A Health to Betty: as seen by three authors

Why should we study A Health to Betty?

Finding different sources for one historical dance is not very common. Especially for the medieval and modern periods, where the sources are often fewer.

So, finding three sources for a 17th century dance, and sources that corroborate each other on top of that… It’s like finding the needle in the haystack.

Except if that dance was a hit, apparently.

Today, I write about a global hit from the 17th century. Well, at least, a big hit in England.

The dance I will evoque get described in three English documents. The melody attached to it is being regularly published during almost a century (1630-1728)!

I’m taking advantage of the abundance of sources at our disposal to compare the instructions. Convergence or divergence between the sources? Can we propose a reconstruction that satisfies all three texts? Find the answers in this article!

An early pop song

Before attempting to reconstruct the choreography, a word about the melody. It is a cute triple-time tune (3/2), a rythme that we already encountered in Mr Beveridge’s Maggot and Hambleton Round O.

The lyrics of A Health to Betty are an hymn to Betty, miracle of the nature, fed by the Muses, in short: the most beautiful of all women.

The song originates from Scotland. In 1725, Orpheus Caledonius, the first printed collection of Scotish airs, give the original set of lyrics:

And so forth, always to the glory of Betty.

Listen to the melody here and here.

The song was probably introduced in England with the Stuart dynasty, in 1603.

Anyway, this tune was a great success in England from the 1630s onwards. New lyrics are regularly adapted to this melody. The melody was always associated with dancing. In 1720, D’Urfey composed « The Female Quarrel, to the tune of a Country Dance, call’s, A Health to Betty ».

The English and Scotish folk song repertoire know that tune as « My mother’s ay glowring o’er me ». This particular set of lyrics is by Alla Ramsay (1724).

A Health to Betty, a popular dance

As you’ve seen, the melody is well known during 17th and 18th century.

The dance also gets a considerable success. Indeed, it appears in the three major sources for dancing in England during 17th century. Those are: John Playford’s The Dancing Master, the Lovelace manuscript and the Ward manuscript. Let’s quickly introduce those documents.

The dancing Master (Playford)

Do we still need to present The Dancing Master?

In 1651, John Playford publishes in London a collection of country dances, The English Dancing Master. It contains 104 dances, with instructions and musical notation. The book was so successful that it was reprinted several times under the title The Dancing Master. John, who was ill, left the management of his business to his son Henry around 1690. Henry considerably renewed the repertoire, eliminating a series of obsolete dances and introducing more and more longways for many as will.

A Health to Betty has the particularity of appearing in each of the 18 editions of The Dancing Master. It survived the great cleaning of 1690, which shows that it must still have been danced regularly. The tune and the description of the figures do not change from one edition to the next.

The other two sources are manuscripts discovered rather recently.

Pattricke manuscript

The first is the Lovelace manuscript, also known as Pattricke manuscript. Or, by it full and barbaric name: MS Eng 1356, from Houghton library in Harvard. The ‘dance’ section dates from before 1649.

That document contains, amongst other things, the instructions (without music) for 32 english country dances. 23 of those titles match with a title in the Dancing Master. However, Pattricke is not a copy of Playford. So, this manuscript brings a new point of view on some choreographies contained in the Dancing Master. Here is a scan of the complete document.

Pattricke’s main characteristic compared to Playford is its permissiveness. Where Playford describes one and only one way of doing things, Pattricke says ‘as fast as you like’, ‘if you like’ and so on.

On the other hand, Pattricke shakes up the holy trinity “Lead, Sides, Arms”, by adding a fourth change, the half-turn. So changes would not be as universal as Playford would have us believe.

Ward manuscript

Under the reference GV1763.S73 1650 in Dr John Ward’s collection, hides a precious manuscript. It contains instructions for 17 dances, as well as a recipe to waterproof leather boots, a medical recipe and a magic trick with cards (yup!). 13 of those dances are also known in the Dancing Master; two of them being also present in the Pattricke manuscript. One of them is, of course, A Health to Betty.

This manuscript was written between 1660 and 1680. Again, Ward is not a copy of Playford, nor of Pattricke, and offers a new lighting on the dancing practices during the 17th century. You’ll find a facsimile and transcription on Andrew Swaine’s website.

The dance

The figures of A Health to Betty intrigue me, as they combine two characteristics that do not usually go along.

