  Set; pass on to meet original partner on the other side of the square and all join hands.
B1:	Heads break from partner and all fall back into side lines; turn single right.  Cross right shoulder with opposite to reform the square and all join hands.
B2:	Sides break from partner and all fall back into head lines; turn single right.  Cross right shoulder with opposite to reform the square in original places.

The Opera, or The Apes Dance       

Source: John Playford, Dancing Master 5th Edition, 1675.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2007.

Original wording:

Longways for as many as will.

Honour to the Presence.  Lead up all forwards and back  .  That again  : 
First man and 2. wo. change places, then first man and 2. wo. and first wo. and 2. man take hands and walk round till you have just changed places, then fall back, then all four cross over in each others places, then take hands and do the same thing again, and at the second crossing the 2 (?) men take hands with your own and put back, then right hands to your own, and left to the other wo. then first man go down behind the 2. wo. and the first wo. in the middle, the man up in the middle, and the wo. up behind the man, set then to each other and cast off.  So to the bottom. 

The tune has an eight-bar A and an eight-bar B.  Once again Playford gives us the underlined dots where they're obvious but not where they might help an interpreter!  It seems clear that we have an introductory figure (for which I would use one A and one B) and then a progressive figure.  The phrase “do the same thing again” suggests that this is B2.  So let's go through it.  The first man and second woman change places, so the men are now below the women.  But what does the next instruction mean?  It's tempting to think that it means “circle left one place” which puts everyone proper again, ones below the twos.  Fall back with neighbour (one step) and cross over with partner.  And indeed if we do all that again (the first corners are still in first corner positions, so the same people cross) it gets everyone back home at the end of A2.  But why then is Playford so specific in naming the four people for the circle — why not just “hands all”?  Surely it's because he doesn't mean a circle but two pairs of people doing a two-hand turn half-way.  And yet that doesn't make sense — the two pairs are diagonally across from each other, and I really can't believe he meant interlocked two-hands turns.  So maybe he got something wrong.  The original is rather smudged, so can we make ourselves believe that “2. wo.” at the start really says “1. wo.”?  No we can't!  Every time Playford refers to a “first” person he uses the whole word, and every time he refers to a “second” person he uses the number.  Nevertheless, he might not have meant what he said.  Perhaps he intended it to start with the ones crossing.  Then you can turn your neighbour half-way (I would use a symmetrical turn, so the ones continue down the outside).  Step back and cross with partner is fine, which leaves the twos improper at the top, ones proper at the bottom.  If the ones repeat this from second place everyone gets back to their own place, which is what I expect.

Let's leave that for the moment and look at the second half.  “Put back” always means poussette in my experience, and a half poussette will put the ones below the twos.  This is followed by two changes with hands which puts everyone improper, ones above the twos.  That will fit into eight bars, so it's B1.  There's no mention of the twos doing anything else, though no doubt they move up as the ones do their final cast, so everyone would appear to finish improper.  Well, we can get round that by having the twos do the cross in A2.  That means the first half of the dance finishes with everyone improper, which I'm dubious about, but it's possible.  That means that B2 starts with everyone in home place.  Now the ones can do their solo as in “Mad Robin” — first man down the outside and up the middle and first woman down the middle and up the outside.  In fact after the two changes the ones are facing in the correct direction for this move.  All very reasonable, you might think.  But we're not reading the instructions carefully enough.  The two changes are described as “right hands to your own, and left to the other wo.” and the instructions are directed to the men — but it would be left to the other man, not the woman.  And in the next move he specifically says the man is going down behind the second woman, and then the woman up behind the man.  One of these might be a mistake, but when we have three pieces of evidence we surely can't just dismiss them.  And of course if one couple was improper, both the men could “put back” in the poussette.  It seems to me that the only possibility is that one of the couples is improper.  There's no mention of this in the words, and the diagram is the standard one with four men in one line and four women in another.  Did they have longways improper dances in those days?  Yes they did, though not many.  King of Poland (Henry Playford, 1698) says “First man on his woman's side” even though the diagram is again the standard one.  Bartlett House (Thomas Bray, 1699) says “First Man begins improper”, and in the same book The Woman's the Man says “The Women begin all Improper” though that's a deliberate gimmick — the instructions are addressed to the women, who are very much in charge of the dance.  That's all I know about, ignoring dances such as Childgrove which are frequently danced with ones improper today although the original was proper.  I think we can dismiss the twos being improper — that would require the entire set to start improper except for the first couple, which would surely require mention.  But even having the ones improper without mention is pretty unlikely.  And why should they be improper?  What difference does it make to their passage through the dance?  (Though you could say the same about King of Poland.)  In Bartlett House it makes a lot of sense because the entire dance is symmetrical, like most modern American contras — when you got to the end of the set you just changed sides and did exactly the same moves as before.  But what's the advantage in the other two dances?

