[SCA-Dance] Millison's Jegge

White, John john.white at drexel.edu
Fri May 23 11:37:24 EDT 2008

> From:  tmcd at panix.com 
> leaving the couples as
>     2
>     3
>     1
> But I thought I should ask.  If they were renumbered, then this half
> would be the same as the second hald of the second chorus of Black
> Nag.
> Danyell de Lincoln

Clearly, being the person whose web page you cite, I agree
with your result.  There are several reasons: a) I take it as
read that for any one repeat of a dance your number/position
does not change; b) this progression is done in two other dances;
c) the result of this progression if the dance is done three times
through (with renumbering at the beginning of each repeat of the
dance) is to return you to where you began the first repeat of
the dance; d) there are several other dances where you see the
same progression of couples (though the method differs - a la
Wherligig) and these usually end up being done three times to
get the couples back to where they belong; e) there are several
other dances that shift a person around in the set without 
renumbering them in the middle of the dance (Kemp's Jig comes 
immediately to mind, though by no means is it the only example).

As to whether any of these (or any other reasons I could come
up with after more time or effort) is actually enough to base
an authoratative reconstruction on by logic or accurate 
inference, I don't know.  I'm sure that if I'm wrong, anyone
pointing that out will have the reasons to back it up and
maybe I'll learn something along with a new way to do
Millison's Jig, Maiden Lane, and Night Peece ...


More information about the Sca-dance mailing list