This is a dance “with changes”, i.e. where the figures « Lead, Sides, Arms » serve as chorus. Their function is somewhat similar to the changes in the cotillion. As I always say, when you know the three changes, you already know half of the dance! The first edition of John Playford’s Dancing Master (1651) contains a bunch of that type of dance: Upon a summer day, Chestnut, or even Milisons Jeg, to only name a few.

A Health to Betty is also a longways for many as will. The longways is a country dance in column, typically English, usually including some progression. This type of dance has become increasingly important with each edition of the Dancing Master.

Few dances combine thowe two characteristics: longways and changes. Nonesuch is the most well-known. They are only a handful, on the 700 dances published at the time!

To get an overwiew of the social dance during the 17th century, I invite you to read my summary.

Reconstructing A Health to Betty

Each figure of A Health to Betty is composed of a forward-backward motion (sometimes backward-forward), then a progressive figure. I would say that it is the DNA of the dance. As in many dances of the 17th century, you can feel that the dance is made to showcase the leading couple. The other couples do litterally nothing.

All three sources are quite consistent. They clearly describe the same choreography, with wome subtleties. First, I will inspect those differences. Then I’ll look at the reasons for the sometimes profound differences between the three texts.

The changes

Pattricke and Playford describe the standard changes lead, sides, arms, the usual Holy Trinity. More concise, Ward only mentions the lead.

That doesn’t mean that Ward overlooks the sides and arms. If the two changes are missing in that manuscript, it’s because Ward was worried about his paper consumption, not that he wasn’t dancing sides and arms.

Playford gives lead up all a D. forwards and back set and turn S. That again, as is traditional for him.

Lovelace writes something similar, but without the turn single. Actually Lovelace never ever mentions the turn single after the sett: the turn is implicit.

Ward is more laconic: lead upp, sett, lead upp again, sett.

The searchers suppose that all three sources describe a similar move, which only Playford describes in full. Pattricke and Ward are reminders for people who already know the dance. Playford, on the other hand, keeps in mind that the reader may not know everything about the choreography. This explains the gaps between the two manuscripts and the printed source.

This hypothesis is confirmed by reading the text of the next changes.

Pattricke simply says After siding and setting, as before, then Armes all. Ward doesn’t even mention the other two changes!

First figure for A Health to Betty

Until now, the three sources agree with each others. It is easy to imagine a common reconstruction for them. But on the level of the dance figures, the situation becomes more commplicated.

Lovelace et Playford describe exactly the same move: couple 1 sides, then 1½ turn. The partners of couple 1 then perform the same move with the next dances (M1 with L2 and L1 with M2). They go on this way until all dancers are moving, and until everyone is back to their starting place.

Ward writes a similar progression move (1½ turn), but the beginning differs: the partners of couples 1 are falling back instead of siding. They move backwards away from each other, then come together and start their turn.

The difference is minimal between both versions (Pattricke & Playford vs. Ward). We could even imagine both version coexisting inside the same longways.

Deuxième figure de A Health to Betty

For the second figures, the sources propose a similar movement.

• The partners of couples 1 move away from each others;
• The same go behind their neighbours;
• The same do a two-hand turn (except in Ward).

The general idea is the same in all sources, but the details are quite different.

Pattricke’s version

In Pattrickes, the partners of couple 1 move away from each other backwards (fall back), then slip behind their neighbour. They arrive under the second couple and make a two-hand turn. During that turn, they go down one more place: they finish under couple 3. This is a double progression. On the music, it gives something like:

• Bars 1-2 : Fall back
• Bars 3-4 : Slip behind your neighbours
• Bars 5-8 : Two-hand turn until under couple 3

Ward’s version

Ward prescribe that the couple 1 fall back from each others, then meet. Next the couple 1 make a long cast off (4 bars) to end up under the couple 2. In this version there is no turn. On the music:

• Bars 1-2 : Fall back
• Bars 3-4 : Meet
• Bars 5-8 : Long cast off long under couple 2

Playford’s version

In Playford the partners of couple 1 begin forwards. They meet then go backwards from each others. The author then write that the couple 1 “fall into the 2. Place”. This can be interpreted as a cast off (as in Ward’ version), or as slipping (as in Pattricke’s version). Playford doesn’t help us at all with this thorny question: how does couple 1 end up in second place? I’m inclined to interpret the word “fall” as a cast off. This “fall” is followed by a two-handed turn.