OK, I'm leaving this one for the moment — I hope to come back to it when I have time.  Or maybe someone will email me with an interpretation which satisfies all my objections.

The Punch-Bowl       

Source: Henry Playford, Dancing Master 11th Edition, 1701. Interpretation: Colin Hume, possibly around 1995.

Original wording:

The 1. cu. cross over below the 2. cu. and lead through the 3. cu. and hands half round with the 2. cu. and cast off  . 
The 2. cu. do the same  : 
The 1. wo. change places with the 2. man, and the 1. man change with the 2. wo. hands half round, and cast off and turn your Partner, the 2. cu. turns above at the same time.
The last strain played once.

The tune is in three-time, with an A and B music of eight bars each, and the instructions say that there's only one B — it's assumed that there are two A's.  Pat Shaw's version starts: Ones cross, go down outside the twos, lead down through the next twos and cast up while the twos wait for one bar, move up outside the ones above them, turn in and lead down to face their original ones.  Then in A2 the twos repeat this.  I've danced this version and find it very confusing because everyone is moving — and it's clearly not what the original says.  Pat presumably wanted to keep everyone busy, but surely this is a dance where the ones do the movement while the twos admire them, then the twos have their moment of glory.  And what's wrong with that?  (He does the same thing in Holborn March, giving the two-hand turn to both couples both times, and I don't like that either.)  So let's look at the original.  The threes are just posts for the other couples to lead through, and I'm not such a purist that I would keep it as a triple minor dance; I agree with Pat that it's better as duple minor.  What do we make of “The 1. cu. cross over below the 2. cu.”?  Pat interprets it as “The 1. cu. cross over and then go below the 2. cu.”.  But in my experience “cross over” always means “cross and cast below the next couple”, so for this interpretation the wording would be redundant.  I suggest that it means the first couple cross while moving down through the twos and cast below the next couple — the threes (or for a duple minor version, the next twos).  They then lead up through the threes, ready to circle left half-way with the twos and then cast off.  Pat has them leading down through the next couple, and then has to invent a cast up which is not mentioned in the original wording.

A1 finishes with the twos improper at the top and the ones proper below them.  After the twos have done the same movement in A2 the ones finish above the twos, both couples improper.

The B part seems straightforward except that if the final turn is all the way everyone finishes improper.  Maybe A2 is supposed to finish with everybody proper, but I don't see how.  In fact the wording spells out who crosses first, and it's the first woman and second man which is certainly the easy option with both couples improper (they're in first corner positions), so maybe it is right.  What about the timing?  If the corners do a “Hole in the Wall” cross this will take two bars for each, then two bars to circle left half-way and two bars for the ones to cast and the twos to lead up, leaving no time for any turn.  So we assume the crosses are three steps each.  Now there are two bars (six steps) left for the turn half-way, which is rather a lot, so I would finish the turn close to partner and then fall back on the last couple of steps.

So here's my interpretation:

The Punch-Bowl.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, around 1995.

A1:	Ones cross moving down through the twos (twos move slightly up and in), down outside the next twos, meet and lead up through them (12 steps).  With original twos circle half-way; ones cast, twos lead up.
A2:	Twos the same.  [All now improper]
B:	First corner positions (first lady, second man) cross; second corners cross (3 steps each); circle left half-way.  Ones meet, then cast, twos lead up; all two-hand turn half-way finishing close to partner and then fall back.

