This paper offers an interpretation of the dance Newcastle which was published in John Playford’s English Dancing Master in 1651. The paper is based on the workshop that I gave in March 2001 at the Dolmetsch Common Ground 3 conference: John Playford and The English Dancing Master 1651. Most often, recreations of dances published in the Playford books are performed with little or no explanation as to why the choreography is as it is or differs from other choreographies for that dance. Alternatively, any explanation is confined to the limited scope of a workshop. This paper is an attempt to depart from this practice by explaining the reasoning behind my interpretation.
Newcastle, a “Round for 4 couples” was originally published in John Playford’s English Dancing Master in 1651 and re-published until 1690, with minor changes, in the 2nd-8th editions of the Dancing Master. Cecil Sharp, noted musicologist and founder of the English Folk Dance Society published his interpretation of Newcastle in 1911 in Country Dance Book No 2. Alterations to Sharp’s first interpretation were described in Country Dance Book No 61 in 1922. More recent interpretations exist although the only published version is “Newcastle Revisited” by Michael Barraclough, published as a broadsheet in 1979. In 1985 Tom Cook published “Newcastle II” based on instructions for a dance called Newcastle in Add MSS 41996F2 in the British Library, London. Whilst Tom Cook states that
“Inspection showed at once that it could not be other than a variant of the Playford dance”Newcastle II seems to have been deliberately distinguished from Sharp’s interpretations in order to make it acceptable to the contemporary English folk dance audience. This paper argues for a choreography based on the premise that printed and manuscript versions are essentially the same dance with the choreography described differently by different observers. If this is correct it provides those who require “authentic” interpretations with a choreography that is significantly more accurate than that used today (based on Cecil Sharp). Until relatively recently (and in some places still) the English folk dance world has considered it to be heresy to question or change Cecil Sharp’s interpretations. Even someone as famous and well-loved as Pat Shaw had little success in introducing alternatives3. However:
- the major source of interpretations of “Playford” dances, the Country Dance Book4, is now some 90 years old
- a significant body of further knowledge5 has emerged since Cecil Sharp and friends did their pioneering interpretations
- interpretations are affected by the audience for which they are produced. Sharp’s audience was culturally very different from that for whom the dances were written6 and today’s audience is significantly different from that Sharp was addressing
- Sharp’s strong views as to the role of the performance of these dances undoubtedly colored his judgement
- excellent scholarship is employed in other early dance forms and presenting authentic performance of seventeenth/eighteenth century period drama yet many performances of English County Dance rely on Sharp’s interpretations.
Newcastle features frequently in performances by English early music groups7 but does not often feature in performances by English early dance groups. It is, however, one of the seminal dances in the repertoire of English folk dance clubs. In folk dance circles, if you can’t do Newcastle you must be a novice and are definitely “non-U”. At dances which are not club nights it as likely as not that you will have hear the caller say “the next dance is Newcastle, for those that know it”! Although most folk dancers believe that the dance they are doing when they do “Newcastle” is the original dance as done back in 1651 is clearly isn’t. Nor is it any of the dances called Newcastle (aka New Castle) subsequently published by John Playford and his son. It is probably the dance published by Cecil Sharp in the 2nd volume of the Country Dance book in 1911. However, if the dance leader or caller is alert they may have noticed that, in the 6th book of the Country Dance Book in 1922 Cecil Sharp changed his mind in various respects and published alterations to his original interpretation. It has been known for vigorous argument to take place on the dance floor with proponents of each version claiming that their version is “right” and the other is “wrong”! In the context of situations where “authentic interpretation” is necessary or desired they are of course both “wrong”. Let me make it clear, however, they are equally valid dances for today where authenticity is not a requirement. I should also point out that my 1979 interpretation of Newcastle, called Mr Barraclough’s Folly8, is also wrong. How apt a title that was!
Interpretation issues Interpretation of seventeenth and eighteenth century dance texts is beset with problems. In his introduction to Book 6 of the Country Dance Book, Cecil Sharp wrote at length about the problems faced in interpreting dances which had not been performed in living memory9.
“Where we may have, and no doubt have failed, in greater or less degree, is in our interpretation of the movements and figures. The loose, unscientific, happy-go-lucky way in which the descriptions of the dances are often worded; the frequent use of undefined technical terms and expressions that became obsolete during the period covered by the Playford volumes; the typographical errors which disfigure so many pages – the inaccurate punctuation, the omission of important words, sometimes whole sentences – these make a really accurate, scientifically exact, transcription humanly unattainable.”
