[SCA-Dance] Halfe Hannikin
alexbclark at pennswoods.net
Thu May 15 19:33:57 EDT 2008
At 07:36 PM 5/14/2008 -0500, Tim McDaniel wrote:
> Lead up a D. forwards and back _.__ That againe _:__
> Sides all _._ turn your owne _:__ First man stand alone,
> and the last Wo. stand alone, the rest of the men take all
> the next We.
> Lead up all as before _:__
> Sides all _.__ Turne your We. _:__ First man take the
> 2. man with his left hand, last Wo. taking the next
> Wo. with her right hand.
> Lead up as before _:__
> Sides all _.__ Turn your we _:__ then the 2. man stand alone
> the first taking the third man, the last Wo. taking te next.
> Change thus every time till you come to your owne place.
>I notice that neither "Sides all" nor "turn[e]" say "That againe".
>I don't think that's significant.
I'm sure that it ought to be significant. The possibility that the
instructions might have meant "that againe" in those places was inferred by
the reader, but not necessarily implied by the author. That makes all the
difference in the world. Something that is not even implicit in the source
may be assumed to be modern.
>For example, if Playford were read
>literally, the haying in Whirlygig would have the upper triangle
>arming while the lower triangle was two-handed turning.
But that is not a literal reading. These two corresponding actions are
described simply as "armes" and "turns". It is only by a modern assumption
that a turn that is not specifically described must by default be a
two-handed turn. In this case, "turn" could be a broader and more generic
term that includes turns by both hands, by one hand, and by the arm. If
anything, what this actually proves is that the reconstruction of "armes"
as a kind of turn is justifiable.
There are some bits of Playford dances where a genuinely literal reading
seems wrong, but I do not see that either of these is among them.
>In the case
>of Halfe Hannikin, I don't see how you could fill the music available
>with one siding and one turn.
But this depends on how much music you assume is available. This dance
seems likely to be an exception to Playford's usual practice of writing out
only one playing of each strain. To judge by the figures, apparently both
playings of the second strain are written out in full, indicating that a
bit of ornamentation is added in the second playing. So "Sides all" is done
to the first, unornamented, playing, and "turne your owne" is done to the
second, ornamented, playing.
Why would it have been done this way, when it wasn't Playford's usual
method? Maybe Playford just didn't like to be behobgoblinned by a "foolish
consistency" (though I doubt that he was acquainted with that phrase).
Maybe it made a difference to the musicians. And maybe it's because the
instructions fit better that way. I see from the facsimile that even with
the second strain written out at length it still has more lines of
instructions underneath it.
Anyway, both ways of handling repeats were valid, and I know of no real
evidence that Playford was absolutely committed to either one. In the
absence of such evidence, this dance may be taken as evidence that he was not.
Another argument I might mention is that Playford's audience could hear the
music as it was played in the living tradition. Therefore, his audience
could be assumed to be able to tell how the music should be played because
they could hear it from those who knew it. We should not assume that
Playford intended for his music notation to make any clear distinctions
that we want him to have made just because the information by which his
audience would have resolved ambiguities is unavailable to us.
>On Wed, 14 May 2008, Ben Pung <ben at houseofpung.net> wrote:
> > Second, the dance has doubles and sides, but not arms. It includes a
> > "turn your own" figure, but that's not quite the same thing.
To be more precise, it is not necessarily the same thing, and in this case
there is no implication that it is likely to have been the same thing.
>*blush* I guess I really should make the time to sit down and go thru
>Playford (at least the dances I know off the top of my head, only a
>few) and figure out his terms, or at least notice the difference
>between "armes all" and "turn your owne".
>(Turning instead of arming does make the dance even more interesting
>from a debunking point of view.)
>So I'm supposing that it's one two-handed turn clockwise followed by
>one two-handed turn counter-clockwise.
But you, like Moses, might be supposing erroneously. Since the length of
the music is not proven except, perhaps, by the figures that are done to
it, it seems pointless to modify the figures to fit a version of the music
that is merely assumed.
> >> I'm not at all good at interpreting Playford: is there a good
> >> reconstruction that my brief Googling didn't show?
> > http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~white/ECD/halfhannikin.html
> > http://www.srcf.ucam.org/round/dances/cdb/cdb4/hannikin
>Many thanks! (The first explicitly says siding and turning twice.)
I have reservations about both of these versions. Here are instructions for
Half Hannikin: longways for as many as will (six, eight or ten recommended)
Lead up a D & back, twice; sides once, take both hands and go once
round to the L hand (clockwise), and move up on the mens side or down on
the womens side to find a new partner.
Progress all along both sides & to your places; when alone at the end walk
up and back alone and wait out during sides and the turn.
As I described at length in another reply on this topic, it takes two moves
to get from each regular place to the next, such as from second man's place
to first man's place, and I assume that the first of these two moves is
always to an intermediate place.
Alex Clark/Henry of Maldon
More information about the Sca-dance