Thread Index

Lead up - which hand?

Previous Thread Next Thread Unindented

  • ...

    e.ferguson Nov. 1, 2001, 1:23 p.m. (Message 28002)

    On 31 Oct 2001, at 10:51, Bob Mc Murtry <xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote 
    (on Dalkeith's Strathspey):  
    
    > Also on bars 9-16 the first couple should take care not to rush to
    > the top of the set into positions for a reel of four. First man
    > should see to getting his partner facing 2nd man. 
    
    and <xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> added
    
    Right. On bar 16, as first man, I like to lead my partner a fraction 
    above second couple, and turn a little anti-clockwise. In this way, 
    the first couple flow nicely into the reel of four.   
    
    Which hands should 1C use?  The description says "lead", but in these 
    older books the usage "lead = RH joined" and "dance = nearer hand 
    joined (NHJ)" was not yet established.
    
    1C starts NHJ out of the circle; the most natural way would be to 
    keep NHJ dancing down.
    
    Up the middle, LHJ would allow 1M to bring his partner across to 2M 
    far more elegantly than NHJ or, still worse, RHJ.  The same applies 
    in many other dances where 1C leads up to face 1st corners.
    
    Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and 
    gives better contact with your partner?  Should not tradition aim to 
    promote the best choreography?  Can anyone tell us how the tradition 
    arose, and why it should be applicable in this case?
    
    Enjoy your up-the-middles,
    
    Eric
    
    
    Eric T. Ferguson, van Dormaalstraat 15, NL-5624 KH  EINDHOVEN, Netherlands
    tel: (+31)(0)40-243 2878 fax:40-246 7036  e-mail: x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx
  • ...

    Patricia Ruggiero Nov. 1, 2001, 4:07 p.m. (Message 28005, in reply to message 28002)

    Eric asked:
    
    "Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives
    better contact with your partner?  Should not tradition aim to promote the
    best choreography?  Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose, and why it
    should be applicable in this case?"
    
    My understanding is that the "lead" in Renaissance dance and in 17th c. and
    18th c. country dance was always a *nearer hand* configuration, and that the
    RHJ developed in the 19th c.  This understanding is based primarily on my
    dancing experience and secondarily on random readings for dance of the time,
    not on exhaustive research.  For that, perhaps we will hear from Marjorie
    McLaughlin or Richard Goss.
    
    When country dance was revived in the 20th c., it was left to those who
    reconstructed the dances to determine style.  To what extent they tried to
    follow what was done in a given historical period, to what extent they
    blended styles from various periods, and how much owes to their own
    interpretations of ambiguous material is a subject for endless discussion
    today.
    
    In ECD today the lead is always nearer hands, unless indicated otherwise, no
    matter from what time period the dance occurs; whereas in SCD today the lead
    is RHJ unless otherwise indicated, again, no matter from what time period
    the dance occurs.
    
    Pat
  • ...

    Adam Hughes Nov. 1, 2001, 5 p.m. (Message 28007, in reply to message 28005)

    Eric Ferguson wrote:
    > Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and
    > gives better contact with your partner?  Should not tradition aim to
    > promote the best choreography?  Can anyone tell us how the tradition
    > arose, and why it should be applicable in this case?
    
    Why is LHJ more elegant?  Or are you suggesting it only in the case of
    the Dalkeith Strathspey?
    
    I find RHJ gives the man better "control of the lead" going down the
    set, while LHJ is better coming up; that is, I prefer to "lead" with the
    hand further from my partner.
    
    I assume whoever at the RSCDS chose to standardise the lead to RH was
    looking for a simple rule.  It makes it easier for us to dance all
    together if there are fewer exceptions.
    
    I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our
    tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we have a
    rule driven tradition.
    
    Adam
  • ...

    Alan Paterson Nov. 1, 2001, 6:28 p.m. (Message 28008, in reply to message 28007)

    Adam Hughes wrote:
    > 
    > Eric Ferguson wrote:
    > > Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and
    > > gives better contact with your partner?  Should not tradition aim to
    > > promote the best choreography?  Can anyone tell us how the tradition
    > > arose, and why it should be applicable in this case?
    > 
    > Why is LHJ more elegant?  Or are you suggesting it only in the case of
    > the Dalkeith Strathspey?
    
    The reason why LHJ is more appropriate in this instance is because it makes the
    action of the lady crossing in front of her partner so much more comfortable.
    
    Another occasion where I will try to give left hands (where right is specified)
    is in a dance where the last 2 bars have the first couple crossing over from 2nd
    place on the opposite sides to 2nd place on their own side. After 2nd time
    through, if the 3rd couple are immediately involved (and it otherwise fits) I
    will offer left hand to my partner and cross moving down to 4th place.
    
    Same applies for "once and to the bottom" where there is even more pressure to
    get out of the way quickly.
    
    > 
    > I find RHJ gives the man better "control of the lead" going down the
    > set, while LHJ is better coming up; that is, I prefer to "lead" with the
    > hand further from my partner.
    
    I can agree with that.
    
    > 
    > I assume whoever at the RSCDS chose to standardise the lead to RH was
    > looking for a simple rule.  It makes it easier for us to dance all
    > together if there are fewer exceptions.
    
    and that.
    
    > 
    > I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our
    > tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we have a
    > rule driven tradition.
    
    "Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have anything to
    say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-)
    
    Alan
  • ...

    Lara D. Friedman~Shedlov Nov. 1, 2001, 8:22 p.m. (Message 28013, in reply to message 28008)

    Quoting Alan Paterson <xxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx>:
    
    > > I've always thought tradition is the way it is done, and since our
    > > tradition is kept alive by teachers, and teachers like rules, we
    > > have a rule driven tradition.
    >
    > "Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have
    > anything to say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-)
    
    Actually, I've found it is the students who like rules, even more than 
    the teacher.  As a teacher, I'm always being asked for rules on things 
    like the exact phrasing of a formation ("so on bar 13.3, I should be 
    here, right?) or handing ("Who gives hands up when you have a line of 4 
    dancers, and all of them are women?").  It seems to be very difficult 
    for some people to accept that every contingency has not been accounted 
    for, and there are times when you just have to figure it out on your 
    own and do whatever works!
    
    --Lara Friedman-Shedlov
    Minneapolis, MN  USA
    
    
    *******************************
    Lara Friedman-Shedlov     
    xxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx
    *******************************
  • ...

    ron.mackey Nov. 1, 2001, 11:04 p.m. (Message 28017, in reply to message 28008)

    > The reason why LHJ is more appropriate in this instance is because it makes the
    > action of the lady crossing in front of her partner so much more comfortable.
    > 
    > Another occasion where I will try to give left hands (where right is specified)
    > is in a dance where the last 2 bars have the first couple crossing over from 2nd
    > place on the opposite sides to 2nd place on their own side. After 2nd time
    > through, if the 3rd couple are immediately involved (and it otherwise fits) I
    > will offer left hand to my partner and cross moving down to 4th place.
    > 
    > Same applies for "once and to the bottom" where there is even more pressure to
    > get out of the way quickly.
    
    	Hi,  Alan 
    		I think this discussion has been going on for ever.  One suspects 
    that the origins lie with O.B.L.  Miss M  and stems from the time 
    when children were rapped over the knuckles with a cane for 
    attempting to write with the LEFT hand !! Horrors !!
    	This enforced use of the right hand was still prevalent when I 
    started school (no chuckles at the back, please!!) and the Head 
    teacher of our infants school was advised by the school Doctor not to 
    insist.  I know because I was the subject under discussion.
    	The habit of always leading one's lady on the right side unless on 
    an opposite pavement was just good etiquette and still is in many 
    circles, and there was a fair amount of suspicion of those using the 
    'sinister' hand.	
    	In the occasions raised by Alan I will offer my partner left hand 
    without any qualms especially if dancing in one of the modern 'Jumbo' 
    sized sets - and one of the main reasons is that, on certain occasions,
    to offer my partner right hand is basically inelegant not to say 
    impractical !
    
