The Corporation
Country Dances, Ancient and Modern

Step Stately

Original Sources

The first written description we have of Step Stately comes from the Lovelace Manuscript, written sometime between 1620 and 1648. Sadly that version is incomplete. The first part of it is a close match to the first part of Playford's dance though. The next part is slightly different from Playford's second part, but as far as it goes, is again a close match.

Leade up, and downe agayne then the man and woeman slip between each other, the man above the woeman then the first man shall leade soe round about to the bottome holding the other man by the hand and his woeman doeing the like at the same time, then they all shall leade upwards, in the shape of an halfe moone, and downe againe then the 3 woemen quitting of the 3 men shall slide upwards towards the right hand, and the men towards the left, and soe they are all in their places;
The first couple shall leade upwards, and the second downwards, the last couple standing still, and then turne about, and leade each to other, and then take hands, and goe rounde — (the dance's instructions are terminated by the bottom of the page and do not resume on the next)

Playford published the dance in the first volume of the English Dancing Master.

Step StatelyA long Dance for 3, 5, 7, or 9. Couple
Lead up all a D. change places each with his own keeping your faces still to the presence, the men slipping behinde the We. and the We. before the men, face all to the wall Men hands and We. hands, first man and 2. Wo lead all the rest round to the bottome, facing all to the presence The first man and Wo. being in the middle, lead up all a brest a D. and back We. slip before the men to the right, and men behind We. to the left, going a compasse to their places as at first
The first Cu. lead up a D. change hands and lead down a D. Take hands with the 2. Cu. and all foure halfe round, first man and 2. Wo. change places The 2. We. lead up betweein the 2. man. then crossing over, the first Wo. go behind the 2 man, and the 2. behinde the first Men change over by the right hands then giving left hands to their owne We. turne the first Cu. in the 2. place and the 2. in the first
First Cu. crosse over, meet in the 2. place, change places The three uppermost men, and the three We. hands, fall a D. back 2 and 3. Cu. change each with his owne while the first Cu. meet, then fall a D. back againe 3. and 3. Now standing as in Greenwood, the first man between the 2 and 3. Wo. and the first Wo. between the 2. and 3. man, the first Cu. lead up, cast off and meet below, whilest the 2. and 3. We. and 2. and 3. man change places The first Cu. being in the 3. place, armes whilst the other foure take hands and go half round to the left

Playford continued to print the dance in the first 10 editions of the Dancing Master. Here is the last version from 1698:

Step StatelyA long Dance for 3, 5, 7, or 9. Couple
Lead up all a D. change places each with his own keeping your faces still to the Presence, the men slipping behind the we. and the we. before the men, face all to the wall Men hands, and the we. hands, 1. man and 2. wo. lead all the rest round to the bottom, facing all to the Presence The first man and wo. being in the middle, lead up all abreast a D. and back We. slip before the men to the right, and men behind the we. to the left, going a compass to their places as at first
The first cu. lead up a D. change hands and lead dow a D. Take hands with the 2. cu. and all four half round, 1. man and 2. wo. change places The 2 we. lead up between the 2 men, then crossing over, the 1. wo. go behind the 2. man, and the 2. behind the 1 Men change over by the right hands, then giving left hands to their own we. turn the 1. cu. into the 2. place, and the 2. into the 1
First cu. cross over, meet in the 2. place, change places The three uppermost men and the three we. hands, fall a D. back, 2. and 3. change each with his own while the 1. cu. meet, then fall a D back again three and three Now standing as in Greenwood, the 1. man between the 2. and 3. wo. and the 1. wo. between the 2. and 3. man, the 1. cu. lead up, cast off and meet below, whilst the 2. and 3. we. and 2. and 3. men change places The 1. cu. being in the 3. place, arms, whilst the other four take hands and go half round to the left

Not much beside the spelling and capitalization has changed between 1651 and 1698.

Lovelace implies the dance is for three couples, while Playford says any odd number between 3 and 9.

In the first part, Lovelace has the men slipping above the women, while Playford has the women above the men, but other than that, the two descriptions do not contradict one another.

In the second part, Lovelace has the second couple move down and back, while the first moves up and back, while Playford doesn't mention the 2s at all. So we presume they stand still, but Playford usually doesn't tell us what the 2s do, so it is possible he intended them to lead down and back. Anyway as both methods leave everyone in the same place, the difference is at most slight.

Modern Interpretations

Cecil Sharp, 1916

As usual, Sharp follows Playford fairly closely. He fixes a typo in Playford's first part (Playford has W2 leading the women, rather than W1). But he changes the third part a little. Playford has the lines of three: fall back, meet, or cross, fall back, but Sharp has them only fall back, meet, or cross. In B 1-4, Playford just says the 2s and 3s change places, but Sharp has the 2s cast down to the middle while the 3s lead up to the top, which is a bit different from a normal change.