For most of the period when country dances were being published, grammar was extremely fluid. The concept of grammar in English did not take hold until the nineteenth century. Similarly, dictionaries existed in the seventeenth century, but their principal raison d’etre was to supply meanings and not spellings. It can therefore be difficult to discern what was actually meant. Typical problems faced include:
- common words then may have very different meanings today – what should one do when instructed to “salute” one’s partner?
- the use of technical shorthand –”sides all” clearly meant something to somebody or it wouldn’t have been used but its meaning to the modern audience is far from obvious
- everyday words may have a different technical meaning, “fall below” or “slip down the middle” presumably didn’t require someone to collapse on the floor
- words also change their meaning over time. In the seventeenth century “sex” meant gender now it can mean other things. Technical words can also change their meaning over time. For example, the term allemande meant different things at different times and in different places. The term figure can be a 4-bar choreographic unit leaving the dancers improper or an 8-bar unit leaving them proper.
- whilst one can often make a reasonable guess as to what was intended this is not always the case. The intention in the statement “Tea, no charge, husbands welcome, please state numbers”10 is reasonably clear, but what is the scope of “this again” in “sides all to the right and left, set and turn single this again”11
- words can also have multiple meanings. The phrase “he passed out” depends heavily on context for a correct interpretation – was the person at Sandhurst Military Academy or at the pub? But if you add the words “through the door” the meaning changes again and a small typographical error could change the meaning completely!
- punctuation is often missing, or possibly wrong – there is a world of difference between interpreting “go all round”12 as “go all, round”13 instead of “go, all round”14
- printers errors are rarely corrected and sometimes changed punctuation is as much to do with the idiosyncrasies of the publisher as it is to correct an error, or provide clarity for the reader
As with other historical disciplines, it is important to be well read in contemporary material generally. The following statement which appeared in a national newspaper in the early 1980s illustrates this well.
“If well endowed young ladies make a habit of invading the pitch at Twickenham we shall need a new competition – the Oh! Calcutta Cup”
To understand and appreciate this statement you need to know:
- it is not generally acceptable for women to appear topless in Britain
- a well-endowed young lady (Erica Roe) ran topless across the pitch at Twickenham
- Twickenham is the home of English rugby
- England and Scotland compete at rugby for the Calcutta Cup
- Oh Calcutta was an off-Broadway revue (subsequently revived on Broadway) which contained "little of substance but lots of nudity".
Getting inside the author’s head is also crucial. In this example from a letter to the Times in 1981 the originator clearly didn’t see an alternative interpretation.
“Sir, How threatening official language can appear! A Spanish member of our domestic staff was recently expressing what seemed to me to be inordinate anxiety about completing her census form. Eventually the reason became clear. She had interpreted ‘form for making an individual return’ as ‘form for making an individual return to her own country’.”
In this account from the Daily Telegraph Diary the recipient did not understand something that the originator considers quite obvious.
According to the parish magazine at Ashtead, Surrey, a motorist approaching a sharp bend on a country road was astonished when a large, tweed-decked lady in a car coming towards him leaned out of the window, gesticulating frenziedly, and yelled ‘Pig!’. ‘Old Crow’ was his retort and then he drove round the corner into the largest pig he had ever seen.”
Perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of alternative sources to shed light on the situation – just imagine how useful a video or a time machine would be. Even when the dance appears in many editions of the same publication (nine15 in the case of Newcastle) there is usually little additional information gained. The changes in the description of the choreography are few and far between and are usually cosmetic, “turn” for “turne” and so on. True insight comes from being able to compare more than one source and preferably where the means of description differ from what was obviously the conventional dancing masters’ shorthand – “sides all”, “hands across”, “go the figure” and so on. In practice, there are four main types of alternative sources known to us at present.
First, there are a variety of manuscript books in libraries and museums where dances are written out longhand by an amateur, often intermingled between (say) a recipe from an aunt for their favorite gingerbread and legal jottings about a case they had just won or lost in court. This paper is only possible because of the availability of such a source16.