    
    Cheers,  Ron   :)
    
     < 0   Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
      'O>  Mottingham, 
      /#\  London. UK.
       l>
    xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
  • ...

    Martin.Sheffield Nov. 1, 2001, 6:31 p.m. (Message 28009, in reply to message 28005)

    >Eric asked:
    >
    >"Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and gives
    >better contact with your partner?  
    >Should not tradition aim to promote the
    >best choreography?  
    
    Full agreement with you, Eric.
    
    Pat:
    > in SCD today the lead
    >is RHJ unless otherwise indicated, 
    
    except when the dancer is using his head, thinking about what he is doing,
    where he is going and and  what he will be doing next. In this case, he
    will of course give the most appropriate hand for the comfort and elegance
    of the couple (for example, LH when, after dancing up, he will have to help
    his partner across to face her 1st corner; nearer hands when they are going
    to cast symmetrically, etc).
    
    Alas, many dancers don't appear to think for themselves: 
    "If miss M said right hand, then it must be right hand!" is the lazy way of
    finding an answer.
    
    Fyreladdie:
    >I do agree it would be more pleasing to see a left hand lead 
    >but those are not the instructions.  There are a good many dances 
    >that require different hand leads that are seemingly awkward and less
    graceful. 
    >It is, for whatever reason, what the devisor wanted. 
    
    I very much doubt whether we have any evidence about what the devisers of
    older dances wanted. And in the early SCDS books, no indication was given
    about which hand.
    
    (Book 1: page 1:  1st cp "lead down the middle and back again."
    page 2:  "All three lead up the middle."
    page 10: "All four lead down ..."
    
    So don't try and tell me that, in the twenties, "lead" meant "with RHJ."
    
    To prepare for today's poussette, NHJ would be quite logical (but changing
    hands is hardly a cause for anxiety). In the more distant past, however,
    the dances that now call for poussette, could well have been performed with
    crossed hands (therefore lead up with RHJ) or even waltz hold (lead up with
    gent's hand round his partner's waist).
    
    A little imagination goes a long way.
    
    
    
    Martin,
     in Grenoble, France.
    
     http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm
                  (dance groups,  events,  some new dances ...)
  • ...

    Fyreladdie Nov. 1, 2001, 4:34 p.m. (Message 28006, in reply to message 28002)

    In a message dated 11/1/01 4:24:19 AM, x.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes:
    
    << 
    Why do we have a strong tradition of RHJ when LHJ is more elegant and 
    gives better contact with your partner?  Should not tradition aim to 
    promote the best choreography?  Can anyone tell us how the tradition 
    arose, and why it should be applicable in this case?
     >>
    
    Eric,
        In Dalkieth's the lead is with the right hand both down and back. I do 
    agree it would be more pleasing to see a left hand lead but those are not the 
    instructions.  There are a good many dances that require different hand leads 
    that are seemingly awkward and less graceful. It is, for whatever reason, 
    what the devisor wanted. But the grace of a dance is in the teaching. I pose 
    it to my class as a challenge. 
        I would imagine that the problem with altering any dance is that of 
    consistency throughout the branches in the world. Uniformity was the purpose 
    of the RSCDS. There is nothing more ungraceful than the fumbling of hands in 
    the middle of a lead. As a dance devisor I also have reasons for certain hand 
    usage which may not be apparent to some dancers. But I have been know to 
    change things in a dance for sake of demonstrations. 
        I know several dances I'd love to alter the hand leads but that is 
    unfortunately, not left up to me. I sympathize.
    
    Bob Mc Murtry
    Felton, Calif
  • ...

    Andrew Buxton Nov. 1, 2001, 6:50 p.m. (Message 28011, in reply to message 28002)

    Alan Paterson wrote:
    
    	>"Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have
    anything to
    	>say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-)
    
    	What about the pupils?  Do "rules" make it easier for them?  It may
    be hard to share this fascination for giving the correct hand, especially
    when it makes things harder rather than easier.
    
