Double figure eight
Having decided that a draw Poussette is a twentieth century invention, I'm wondering the same about a double figure eight. Don't get me wrong — I think it's a lovely move and I've used it in many of my own dances — but I'm not happy with interpretations of old dances which throw it in without any justification. No, that's not fair: the justfication is to give the twos or threes more to do. It's a question of how rigorous you want to be, and I'm more rigorous than most. For instance, St. Martin's Lane is a triple minor where the ones do a full figure eight down through the threes, a full figure eight up through the twos, and a two-hand turn in second place. Christine Helwig's interpretation has a double figure eight at each end and everyone doing the two-hand turn. Tom Cook's version of Kelsterne Gardens has the ones and twos doing a double figure eight instead of the ones doing a figure eight — there are many more such examples, and I happily call those two versions myself.
Admittedly there are some dances in Henry Playford's editions of the Dancing Master which do seem to contain a double figure eight. For instance, Devonshire-House (10th Edition, 1698) starts:
First cu. cast off, the 2. cu. leading up, change places at the same time; 2. cu. cast down, 1. cu. lead up, changing places as before, men being on the wo. side…This reads to me like a half double figure eight — the ones casting and crossing up as the twos cross up and cast — and Henry Playford adds the phrase “men being on the wo. side” to reassure us that we've understood it. But he's spelt it out in detail, rather than the conventional “go the figure…” which says to me that what he's describing is not a standard move.
On the other hand, in The Hare's Maggot (12th Edition 1703) it says
Then go the double Figure in the third cu. …
I would have expected “with” rather than “in”, but here's Playford actually mentioning a “double Figure” without explanation, presumably expecting people (or at least Dancing Masters) to know what it meant. The odd thing is that in Pat Shaw's interpretation (in the book “Another look at Playford”) he just has the ones doing a figure eight and notes that the third couples play no active part in the dance
.
And there's an earlier mention in Maids Morris (Appendix to the 7th Edition, 1688), which ends:
… then the double Figure, and the first couple lead down the middle
which Sharp converts to four changes, three steps each, and then the ones lead down as the twos cast up to progress. A double figure eight would certainly work better here, starting with the ones crossing down and the twos moving up the outside, flowing smoothly into the progression rather than losing the phrasing of the four changes and the first man having to do an awkward turn back.
So guess what — I don't know all the answers! I just want to raise the question, and maybe after I'm dead somebody will write a PhD thesis on the topic.
