Parson upon Dorothy, one dance and three reconstructions

Today, I tell you about a real hit of the 17th and 18th centuries: Parson Upon Dorothy. A strange name, isn’t it? One wonders if the parson’s wife is aware of that!

After a short enquiry about the popularity of the music, and the origin of this title, we’ll see that this choreography inspired many dance searchers – including your servant. The reconstructions are very different: we’ll see how we arrive at very different but perfectly valid conclusions.

Without further ado, a word on Dorothy’s lifespan.

Being a French native speaker, I write in English as good as I can. Please let me know if you sot any error. thank you!

An old and bucolic melody

I announce you straight away that Parson Upon Dorothy is the title of the dance. The aria given by the Dancing Master and John Walsh is known by many names… but they never contains “Parson” no “Dorothy”. The most common names for that melody are The beautiful sherperdess of Arcadia and Sheperd’s Daughter. I definitively feel a rustic vibe here.

As was often the case at the time, the tune served as a vehicle for several songs. The earliest score of this tune dates from the 1620s, but the melody was already well known in 1607, when Francis Beaumont quoted a few lines of the lyrics in one of his plays.

Numerous versions were published throughout the 17th century. Operas regularly reprised the melody until the end of the 18th century.

Parson upon Dorothy, a surprising title

This melody stands in the Dancing Master from the second edition, under the unprecedented title Parson upon Dorothy. All subsequent editions of the Dancing Master will include that dance, a real hit.

John Walsh, Playford’s successor (and plagiarist), also uses that title in his Complete Country Dancing-Master (between 1718 and 1760).

But why is the title of the dance so different from the other known titles?

Christian Graham, dance historian, tried to answer that question in his book The Playford Assembly. 125 Early English Country Dances, 1651 – c.1820. If you teach historical English country dance, I highly recommend you that book. It contains 125 dances, with melodies, intructions and historical comment.

Graham doesn’t believe in the salacious explanation of a love story between Dorothy and the parson. He thinks that “Dorothy” may have been the sheperdess’s name in the oral tradition, lost nowadays.

« Dorothy » était peut-être le nom de la bergère dans la tradition orale, aujourd’hui perdue.

The exact melody used in the Dancing Master would be a variation created by Martin Peerson (c.1570 – c.1651), madrigalist, singer and keyboardist. Peerson died shortly before the publication of the Dancing Master, so the title Parson (Peerson) upon Dorothy is a tribute to him. The same explanation applies to Parson’s Farewell, another well-known dance from Dancing Master.

Parson upon Dorothy, the first version of the dance

Yes, you read correctly, “first version”. The Dancing Master (DM) has a version of Parson upon Dorothy in all its edition, except the very first (1651) and the 10th (1698).

Until 1696, the DM has a first version: a 4-couples longways. Between 1701 and 1716, the DM has a second one, a longways for as many as will. Finally, the last two edition host a third version, close to the second one.

John Walsh, in his Compleat Country Dancing Master (1718 – 1760), copies the second version from DM.

Text for version 1 (1652 – 1657 – 1665)

Longways for eight

Lead up forwards and back .| That again : |
First two men and last two men hands, and lead to each wall, we doing the same, change hands and meet all . |
First and 3. Men lead up, the other leading down, change hands and lead the Co. way : |
Turn each others We .| Turn your own : |

The reconstructions for Parson upon Dorothy

That short text poses three major issues of the reconstruction of the dance:

• « lead to each wall »: Which walls are we talking about? Who goes to which wall exactly?
• « First and 3. Men lead up, the other leading down » : in a longways, how can the third man go up, and the second man go down, without wolliding miserably? Should they cross? How?
• « Turn each others We” : Who does turn who? How can one elegantly grab the counterpartner, while everyone begins facing their partners?

Sharp

The oldest proposal is Cecil Sharp’s, in 1922. I will summarise it quickly, or you can watch it here.

The walls: Sharp recommends that the couples 1 & 2 lead to the men’s wall (ladies following their partners), while couples 3 & 4 lead to the women’s wall (men following their partners).

Men 1 and 3 lead up, the other leading down: Sharp supposes that the “3” is a mistake and should be a “2”. So Sharp has the couples 1 & 2 leading to the Presence, while couples 3 & 4 lead down.

Turn each others women: Men 1 & 2 cross (1st sneaking before the 2nd) to turn respectively women 2 and 1. Same for the couples 3 and 4. That last proposal respects the text to the letter, even if it is a bit hurried in practice.

Bolton

Charles Bolton make a different proposal in 1989 (excellent year). Again, I will quickly summarise his choices, and you can watch them in video.

First, Bolton observes that the couples exclusively “work” as duo. Couple 1 only interacts with couple 2. Couples 3 and 4 only dance together. So he decided to turn that longways for 8 as a dance for four.

The walls: both men go to their wall, followed by the women. As there is only two couples left, the question is swiftly answered. It remains to be seen wether “we. doing the same” means that the women follow their partners, or that the women lead to their own wall.

Men 1 and 3 lead up, the other leading down: that problem is avoided again as there is no more third and fourth men. Everyone lead up to the Presence.