    	I suspect that sometimes (a) the instructions did not distinguish
    between "lead" and "dance" - especially for the older dances and (b) the
    deviser did not always stop to think about which was better(??)   I find it
    perverse to lead down RHJ when you then have to cast up on your own side -
    it's very easy to cross by mistake!
    
    	Maybe all this stuff about "correct" hands is to defend the status
    of those teachers who were themselves taught by the great and good and so
    are "in the know"!
    
    	Andrew Buxton
    	Brighton
  • ...

    Adam Hughes Nov. 1, 2001, 7:32 p.m. (Message 28012, in reply to message 28011)

    Andrew Buxton wrote:
    > 
    >         Alan Paterson wrote:
    > 
    >         >"Teachers like Rules" oh dear. Any of the teachers out there have
    > anything to
    >         >say to counter this somewhat sweeping generalisation? :-)
    > 
    >         What about the pupils?  Do "rules" make it easier for them?  It may
    > be hard to share this fascination for giving the correct hand, especially
    > when it makes things harder rather than easier.
    
    It was this I meant.  As a teacher, rules are useful since they gets new
    dancers up to speed quickly.
    
    One particular dance teacher here only has to say "I have a top tip...",
    and all the experienced dancers cover their ears.  Her top tips often
    help us out though.  Actually, her top tips sometimes help us out, but
    we love her anyway.
    
    Adam
    Cambridge, UK.
  • ...

    Marilynn Knight Nov. 1, 2001, 8:30 p.m. (Message 28014, in reply to message 28002)

    Maybe if we referred to recurring patterns as 'likelihoods', then students
    wouldn't have such a need to cling to a 'rule'? And, then, not be
    discombobulated when the 'rule' is broken.....?
  • ...

    Fyreladdie Nov. 1, 2001, 10:39 p.m. (Message 28016, in reply to message 28002)

    In a message dated 11/1/01 9:47:47 AM, xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes:
    
    << 
    So don't try and tell me that, in the twenties, "lead" meant "with RHJ."
     >>
    
    Martin,
        The RSCDS of this century(Miss Milligan and Mrs. Stewart) made an effort 
    to make things standard so we, as teachers, could teach anywhere with equal 
    results. They may not have been accurate in their research or chose to make 
    it a certain way. My understanding of "lead" meant right hand in right unless 
    otherwise stated. I may be incorrect. Although creativity and investigation 
    might prove to show better or more accurate ways; it does not help when 
    co-mingling with fellow dancers of another method of instruction. I support 
    those who wish to do so. I also support a method that makes it clear which 
    hand or hands are to be used. Ballroom hold pousette or 2 hand pousette? I 
    think it's well to know which it is, before taking a partner on the floor.  
        I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't 
    enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way than the 
    instruction and method, given. It is nice to know that the correct and 
    corresponding hand will meet mine at the appropriate time.  This does not 
    diminish the scholars that find otherwise. I send high praise to those 
    willing to tackle that job. But change happens universally not individually. 
    We, as individual, can make suggestions and effect a change if persistent. 
    Anarchy creates a less desireable result.
    
    Bob Mc Murtry
  • ...

    ron.mackey Nov. 1, 2001, 11:25 p.m. (Message 28019, in reply to message 28016)

    > I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't 
    > enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way than the 
    > instruction and method, given. It is nice to know that the correct and 
    > corresponding hand will meet mine at the appropriate time.  This does not 
    > diminish the scholars that find otherwise. I send high praise to those 
    > willing to tackle that job. But change happens universally not individually. 
    > We, as individual, can make suggestions and effect a change if persistent. 
    > Anarchy creates a less desireable result.
    > 
    > Bob Mc Murtry
    >     
    > 
    