We have a problem here. The B-part of the melody has 8 bars. Meet, fall back and Cast last 2 bars each, while the two-hand turn is 4 bars. To make the whole thing last (only) 8 bars, we need to merge the fall back into the cast:

• Bars 1-2 : Meet
• Bars 3-4 : Fall back and Cast off under couple 2
• Bars 5-8 : Tour à deux mains

It works, but you have to hurry to get under couple 2 in time: starting from the centre of the longways (where you met your partner), you have to travel a longer way to make the cast under pair 2.

A Health to Betty, third figure

Pattricke et Ward make a similar proposition. The active couple make a forwards-backwards move (Ward) or a backwards-forwards move (Pattricke), the signature move of this dance. Then, they go down one place with a two-hand turn.

Playford prescribes a backwards-forwards move (like Pattricke), then the active couple slips one place down the longways. The partners get back to their place with a turn single.

Progression and music in A Health to Betty

The first dance figure – the only one that brings the three sources together – uses a particular progression.

The partners of couple 1 change places. Then they do the same with the next dancers. Couple 1 sets each couple in motion by moving from close to close. The following couples follow the first. Couple 1 returns to their place first. They stop dancing and wait until all the other dancers have taken their places.

The next two figures use a “snowball” progression. That is, an historical progression, where the couples wait to meet the first couple to begin dancing.

This is what Playford (Doe this change to the last, the rest following), Pattricke (that againe until all come to their places) and Ward (and soe to the next) advocate, each in their own words.

The main difficulty comes from the music. Indeed, as the number of dancers increases, so does the number of repeats required. This increase is not linear, but exponential!

So it is very complicated to find an adapted recording.

Even if you’re lucky enough to be working with live musicians, they’re likely to look rather grim when they read the necessary structure:

• 2 A (Lead up)
• 11 B (Figure 1)
• 2 A (Sides)
• 9 B (Figure 2)
• 2 A (Arms)
• 9 B (Figure 3).

And those numbers are valid for a longways with only four couples! The total duration of the dance would be around 6 minutes.

Where do the variations in A Health to Betty come from?

The three sources for the country dance A health to Betty (Playford, Pattricke et Ward) show different version of a single dance. All three texts come together in the introductions and the first figure.

The second and third figured are similar, with a “wave” movement (forwards-backwards) and a progression.

But a closer look reveals that each source has its own subtleties.

Where do those differences com from? How can we explain that a choreographed dance has such different versions? I propose here some food for thought.

Some local variations

We can imagine that each region has its own version of the dance. After all, we don’t dance the Morris dance the same way in Gloucestershire and Northumberland!

Are these differences due to the movement of dance from one town to another? Perhaps the dance evolved as it spread from one county to the next in the towns and countryside around where it was created. We now only have three versions, but there may have been dozens.

… or generational variations

The differences are perhaps not so much geographical as temporal. As we have seen, this dance has had a considerable longevity. The variations may come from an evolution in the tastes of new generations of dancers. Younger dancers may prefer a two-handed turn rather than a single turn in the third figure, for example.

Coexisting variations

Personally, I think that different versions could coexist within the same group of dancers. Especially for A Health to Betty. In fact, only the active couple dances. Whichever version they choose, it won’t interfere with the other dancers. John Playford’s writings present dance in an inflexible, standardised way. Pattricke, on the other hand, repeatedly tells us to do the figure ‘if we wish’, etc. We could even imagine each couple inventing their own version. One could even imagine that each couple invents its own figure, as long as it progresses by one couple each time.

Historical context

I’m also convinced that the turbulent history of England in the 17th century partly explains the variations in choreography. Cromwell and the Puritans in power in the middle of the century did not look favourably on dancing. They banned dancing in public. We know that certain circles nevertheless got together to dance, in secret or at least in private. It’s easy to imagine that these small, isolated communities developed their own versions and variations of dance.

Variations in time or space, permissive choreography, the effect of insularity due to the ban on dancing… The question cannot be settled definitively, since the Pattricke and Ward manuscripts have not been dated or located with any certainty. Moreover, these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.

Conclusions

What do you think of the melody of A Health to Betty? What does this particular choreography inspire in you? How would you explain the different variations? Which one do you prefer, anyway?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments!