Section II.D -- Sixteenth Century Spanish Sources


Reglas de dancar

"Reglas de dancar." Ms. in Madrid, Biblioteca del Real Academia (Coll. Salazar, Th. fol. 149v del T.N. 25).


This source is a pair of pages. I have not been able to obtain a copy of this source, so I am unable to comment on the contents, but as it is only a couple of pages, I expect that it is only valuable when taken in conjunction with other, more extensive sources.


Manuscrit del Hospital

"Manuscrit del Hospital" (Tarrago). Flyleaf Ms. (in Catalan) in Barcelona, Biblioteca Centrale (formerly Hospital de la Santa Creu). Facsimile in Fancesca Pujol and Joan Amades. Canconer popular de Catalunya. Vol. I. Diccionari de la Danza... (Barcelona: 1936).


This source is a page which describes a number of sixteenth century dances in textual form, followed by a notational form for some dances, including some of the dances which are described in the text. There is writing on both sides of the page, although more on one side than on the other. Some of the text is fragmentory, since the page was used at some time as part of the binding of a book. The source is not of great use to the reconstructor, as there is no music, and no description of the steps (although one could assume steps similar to those described in other sixteenth century sources). A portion of this source is reproduced in the Diccionari de la Danza referenced above.


Juan de Esquivel Navarro

Juan de Esquivel Navarro. Discursos sobre el arte del dancado (Seville: 1642; Madrid: 1647?).


This is a relatively short (about fifty pages) manual from the mid seventeenth century. It is of interest partly because it describes steps and dances which do not seem to appear elsewhere. Much of what is discussed seems to be galliard variations, which may have been local favorites. It may also be that Navarro gives different names to steps which are described elsewhere. In any case, it is worthy of further research, although it is a little out of the SCA period (still, if we are using Playford, which is first published almost ten years after this, I think this is justified).