The second alternative type of source comes from France and uses orseographic notation. The manuscripts of Lorin from 168517 and 168817, are the first of these. Then there are books by Feuillet, published in Paris in 1706 (translated and published in English in London by John Essex in 1710) and Dezais (published in Paris in 1712). The more diligent among you will find subsequent editions of some of these with additional dances. Because orseographic evidence is graphical rather than lexical there is less scope for alternative interpretations of these dances. Lorin seemingly was trying to describe dances he had seen in England but Feuillet was clearly describing dances being done in Paris, or more likely Versailles, at that time. However, there can be no presumption that dances were being done identically in London and Paris. This leads naturally to another crucial point. It is vital to question the motivation for the source material. Essex’s 1710 publication is as likely as not an attempt at self-aggrandizement. There is no guarantee that it reflects the state of country dancing in London at that time. This can be seen in Tom Cook’s publication of Newcastle II where his circumstances, working in English Folk Dance circles, motivated an interpretation as different from Cecil Sharp’s interpretation of Newcastle as possible.
The remaining two types of source are much less exciting. Ladies’ pocket books (a sort of hard-back miniature Women’s Own) contained dance instructions, usually without tunes and usually almost word-for-word the same as the published books of dances. There are also books of dances from rival publishers (ie not from the Playford family) but these more often than not suffer from the problems already described or are merely plagiarized from someone else’s book. “New” dances were often straight copies of earlier dance texts set to a new tune (sometimes of a completely different length) and given a new title. A good example of this is Meillionen18. This is actually Row Well Ye Mariners published in 1651 by John Playford19 with identical instructions but set to a tune of a different length and rhythm. Sadly, this has been interpreted entirely erroneously and published as a traditional Welsh dance by the Welsh Folk Dance Society.
The interpretation – First Figure reasoning
For many years I have shown a slide when doing Newcastle at workshops which says:
I have already explained that Cecil Sharp changed his mind over his interpretation of Newcastle and indicated that I don’t agree with either of them. The question arises, therefore, does the manuscript describe the same dance as that in the (English) Dancing Master, a variant of the dance or an entirely different dance?
Let us begin by looking at the structure of the dance. The dance is what would be called in the USA, a “USA” dance. This means that the dance has a structure as follows:
|Structure of an "USA" dance|
|Standard Figure 1:||Up a double and back|
|Standard Figure 2:||Siding|
|Chorus 2:||A or B|
|Standard Figure 3:||Arming|
|Chorus 3:||A or C|
The choruses may be different, as in Newcastle or may be the same, as in Upon A Summers Day. They can also be whole set or progressive, or a mixture of both. Nonesuch, which is usually classified as an “irregular” dance is in fact perfectly regular. It has standard figures with three different choruses: a duple minor progressive figure followed by different whole set figures. The nature of the “Standard Figures” depends on the length of the music. Almost invariably they will be repeated since the music will repeat. Usually they are not changed but very occasionally the first figure goes up and down, or in and out, or (if circular) round and back.
The dance is described in both the printed and manuscript versions as a “round” dance for 4 couples but it is not apparent what the implication of being round is, nor, how round dances for 4 couples differ from square dances for 4 couples. Thirteen dances20 in the 1st edition of the Dancing Master are described as rounds. Six use going “round” and seven use “meet” for their first Figure. There is also no pattern as between “rounds for as many as will” and “whole set rounds”
|For as many as will||3||2|
The manuscript supports the contention that for circular dances, “meet and back a double, that again” and “slip/circle left and back” are alternatives and I consider that this difference is not enough to claim that the dances are different. This formulation (that is doubles, siding or arming) works where the A music is 4 bars in length but often it will be 8 bars, or occasionally 6 bars. In these cases the dance composer has had to decide what to do with the extra music. The answer is to add a “filler”. For 6-bar A musics the filler is usually “turn single” and for 8-bar A musics the filler is “set and turn single”. The possible configurations are:
|1st A music||2nd A music|
|4 bar A music||Standard figure||Standard figure|
|6 bar A music||Standard figure||Filler||Standard figure||Filler|
|8 bar A music||Standard figure||Filler||Standard figure||Filler|
|8 bar A music||Standard figure||Standard figure||Filler||Filler|
The description for Figure 1 in the various sources of Newcastle is as follows:
|Add MSS 41996F||Playford 1st edition||Playford 7th edition|
|Take hands all & goe halfe round then set & turn all round single, then take hands all again & goe backe into your places all holding hands together, then set again, & turne all round single againe,||Meet all, back againe, fet to your owne, and to the next.That againe:||Meet all, back again, fet to your own, and to the next.That again:|
Cecil Sharp’s interpretation of the First Standard Figure as: Meet a double and back, set to your partner and set to your neighbor with all that repeated does not accord with the configurations set out above. What I believe Sharp has done is an example of “literal translation”. He has given effect to the words without understanding that he is most likely violating the principles of how to construct a dance. I suggest that a better interpretation is “Meet a double and back, set and turn single to your partner, meet a double and back, set and turn single to your neighbor”. This is justified by:
- the principle that if it is different from anything else then it is most likely wrong
- the patterns that emerge from looking at many dances
- confirmation of the basic structure provided by the manuscript version
- the fact that sometimes you get text earlier in the instruction that actually refers to something that will be happening later – ie “and to the next” means “and to your neighbor when you repeat it”
- perhaps most telling of all, the fact that the music suggests “set and turn single” rather than “set and set”, ie it mirrors 2 singles followed by a double rather than 2 singles followed by 2 singles
I have adopted the starting position of women on the men’s left as portrayed in Playford (although there is no guarantee that Playford was right). However, the manuscript suggests that this is correct because at the end of the first B music “each woaman meets his man, --- ye woemen all standing on ye right side of their men” which can only be achieved if they start on the left side.
