For my fourth visit to the popular English finishing dance “Sir Roger de Coverley”, I’m going to look at the version of the dance that was published in a number of English sources in the last decade of the nineteenth century. This version appears to be a descendant of the mid-nineteenth century version published by Mrs. Nicholas Henderson (and others) in the middle of the century, simplified even further. That version consisted of:

1. a whole-set intro
2. two diagonal figures (bow and right hand turn)
3. a double “shoelace” weave she wrote was “often omitted”
4. casting off, the lead couple remaining at the bottom and making an arch for the other couples to pass under to places

A full description may be found here, and a much earlier version from the 1810s here. There was also a very short mid-nineteenth century variant which I described here. I am not going to describe the traditional figures in detail again here; anyone not generally familiar with the dance should refer to these earlier posts.

Getting back to the version published by Mrs. Henderson and others:

The whole-set intro did not last, and the “shoelace” weave vanished entirely. All that was left were the diagonal figures and the casting off and forming the arch. This is quite similar to the very short mid-nineteenth century variant, but that one featured a more complex promenade sequence and no arch.

The version I am discussing here is found in many late nineteenth century English sources, including:

• R. M. Crompton, Theory and Practice of Modern Dancing. London, [presumed first edition] c1891.
  
  
• Edward Scott, How to Dance and Guide to the Ball-Room. London, Entirely New Edition c1892 and New Edition c1902.
  
  
• R. Coote’s Famous Ball Guide: How to Dance the Old Dances. London, c1895.
  
  
• T. Leggett Byrne. Terpsichore: Her Votaries and Fashions. London, 1899.

• Arthur Morris (arranger). The Pocket Dance Book and Ball Room Guide. Leeds, c1900.
  
  
• William Lamb, How and What to Dance. New and Revised Edition. New York, c1900. Despite the New York publication, Lamb was English and this is an American printing of a book of English dances.

Note that I am deliberately not considering Scottish sources in this little survey, as there were some different things happening in Scotland that deserve a separate post at some point.

With only two elements in the dance, there isn’t much room for variation between the sources, but there was some, particularly in the diagonal figures.

Variation 1: leading pair
All the sources except Lamb gave the starting diagonal as being the top lady and bottom gentleman. Lamb reversed the genders. Coote did not actually mention the second diagonal doing the figures, but I assume that is either an error or that it was was omitted on the grounds that everyone would have known to do it.

Variation 2: the diagonals
The most common sequence, found in Scott; Leggett Byrne; Morris; and Lamb, was:

turn by right hands
turn by left hands
turn by two hands
back to back (dos-à-dos)
bow/curtsy

Crompton shortened and rearranged it to:

bow/curtsy
turn by right hands
turn by left hands

More interestingly, Coote shortened it but then allowed for improvisation, which must have been a welcome option for anyone who couldn’t remember the sequence:

bow
turn [no hand(s) specified]
“Any other variation for dancing in the centre may be added, the couples advancing and retiring with each variation.”

Variation 3: the arch
In all of these versions except for one with what appears to be an editing error, the top couple cast off to the bottom and remained there, forming an arch with their hands which the other couples pass though, just as in the mid-nineteenth century version. Lamb specified using right hands. Morris, in what is probably an error, had the couple lead back up the centre before forming the arch. That would leave the whole set moving upward each time, so I believe this was a case of poor editing rather than a variation.

Most of the sources just had the couples go through the arch without specifying how, but Crompton wrote that they should galop through and up to places.

Variation 4: an additional figure?
This one does not quite count, as even the author calls it a mistake, but apparently one that some people were making! Leggett Byrne noted that:

The following figure is nearly always introduced, but it really belongs to the Norwegian country dance:—After Figure 5 [the bow], instead of leading off, the top couple run to the bed of the set, and link right arm, turn once round, lady turns end gentleman once round, left arm linked, while her partner turns end lady in the same manner; the top couple meet, link right arm, turn once round, and turn the next couple, and so on until arrived at top of set, when commence Figure 6 [the casting off to form the arch]. [boldface mine]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A point of interest in all of this is that while the mid-century versions of the dance shortened the sequence of diagonal figures, most of these not only used the full traditional sequence but also added a bow/curtsy onto the end. One possible reason is that it was made clear by some of the writers that this was an old-fashioned dance, popular at Christmas parties or in rural areas but not done in fashionable London ballrooms:

“Everyone is acquainted with the old English tune that accompanies this dance.  It is seldom performed now except at Christmas time.”  (Scott)

“This style of dancing is now entirely out of vogue in fashionable dance-rooms, but not entirely out of favour at country balls and parties.  They are very generally known, and require very little description.  They belong to a ruder age than the present, and a blither and merrier style of manner than that which now prevails in the fashionable world.  They are more characteristic of “Merrie England” than Belgravia; therefore, whatever merit they possess in the estimation of the cheerful, the gay, and the light-hearted, they hold a very inferior place in the programme of a modern festivity.  As affording, however, an opportunity for both young and old, efficient and inexperienced, dancers to join, it is a very popular concluding dance for a Christmas party.”  (Lamb)

It is possible that these authors were not writing from personal experience or knowledge but were presenting a “Merrie England” version in a deliberate nod to tradition. They might even have referred back to earlier descriptions of the dance rather than recording what they actually danced, taught, or saw.

Or, possibly, the mid-century versions of the dance were more specific to London ballrooms and this version branched off earlier and then persisted in the countryside. Dance history is full of these little mysteries!

This does mean that when re-creating a late nineteenth century English event, if one wants to be very precise, one should consider that it matters whether the re-creation is of a fashionable London ball or a rural romp or a family Christmas party and consider that the repertoire for each of these events would have differed.

A final note: while I am not going to go into later sources here, in 1919, Gregory d’Egville included this same version of the dance in the first edition of his How and What to Dance (London) . The diagonal figures had been rearranged to put the bows first, followed by the right hands, left hands, two hands, and back to back. (The right hands were listed twice, but I assume the second was meant to be the left hands.) The sequence ended with the familiar casting off and making of the arch. D’Egville noted that “Perhaps the most popular of [country dances] is the Sir Roger de Coverley, without which hardly any village or country town dance is complete, even now.”