    	Hi, Bob
    		I can follow this line of argument only so far.   The early 
    teachers were really feeling their way to produce something which 
    turned out splendidly but which one should now be able to view 
    dispassionately and, to some extent, pragmatically.
    	This is an art form we are involved in here and not the 
    manufacture of universally adaptable machine tools so the rules 
    need not be rigid and are not chiselled into stone.
      	To Lara I suggest that if certain questions, such as she mentions, 
    are posed by reasonably proficient dancers in a formal class, try 
    asking them what they think would be correct.   After only a short 
    time it would be evident that, in many instances there can be no set 
    rule (or at least, that one rule is as valid as another) and one of 
    the important lessons to be learned is that we should learn to think 
    on our feet and make judgements based on the capabilities of 
    those around us and on what has gone before.
     Rather like Common Law,  in fact??  :))
    
    Cheers,  Ron   :)
    
     < 0   Ron Mackey,(Purveyor of Pat's Party Pieces)
      'O>  Mottingham, 
      /#\  London. UK.
       l>
    xxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
  • ...

    Priscilla M. Burrage Nov. 2, 2001, 3:19 p.m. (Message 28031, in reply to message 28019)

    On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 xxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
    
    > 	This (dancing) is an art form we are involved in here and not the
    > manufacture of universally adaptable machine tools so the rules
    > need not be rigid and are not chiselled into stone.
    
    Ah, but isn't art glorious abandon with a rigorous discipline?
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Priscilla Burrage       Vermont US
    (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
  • ...

    Martin.Sheffield Nov. 2, 2001, 10:40 a.m. (Message 28027, in reply to message 28016)

    Bob wrote:
    
    >  I enjoy a certain amount of flexibility on the dance floor but don't 
    >enjoy struggles with people who decide they have a better way...
    
    Quite agree; let's keep our fights on the list and off the dance floor
    (though I don't think fights are really likely about these finer points of
    handing etc).
    
    I have no qualms about suggesting alternative ways of performing a figure
    (and usually tell my class about discrepencies between written instructions
    and unwritten customs), but promise there will be no struggle if we ever
    meet on the floor, Bob. I am even quite good at adapting to people who want
    to pass Rsh in Mairi's Wedding and haven't knocked anyone down yet.
    
    Martin,
     in Grenoble, France.
    
     http://perso.wanadoo.fr/scots.in.france/scd.htm
                  (dance groups,  events,  some new dances ...)
  • ...

    Fyreladdie Nov. 1, 2001, 11:11 p.m. (Message 28018, in reply to message 28002)

    In a message dated 11/1/01 2:07:13 PM, xxx.xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes:
    
    << In the occasions raised by Alan I will offer my partner left hand 
    without any qualms especially if dancing in one of the modern 'Jumbo' 
    sized sets - and one of the main reasons is that, on certain occasions,
    to offer my partner right hand is basically inelegant not to say 
    impractical ! >>
    
    I too, have offered a different hand, occasionally with plenty of warning to 
    my partner. But I can not teach that and confuse those who are rule followers.
    
    Bob
  • ...

    Patricia Ruggiero Nov. 2, 2001, 5:04 a.m. (Message 28022, in reply to message 28002)

    I think it was Richard Goss who reminded us, on more than one occasion, of
    the dangers of looking to the dance instructions for guidance on *how* to
    dance.  To determine the style of the historical repertoire, we refer to the
    treatises (for example, Wilson); letters and notes of the time also can shed
    light on how folks danced back then.
    
    I have always understood that the dance manuals served as memory aids, much
    as our cheat sheets do today.  Neither tells us *how* to dance.  To us
    moderns looking for insight on *how* to do a dance, instructions in those
    old dance manuals can be maddeningly brief and tantalizingly ambiguous.  To
    the folks at the time, however, it was enough to read "lead down the middle
    and up" or some such; they could take it from there.  Perhaps the treatises
    and the dancing masters provided a rule: "it's always this way."  Equally
    plausible, they might have set out guidelines, much as several Strathspey
    respondents have done, describing when the nearer hand lead would be
    suitable, when the R-hand lead would be preferable, and when the L-hand lead
    would be required.  If that were the case, then those dancers would have
    known which hand to offer and when.  Then again, Wilson in 1810 might have
    changed his mind from what he said in 1805.  Or, not improbably, Weaver
    (date escapes me) said something different from Wilson.  My impression of
    all this is that "rules" were short-lived and local in their effect, to the
    extent they had any effect at all.
    