I taught this at Buffalo Gap at English/American Week in 1998, and Sharon McKinley was so taken by it that she decided to use it at the forthcoming Ball in Washington DC, even though they had already started teaching the Pat Shaw version.

Red and All Red       

Source: Thompson, 1757

Original wording:

The 1st. man foot it and turn his Partner  . 
then set to the 2d. Wo. hands all three round  : 
1st. Man leads his Partner behind the 2d. Man and Hands three with 2d. and 3d. We. and the Wo. Hands three round with the 2d. and 3d. Men  . 
Hands six round and turn your Partner  : 

John Riley (dancer and called from Bedford) gave me a sheet of paper on which he had written out his objections to Charles Bolton's version of “Red and All Red” — particularly that Charles had moved some of the instructions for the A music to the B music to fill this out.  John produced a (to my mind) equally spurious version in which he had condensed the moves to a single B.  This made me think about the dance, and I came up with my own version — I'd say it's much closer to the original than Charles's, though I've been forced to add in a “Lines back and forward” to use up some of the music.  Charles's version has a nice move where the circle six is followed by the middles stopping and the ends continuing half-way to finish proper, giving a reverse progression, but as you can see it's not there in the original.  What do you think?  Do you care whether a dance is an accurate interpretation of the original?  I'm not giving Charles's version here since it's in copyright — it's available in his collection “Retreads 5”.

Red and All Red

Format: 3 Couples longways.  Interpretation: Colin Hume, 2003.

A1:	First man step and honour partner right and left.  Ones two-hand turn.
A2:	Ones step and honour second lady.  Those three circle left.
B1:	(14 bars) First man lead partner behind men, leave her there, go round the threes, finish behind the ladies (12 steps, finishing with the descending octave).  In those threes, circle left.  Circle right.
B2:	Circle 6 left (12 steps, finishing with the descending octave).  Lines of three fall back a double; lead forward.  Ones cast, the others two-hand turn (threes moving up); ones two-hand turn half-way.

Rumford Assembly       

I was booked for the Romford & Brentwood Folk Dance Festival in Essex in March 2003 — displays by local dance groups in the afternoon followed by an evening dance.  A dance called “Rumford Assembly” (“Rumford” is the old spelling of “Romford”) had been found in the Central Romford Reference Library, and they were keen for one of the teams to display this and then for me to teach it to everyone in the audience.  It was found in a magazine published in 1754 whose title page proudly proclaimed it to be:

The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure
containing

News	Geography	Gardening
Letters	Voyages	Cookery
Debates	Criticism	Chemistry
Poetry	Translations	Mechanicks
Musick	Philosophy	Trade
Biography	Mathematicks	Navigation
History	Husbandry	Architecture

AND OTHER
Arts and Sciences
Which may render it Instructive and Entertaining
TO GENTRY, MERCHANTS, FARMERS and TRADESMEN
To which will occasionally be added
An Impartial Account of Books in several Languages
and of the State of Learning in Europe.
Also
Of the STAGE, New OPERAS, PLAYS and ORATORIOS. 

Original wording:

The first couple cast off hands four round with the third couple  .  ; cast up hands four round with the second couple  ..  ; lead down two couple, the second and third couple follows  .  ; cross over and turn your partners  ..  ; lead down and cast up, lead through the top, and cast off  ..  . 

You will notice that “Punctuation” was not in the list of contents!  The music is an 8-bar A and a 16-bar B, both repeated, giving a total of 48 bars.  But when we look at the instructions we see that the underlined double dot (meaning the second occurrence of a phrase of music) appears after “cross over and turn your partners” and again at the end of the instructions.  It seems to be saying A1, A2, B1, B2, B2.

Let's go through it from the beginning.  Eight steps for the ones to cast (twos implicitly moving or leading up) and eight steps for the circle left will certainly fit into A1, and the reverse of this will fit A2.  “Lead down two couple, the second and third couple follows” is not immediately clear, so let's ignore that.  “Cross over” in my experience always means “cross and cast”, which suggests that the ones are back in home place and this movement gets them into second place improper.  “Turn your partner” is likely to be a turn half-way or 1½ to get the ones proper again.  And the final section is one of the standard endings (the reverse of that used in “Love's Tri