The interpretation – First Chorus reasoning
The first chorus is a sequence of turns and stars. The following table summaries who says what and when
|Cecil Sharp (1911)||B1 |
|Men left |
|Cecil Sharp (1922)||B1 |
|Men left |
|Playford (1651-1690)||B1 |
|Men left |
|Manuscript (mid-C17)||B1 |
|Men right |
|Michael Barraclough (1979)||B1 |
|Men left |
|Michael Barraclough (2001)||B1 |
|Men left |
My preference is to stay with my 1979 interpretation which is the same as Sharp’s original interpretation and what Playford appears to state. This differs from Sharp’s 1922 interpretation which he justifies as follows21
“The second figure (B music) of the first Part of Newcastle affords another illustration of a like confusion … 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 againe with your own by the left, and the We right hands in …”
Sharp’s change of mind is understandable and replaces flow with reverse symmetry as the more important principle. The manuscript even appears to support it with the turns being given as right and left. However, the manuscript sequence of right turn, star right, left turn, star right is most unlikely given its asymmetric nature. I suspect that in the manuscript, the “men star right” is a noting down error (just like the reference to “his men” above) and that this should be men star left. This leaves us with a straight decision between
|Cecil Sharp (1911) |
|Men left |
|Cecil Sharp (1922) |
Manuscript (mid-17th century)
|Men left |
There is also another aspect of the chorus which needs interpretation. The manuscript instruction is to go “half” way round, not all the way round as Cecil Sharp requires and Playford appears to suggest. Going only half way round makes great sense because:
- going all the way round is much too hurried in the clothing of the day
- it works much better when you dance it
- the words in Playford are not actually inconsistent because “to your places” could not unreasonably be interpreted as “until you meet each other”.
Given the fact that the dancers are only going half way round the set and end up improper22 with respect to their starting position it is now possible to decide between the right/left/right/left and right/left/left right sequences above. The former is entirely symmetrical but the latter has a ¾ turn on the first turn and a 1¼ turn on the second turn. This seems much less likely so the sequence from the Playford books for the turns and starts is preferred but the stars are only half way round as per the manuscript. The wonderful resulting flow adds credence to the solution.
The interpretation – Second Figure reasoning
Siding is of course “into line” siding as opposed to the “banana” siding introduced by Cecil Sharp in 191123. Devotees of Sharp’s original interpretation of siding should be aware that by 1922, Sharp had already convinced himself that his original interpretation was wrong. In the Introduction to the 6th Book of the Country Dance Book he states“… the Side would then be identical with the Morris figure of Half-hands, or Half-gyp. And this, I suspect, may prove to be the correct interpretation”. In fact, not long before his death, he lets the cat out of the bag in a lecture to teachers in Aldborough in Suffolk when he complains at the unwillingness of the English Folk Dance Society to accept changes to what had been published. The need for a “filler” when the A music is 8 bars long is referred to above. Normally dancers do not actually end up anywhere different as a result of the A music in a USA dance. However, in this dance in the second and third parts, the dancers are required to “change places with them” (the person they are dancing with). Sharp interprets the “change places” as “go a single to the right and honor (2 bars) then change places, passing by the left (2 bars)”. Neither Playford nor the manuscript mention singles or honors so that is unlikely to be correct. 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 these days 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.