    (Digression:  a friend was telling me that Wilson, in one of his books,
    railed against the "sloppy" practice of dancers who, after going down the
    middle, came back straight to second place, instead of dancing up to the top
    and casting off.  Shocking, isn't it....)
    
    Let's see, where were we?  Oh, yes... It was Eric who asked, with regard to
    the RHJ, "Can anyone tell us how the tradition arose...?"
    
    Not me.
    
    My experience in 12 years of Scottish dancing has been akin to the first
    situation ("it's always this way"); that is, the lead in SCD today is RHJ
    unless otherwise indicated in the instructions.  I don't know the rationale
    behind this decision.
    
    If teachers in different groups wish to offer guidelines, or if dancers take
    it upon themselves to follow their own guidelines, they are probably
    following in our predecessors' footsteps.
    
    I've observed that less skilled dancers prefer not to have alternatives ("we
    just want to know how everyone else will be doing it at the dance party").
    I myself am perfectly happy to accept an alternative handing, in the right
    context, when my partner skillfully offers it.
    
    Pat
  • ...

    Oberdan Otto Nov. 6, 2001, 11:07 p.m. (Message 28063, in reply to message 28022)

    >My experience in 12 years of Scottish dancing has been akin to the first
    >situation ("it's always this way"); that is, the lead in SCD today is RHJ
    >unless otherwise indicated in the instructions.  I don't know the rationale
    >behind this decision.
    
    ditto, except >12 years.
    
    Some may think this an odd point-of-view for an SCD Teacher, but I 
    treat my dancers as intelligent adults capable of independent 
    thought. I try to provide background, some insight, suggestions, 
    skills practice, etc., but in the final analysis, the subtleties in 
    the "how" of dancing they have to feel for themselves. That also 
    includes real-time decisions on what hand to used in a particular 
    circumstance. I don't baby my dancers. If it is truly a "don't care" 
    situation, we will go over the alternatives and the dancers choose 
    the one they like the best. If a dance or formation stipulates that a 
    particular hand be used then they will be so informed, but they also 
    know that they are responsible for their own choices on the dance 
    floor.
    
    If one needs rules, I find the best "rules" have natural 
    consequences.  For example, if a particular handing feels awkward or 
    sends one or both dancers in the wrong direction, it was probably the 
    wrong hand!
    
    Cheers, Oberdan.
    
    184 Estaban Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010-1611 USA
    Voice: (805) 389-0063, FAX: (805) 484-2775, email: xxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
  • ...

    Fyreladdie Nov. 2, 2001, 5:41 a.m. (Message 28023, in reply to message 28002)

    Well said! Pat!
    
    Bob Mc Murtry
  • ...

    Priscilla M. Burrage Nov. 2, 2001, 3:31 p.m. (Message 28032, in reply to message 28002)

    On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Eric Ferguson wrote:
    
    > Up the middle, LHJ would allow 1M to bring his partner across to 2M
    > far more elegantly than NHJ or, still worse, RHJ.  The same applies
    > in many other dances where 1C leads up to face 1st corners.
    
    If my partner lead me up the middle with left hands joined and guided me
    across the set in front of him, I would, naturally, end up facing up the
    set, not turned to face the second man asright hands across guides me.
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Priscilla Burrage       Vermont US
    (xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx)
  • ...

    Harrison, Rosemary M Nov. 4, 2001, 8:47 p.m. (Message 28038, in reply to message 28002)

    From my memories of dabbling in historical dance a couple of decades ago,
    the earlier periods of court dancing tended to have the "man's palm down,
    woman's palm up" type of hold, which I think evolved gradually by stages
    into the "shake-hand" hold common today. If this is correct then it would be
    consistent with a preference for taking nearer hands in earlier periods,
    since a right hand lead would be awkward unless a "shake-hand" way of taking
    hands were used.
    
    Rosemary M Harrison 
    Colchester UK

Previous Thread Next Thread