Turn each others women: first diagonal (man 1 & woman 2) make a two-hand turn, while the 2nd man lead up behind first man, to reach and turn the 1st woman.

Stevens

Before presenting my proposal, I would like to stress the following. A reconstruction is only a hypothesis, based on an imprecise source and on the choreographer’s choices. Bolton’s and Sharp’s versions respect the text scrupulously and are 100% valid – as is mine.

There is no one version better than the other. I invite you to test all three, and decide for yourself which you prefer.

My hypothesis can be summed up in a few words: John Playford was tired when he typed Parson upon Dorothy. Let me explain.

First part

First two men and last two men hands.

Why does Playford separates men two by two? They are forming a line, it’d be more logical to say “Men hands”. In New Bo-Peep, for example, Playford says We. Go all to the wall to indicate that the whole line goes to the wall.

Except… if the men are not forming a line, but two small lines of two men each. That formation is to be found in Lull Me Beyond Thee, that has the last two couples improper. Let’s keep that idea in a corner of our brains.

and lead to each wall.

“The wall” is the closest wall to the dancer, when they a facing the Presence. Depending on the positioning of the couples (regular longways or with the last couples improper), we’ll see two different movements.

we doing the same

Ah, some clarity at least: the women do the same as the men. Is it that clear? The question is to know whether they walk to the same wall as the men (following them), or whether they walk to their own wall (moving apart from their partner).

change hands and meet all

All dancers half turn (change hands)… and “meet all”. For me it brings an answer to the previous question: the women move apart from their partner. That is the only option that allow everyone to “meet”.

Second part

First and 3. Men lead up, the other leading down, change hands and lead the Co. way

I think it should be read “the otherS” – another typo in Playford’s text. Also, the text only speaks to the men.

How can the third man lead up, and the second lead down? They risk collision!

• Is it yet another typo in the text (as Sharp thought), and the 3 is really a 2? The figure woudl then be the exact twin of the previous one: lead and back on the wall axis, then lead and back on the Presence axis. My passion for symetry is satisfied.
• Should partners of couples 2 and 3 cross? That idea respects the beginning of the text, but then couples 2 & 3 should drop hands. However, the text then says “change hands”.
• As usual, the text only speaks to the men. That doesn’t mean that the women do nothing. By the way, if men were the only ones to move, with who would they “change hands”?

As Sharp, I think that it is a typo. We should read 2 instead of 3.

Third part

Turn each others We . | Turn your own : |

Cecil Sharp proposed that the men cross to go and turn the woman in their diagnonal. I think this movement is hurried and unnatural. In my opinion, DM’s dances are usually better designed and built. That’s the good moment to remember our mental note of earlier: the last two couples could be improper.

“OK Sandra, but what good does that do us?” I can already hear you retort

My idea is that the schematics for the disposition of the dancers is faulty. It is not a regular longways, but a formation à la Lulle me beyond thee, with the last two couple improper.

In that disposition, the wall problem is easily resolved. Each dancer goes to the closest wall, holding their neighbour by the hand.

The problem of the third man leading up must be a typo, as Sharp’s suggested. So couples 1 and two lead up to the Presence, while couples 3 and 4 lead down.

Finally, the men can turn “each other” partners as follow: Men 2 and 3 turn respectively women 3 and 2, their neighbours. At the end of the move to / away from the Presence, partners of couples 1 and 4 go closer to the center of the longways, behind couples 2 and 3. So, first man and fourth woman are facing each other. Same for first woman and fourth man.

Reconstruction for Parson upon Dorothy by Sandra Stevens (video)

Formation : longways pour 4 couples, the last two couples being improper.

Part    Bar                Figure

A1          1-4                Lead up and back

A2          5-8                Lead up and back

B1          1-2                 Men 1 & 2, 3&4 give hand, lead to their wall. Idem women

               3-4                All half turn, change hand and go back to starting place

B2          5-6                 Couples 1 & 2 lead to the Presence, couples 3 & 4 lead to bottom

               7-8                 All half turn, chang hand and go back to the center

Couples 1 & 4 split and come next to couples 2 & 3, as follows :

Presence

M1 M2 W2 W1

W4 W3 M3 M4

C1          1-4                        All 2-hand turn with the person facing you

C2          5-8                        All back to place and 2-hand turn with partner

On the second and third repeat, dancers do sides and arms respectively.

That way to modify the arrangement of the set (following the Presence axis, then the walls axis) is not unknown in the Dancing Master. Indeed, it is to be found in Lull Me Beyond Thee (whose particular arrangement of dancers inspired my reconstruction), and in the second figure of Scotch Cap. Those two dances are by the way present in all DM’s edition between 1651 and 1690.

Conclusions

You can now see how the same text can inspire very different reworkings. I repeat, the three proposals are valid, because they respect the text. I invite you to test these hypotheses in practice. You can then decide which version you prefer, or even formulate your own proposals.

In another article, I’ll tell you about the other two versions of Parson upon Dorothy. This one is already too long ^^. Thank you for reading this far, and I look forward to talking to you about historical dance!

Subscribe to the newsletter to receive all new articles in your mailbox!