"La Bursco" is a minor variation on the single hesitation in the one-step. It was described in an undated booklet called Dancing, written by Charles F. Burgess and Virtus R. Scott as part of the King's Booklet series. This booklet was published by Wehman Bros., though a colophon on the first page gives a copyright and publishing credit to Moses King, Inc. It was probably published in 1914, as it covered the then-newly-fashionable hesitation waltz and half and half, along with the one-step, tango, and maxixe, but did not include the even newer foxtrot.
The name "La Bursco" is something of a mess. It is presumably meant to be Spanish, but is not actually a word in that language, and the feminine article with a masculine noun makes no sense. Spanish was clearly not Burgess and Scott's strong suit, since they managed to misspell rueda as roueda in another variation name. So I think that this is most likely another error and that bursco is a typo for brusco, meaning brusque, or, in the context of movement, sharp or abrupt. That seems more-or-less logical for a hesitation in the one-step. The noun form, el brusco, would literally mean a brusque answer.
Leaving aside the name, the move described is a single hesitation in which the dancers switch from "tango" position (both walking forward along line of dance) to face-to-face for the duration of the hesitation only. The sharp switch from forward to facing and back to forward would presumably be the brusco part. This is a simple way to add an extra fillip of style to the single hesitation I described here.
The original language:
Step 1. Both advance the outside foot. Step 2. Both advance the inside foot. Step 3. Both advance the outside foot. Step 4. Both advance the inside foot. Step 5. Gentleman on the right foot, lady on the left foot turn to the normal position. Step 6. Gentleman points with the left foot, lady with the right, throwing the weight slightly to the rear. Step 7. Throw the weight forward to the forward foot resuming the forward position and continue the same as step two.
"Normal position" in this context means face-to-face. "Forward position" means "tango position", as described above.
The instructions translate to eight counts as follows:
(Start in ballroom hold, both partners turned a quarter to stand side by side facing line of dance)
1-4 Walk forward, starting outside foot
5 Step forward on outside foot, swinging one-quarter inward to face partner
6 Shift weight slightly back onto inside foot, pointing outside foot
7-8 Face forward again and walk, starting outside foot
The outside foot is the gentleman's left foot and the lady's right. Pointing the foot would presumably mean extending it forward along the line of dance, toes pointed, but see the very end of this post for another possibility.
A variation on the variation
More interesting -- and less comprehensible -- is the "attractive variation" also given. It begins with the same four walking steps, then, in a burst of poorly-written instructions:
Step 5. The outside foot being advanced cross the other foot to the rear with a slight dip at the same time pointing with the outside foot. Rising from the dip. Step 6. Throw the weight on the outside foot and advance the inside foot, as in step 2 and repeat the figure.
It seems somewhat unlikely that in one beat of music the dancers can manage to advance the outside foot, put their weight on it, cross the other foot behind, dip while pointing the outside foot, and rise from the dip, putting the weight on the outside foot again in time to step forward with the inside foot. My practice partner and I certainly couldn't manage it convincingly. It can be done as a sort of cut or chassé, but extending the outside foot to point it while dipping is awkward in the extreme (and loses any hint of "crossing"), and trying to cram three shifts of weight into one beat is just ridiculous at one-step tempo.
Assuming that this is just another example of poor writing and editing (as opposed to, say, the authors imagining a variation that cannot actually be danced), and taking the simple version above as a model, since this is supposed to be a variation of it, here's how I would rewrite the instructions to actually make sense:
Step 5. The outside foot is advanced. Step 6. Cross the other foot to the rear with a slight dip at the same time pointing with the outside foot. Step 7. Rising from the dip, throw the weight on the outside foot. Step 8. Advance the inside foot, as in step 2 and repeat the figure.
I would interpret the "pointing with the outside foot" as a raised fifth position in front, leg turned out and toe pointed straight down, since that involves less scurrying and maintains the crossed position rather than making step six a cut. Written out in counts as above, the sequence would be:
(Start in ballroom hold, both partners turned a quarter to stand side by side facing line of dance)
1-4 Walk forward, starting outside foot
5 Step forward on outside foot, swinging one-quarter inward to face partner
6 Cross inside foot behind left and dip on it, pointing outside foot in raised fifth in front
7-8 Face forward again and walk, starting outside foot
Steps five and six are like a grapevine side-cross with a dip. Turnout is essential on step six to avoid kneeing one's partner unpleasantly.
This reconstruction is much more convincing as a variation of the first version. It is also both attractive and physically possible, which I don't believe is the case if the instructions are taken precisely as written.
Rethinking the pointing of the foot
Since my reconstruction of the variation redefines "pointing with the outside foot" to placing the foot in a raised fifth position, toe pointing downward instead of forward, one could extrapolate that that is how the plain version, which uses similar language ("Gentleman points with the left foot, lady with the right") is meant to be danced as well. Pulling the outside foot back and pointing the toe at the instep of the inside foot on step six is a workable and attractive (and brusque!) way to perform the original version.
But is it correct? The original language for step seven is to "Throw the weight forward to the forward foot", which suggests that the foot was already extended. I took a quick look through the rest of the book, and any time the dancers are supposed to extend the leg, that is spelled out specifically as "point forward" or "pointing forward". That might mean that the lack of the word "forward" is significant, but given how poor the writing/editing is in this booklet, it could also be irrelevant.
I personally like the drawing-back, but since no definitive call can be made, I would support either way of pointing the foot.
Special thanks to Irene for helping confirm that the instructions for the variation really are a mess.
Comments