Fair Quaker of Deal, The

The first half is clear. In the B1 it's fairly clear that since we're making a back ring, corners just face away from each other and stand back to back rather than doing an actual back-to-back figure.

There's quite a lot of time for the back ring. One solution is to set right and left before moving to the right, which I quite like (and which I seem to remember the display team I grew up with, English Miscellany, did – although I never actually danced it with them!)

The difficulty comes after that. If you follow the description as stated, it leaves the dancers on the other side of the set from the side they started. Many people have tried different solutions to fix this, including:

• First couple finish with a half figure 8 up while second couple change sides (probably the most common version of the dance).
• When leading back in, cross over with your partner.
• After the back ring to the right (where there's a bit of extra time), change places with your partner to face out to your own wall (Pat Shaw's solution).

The problem is that all of these are unsatisfactory in various ways.

• As Pat Shaw observes, if the first solution was intended then that's what would have been written. And while a half figure eight might be common, second couple randomly changing sides is just a fudge.
• The second solution is awkward, and unless you've been incredibly restrained in the lead out, you're simply too far away to get there.
• The third solution is difficult to execute – I've even tried teaching it, and it's not been particularly successful. I'm skeptical of the likelihood of such a fudge.

Ultimately it's a beautiful setup with really clear music perfectly fitted to the moves in the B music. I just find it hard to believe in anything too awkward.

At IVFDF 2025 I was at a workshop run by Louise Siddons which included this dance. She points out that The Fair Quaker of Deal or, the Humours of the Navy is a 1710 comedy featuring an actress famous for "travesty dances" in which she danced as a man; in the play itself she plays a woman but is courted by a woman dressed as a man. The dance here was published in 1728, when this play would be in current memory. Maybe the dance is not only from that play, but also playing on the gender-swapping theme of the play? It would be a great dance for the stage – not too complex, and outward facing for audience interaction.

It also wouldn't be the only instance of dancers changing sides. There are certainly several in earlier editions, including Once I Loved a Maiden Fair, in which in the first part the first couple quite clearly change sides each time through the figure. I haven't written than one up yet but the Lovelace manuscript (A Maiden Fair) is super-clear that this is what's happening:

...the first man shall sett to the 2nd woman and fall backe agayne, then the first woeman, and 2nd man the like, then the first man, and 2nd woeman shall change places, the first woeman, and second man the like; then the man that was first, shall be in the place, of the 2nd woeman, and shall sett to the 3rd man, and soe thus they shall sett acrosse to each other, and chainge places, like afore; until they come all backe agayne to their owne places

So I think people have been over-thinking this dance. It finishes with the couples on the other side from each other, and that's a deliberate feature of the dance. It's not a complex dance and it's not hard to do from the other side. It makes a nice change!

Traditionally, country dances started with just the top two couples dancing, and bringing the other couples in as you went. If you start gendered and then do this, even more interesting things happen, alternating dancing next to same-gender and opposite-gender dancers. The following diagram shows how this progression works, with each number standing for a couple, with negative numbers indicating the couple improper:

Given the subject matter, maybe this was an entirely intentional property of the dance?

In a modern setting, I would of course not mention that when dancing – just line up, take hands four, and enjoy seeing the view from both sides of the set!

22 Mar 2025: The other consideration when switching sides is whether the first and second corners are defined by:

• The (first) person: first man is always a first corner, first woman always second corner – so the second couple have to adapt to where the first couple are.
• The place: the first couple change which order they do the corners set on as they go down.

The original probably intended the first. It's what happens if you follow the directions directly, and in A Maiden Fair, the Lovelace manuscript is explicit in this. The downside is that the second couple have to be alert to what's going on – but historically they didn't have to because first couple were setting to second couple, and whether or not second couple reciprocated in any real sense is not specified. These days we make it a mutual move because it's more fun, but that means that second couple being alert to which side the first couple is on is really a modern problem.

If starting with everyone dancing (as we tend to do today), there are arguments for both approaches. If you define corners by the person, it's less confusing if the inactives swap sides, so everyone keeps the same role of first or second corner throughout the dance, even if the sides they're doing it on change. I'm still deciding which I prefer.

11 May 2025: I'd written those two the wrong way round – fixed, it's the person that I think probably originally defines the corner, not the place.