The interpretation – Second Chorus reasoning
We are immediately faced with two issues. First, the making of arches, which the cut of clothing at this time makes most improbable. I am delighted to see that there is no mention of arches in the manuscript! The second issue is one of timing. Cecil Sharp interprets Playford literally and has the (original) side couples moving during bars 5-8 after the (original) head couples have moved in bars 1-4. Tom Cook suggests that the side couples should move at the same time as the head couples (ie everybody moving during bars 1-8). My 1979 interpretation had the head couples moving during bars 1-4 and the sides during 3-8. However, I had no justification for this except for some aesthetic “gut feel”. Closer inspection of the manuscript suggests that we are all wrong and that the figure being described is simply a “grand square” movement (as in Hunsdon House, and possibly in Kettle Drum) except that only two couples are active each time. I do not propose to argue the point closely. The clue is that “your own mate” is not your original partner (mate), it is the one you are with at the moment and this then makes your original partner the “contrary woman”! I accept that what Playford states appears to be different but in support I suspect that there was no acknowledged term for this figure and hence the difficulty in describing it.
The interpretation – Third Figure reasoning
Unusually, Cecil Sharp is inconsistent as between how he deals with “sides all and change” and “armes all and change”. In fact, it is not necessary to be inconsistent. One can do the arming and changing in exactly the same manner as the siding and changing”. The first change takes place with the current partner and the second change will be across the corners of the set. For example, the 2nd Man and 3rd Woman will be doing the paunch to paunch with each other. However, as they fall back they will be conscious of the need to take hands with the 1st Man and 2nd Woman (who are also changing with each other) to form a line of four (indicated in red below). The starting point for the 2nd Man and 3rd Woman is shown by the letters 2M and 3W below. Their finishing position is shown by the two green dots, the 2nd Man being in the centre of the line and the 3rd Woman at the end of the line.
The interpretation – Third Chorus reasoning
The description for Chorus 3 in differs significantly as between the manuscript and the various Playford editions of Newcastle.
|British Library Add MSS 41996F (undated)||(English) Dancing Master 1st edition, 1651||Dancing Master 7th edition, 1686|
|then two men & two woamen hold hands & stand apart from ye other fowre a cross ye roome then meete all fowre & change places to ye contrary side, then fall fowre /hand in hand to one end & fowre to ye other end of ye roome soe meete & change places, this brings every man to his owne place as they were at first.||Fall back from each other, foure and foure a breft 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 oppofite. So each falls into his place as at first.||Fall back from each other, four and four a breft to each wall, turn and change places with your opposites. Fall back from each other four and four along the Roome, turn S. change places with your oppofite. So each falls into his place as at first.|
- Cecil Sharp has the lines falling back, coming forward, everyone turning single and then changing with the person opposite to them to form lines across the head of the set, and then repeating all this.
- Playford’s description has an issue in that it is not symmetrical, there being a turn single in the second half, but not in the first. Given the wonderful symmetry of the dance so far it seems wrong to follow the asymmetric instruction in Playford. I am assuming, therefore, that either both of these should be a turn or that both should be a turn single.
- The manuscript description does not mention a turn single and is symmetrical using a change places.
Since all the instructions seem to be in agreement that the 1st part of the movement is to fall back (a double), this leaves 6 bars to be filled. The choices we seem to have are:
|A||Turn single (2 bars) | Forward (2 bars) | Change (2 bars)|
|B||Turn single (2 bars) | Change (4 bars)|
|C||Turn single coming forward (2 bars) | Change (4 bars)|
|D||Come forward (2 bars) | Change (4 bars)|
I have seen all of A, B & C as people try and give effect to the instructions. Of these three, C seems to be the most satisfactory but still leaves unresolved as to whether a) one should turn single, and b) whether one should do it coming forward. For me, D is the best solution. The manuscript description does not mention a turn single and is symmetrical using a change places. If you assume, as I do, that the change places is in fact another paunch-to-paunch change and that the turn single is either extraneous or an attempt to describe the first part of the paunch-to paunch change. This gives fall back, come forward, change paunch-to-paunch with the person opposite you (the original heads move in to the middle a little to help form the head lines). Then repeat with the original sides not needing to fall back much after the paunch-to-paunch change.