Colin Hume says that Sharp actually published two versions of his interpretation, but I have only found the second, and corrected version.

Sharp did not use Playford's music. He substituted the music of Jack Pudding and everybody else seems to follow him on this.

EDFSS/William Palmer, ?

This is the version used by the EFDSS and also the version published in The Playford Ball, I don't really know who came up with it, but Palmer is the first I've found who wrote it down.

Here the Men move in front of their partners in the first part, rather than behind (as Playford says to do). The Lovelace manuscript had not be unearthed when this interpretation was made, so Palmer wasn't following that.

Palmer also says that the dancers should form a line of 6 facing up halfway through the 1st part. Neither Playford, nor Sharp says this, and Lovelace says the opposite, that the dancers in the shape of an halfe moone. Personally I like the half-moon shape, I think it flows more naturally out of the dance, and is a slightly easier shape when there are more than 3 couples. It also takes up less space, which is an advantage in a crowded hall.

Palmer then says to repeat this first part.

In the second part, Palmer says the two women should lead up left in left. Playford (and Sharp) just say they should lead up.

Like Sharp, Palmer leaves out the second fall back at the beginning of the third part, but he makes the B section more complicated: the 1s do what Playford told them to, but the 2s cast down lead up and cast down, while the 3s cast down (below the bottom) and lead up to the top.

Finally, Palmer says to do the first part for a third time to finish off the dance.

Colin Hume, 1995

Colin Hume's interpetation is pretty much the same as Sharp's, though he does suggest the women should do a half figure eight (without hands) in the second part.

Colin Hume's biggest change is to suggest that the dance be done in a 5 couple set. Playford says it can be, so why not? It does make for 10 (or 12 if you are old fashioned) iterations of the second part if you want to get everyone back to where they started, but of course, you don't need everyone back where they started...

Chestnut, ~2010

Chestnut is a French group dancing Contredanse Anglaise. They follow Playford even more closely than Sharp (or Hume) did. They include the second fall back in part 3, and have the 2s and 3s changing places with a two hand turn once and a half (rather than a cast and lead).

What about more than 5 couples?

Remember Playford (but not Lovelace) says this can be danced for 3, 5, 7, or 9. Couple. Why only odd numbers?

As you add more couples the lines become longer, and the looping figure of the first part has each dancer moving further and further. Eventually no one would be able to run the distance needed in the amount of time given by the music.

I know the first part works for three couples, and Colin Hume says it works for 5, but I worry about 7 or 9...

But there is nothing in the first part which says that 5 dancers works better than 4.

The second part of the dance is a duple minor set, and that works no matter how many couples there are in the line (well, there must be at least two). It will need more and more iterations of the dance if you want everyone returned to their initial places (as they would be in Playford's day).

Again there is nothing in this section which makes it work better for 5 couples than for 4.

Looking at the third part...

You could look at the third part as a double progression triple minor dance. The objection to this is that no (other) triple minor dance was published in 1651, but one was printed in the second edition in 1652 so this might not matter much, probably triple minors were also known in 1651.

A bigger objection is that, as far as I know, there were no multiple progression minor set dances until Becket Reel, in 1957. And I know of no double progression triple minors until Al Olson came up with some around 1980 (see Baskets of Brew).

Double progression triple minors are awkward because at some point there will be four dancers at the top and you need to pick three of them to dance.

If you pick the top three (which at first seems natural), then you are actually dancing a quadruple minor where the 4s do nothing — this might seem odd, but Thomas Wilson (in 1815) that there should be a neutral couple between every trio of dancing couples — so this is they way someone from 1815 would dance a double progression triple minor, except they didn't have them then.

However, if you pick the bottom three couples of the four (leaving the top couple to start as a 1 on the next iteration of the dance), then you do have a pattern which looks like a triple minor.

Both of these ways of dancing work, but in neither of them is there anything special about 7 or 9 couples. They will work for any large enough number of dancers. So Playford probably didn't have either of these in mind.

But if you don't view it as a triple minor (Sharp was the first to call it a triple minor, and I think he was wrong to do so), and just have the same dancing couple active until they reach the bottom (1s dance with 2s+3s, 1s with 4s+5s, 1s with 6s+7s, then when the 1s are at the bottom the new top couple (the original 2s) start: 2s with 3s+4s...) you do have something which only works for an odd number of couples, so presumably that was what Playford had in mind. It takes a long time for everyone to dance though...

So, here is how I think Playford envisioned the progression working with 7 couples. It takes almost 11 minutes to go through the entire thing, and given the distance people have to move in the first part, I'm not sure it is physically possible to do it in just 16 bars of music (my animated dancers can run as fast as they need to, so they are no proof):

This website is copyright © 2021-2026 by George W. Williams V
Creative Commons License My work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Most of the dances have more restrictive licensing, see my notes on copyright, the individual dance pages should mention when some rights are waived.