If you are from the “historical dance” side of the house, you have seen my best guess as to what Newcastle looked like. And if you are from the “folk dance” side of the house, then here is a new dance for you – Newcastle United. Finally, I have many acknowledgements to make. First, I would like to acknowledge the pioneering work of Tom Cook. Whilst I had long been aware of the manuscript in the British Library, which is so important to my thesis this afternoon, it was Tom’s publication of the content of the manuscript and his interpretation of the contents that provided the spur to my thinking. Next I would like to thank Tom Senior who is the leader, together with the members of the Evanston (Illinois) English Country Dance Club. Tom kindly lent me the dancers to try out my “Work in Progress”. Hitherto this had been images running through my mind or the obligatory salt and pepper pots moving around the kitchen table. It is a lot easier to sort things out when you deal with real people! We must also thank Cecil Sharp, founder of the English Folk Dance Society, the forerunner of the English Folk Dance & Song Society. We all stand on his shoulders and without his pioneering work it is quite likely that we would not be here today. I must also thank my previous employer, Motorola, for the computing facilities that have enable me to research, produce and deliver my original presentation and this paper. Finally, it remains for me to thank the Dolmetsch Historical Dance Society Research Committee for selecting my paper to be presented.
My Interpretation (based on the above)Title: Newcastle United
Author: Michael Barraclough (2001)
Formation: Square, improper
|A1||Circle left, set right and left, turn single right OR Into the middle and out, set right and left, turn single to partner.|
|A2||Circle right, set left and right, turn single left OR Into the middle and out, set right and left, turn single to neighbor.|
|B1||Arm right ¾ with partner, then men star left ½ way round whilst women dance clockwise ½ way round to meet partner.|
|B2||Arm right ¾ with partner, then women star left ½ way round whilst men dance clockwise ½ way round to meet partner.|
|A3||Face partner, forward a double to meet right shoulder to right shoulder and back a double (into line siding). Change with this person using two doubles (paunch-to paunch as in Hole in the Wall) ending facing next person round the set.|
|A4||Repeat A3 with this person to end along side next person on the side of the square, men have moved clockwise and women anti-clockwise one place around the set.|
|B3||Head couples (currently on the sides) do a grand square (leading out of the set through the other couple.|
|B4||Side couples (currently on the heads) do a grand square (leading out of the set through the other couples).|
|A5||Face current partner, arm right. Change with this person using two doubles (paunch-to paunch as in Hole in the Wall) ending facing next person round the set.|
|A6||Repeat A5 with this person to end along side next person taking hands in lines parallel with the side of the set, but towards the center of the set. Side couples are in the center of the line and head couples are at the end of the line, facing their partner in the other line.|
|B5||Lines all back, come forward, change paunch to paunch with opposite (original heads moving in a little to form new lines).|
|B6||Lines fall back a double and come forward a double. Change paunch to paunch with the person opposite you, falling out into original place (side couples do not have to fall back much – they are already there).|
Endnotes The published authors are stated to be Cecil Sharp and George Butterworth. It is known, however, that Maud Karples was heavily involved in its content. Go Back
 The manuscript does not have an author and is undated but is attributed by the British Library to mid-seventeenth century. Go Back
 Mr Beveridge's Maggot is the only dance that he actually persuaded the English Folk Dance & Song Society (EFDSS) to change. Go Back
 Op cit, Vols 2, 4 & 6 Go Back
 Mainly unpublished or in the journals and summer school workbooks of organisations such as the Dolmetsch Historical Dance Society (DHDS), Early Dance Circle (EDC) etc Go Back
 For example, there was considerable “bowdlerization” to make the material suitable for a more prudish early twentieth century audience Go Back
 Many musicians consider it to be a “good” tune – Jeremy Barlow even states that “it is the best in the book”. Go Back
 Subtitled “Newcastle Revisited” Go Back
 Cecil Sharp, Country Dance Book No 6, 1922, page 10 Go Back
 Triennial meeting of old Girls,Royal School, Bath Go Back
 All a Mode de France, English Dancing Master 1stedn Go Back
 The Phenix, Dancing Master 3rd edn Go Back
 Michael Barraclough - Phoenix Unrushed, (broadsheet), 1979 Go Back
 Cecil Sharp - Phoenix, Country Dance Book No 2, 1911 Go Back
 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th editions Go Back
 British Library, Add MSS 41996F (undated) Go Back
 Biblioteque Nationale Go Back
 Walsh’s Caledonian Country Dances Go Back
 1st-8th editions (1651-1690) Go Back
 Mage On A Cree, If All The World Were Paper, Millfield, Fine Companion, Rose Is White And Rose Is Red, Peppers Black, Chirping of the Nightingale, Newcastle, Kettle Drum, Mundesse, Jenny Pluck Pears, Gathering Peascods and Up Tailes All Go Back
 6th Part of the Country Dance Book Go Back
 On the opposite side of their partner to normal Go Back
 Book 2 of the Country Dance Book Go Back