I wonder why it should George <br>
This list purports to be interested in history whereas the other is
involved in technical, usually mathematical theory. To my mind there is
absolutely no technical or mathematical theory or argument to be
decided by modern mathematical reasoning which could possibily be
involved in trying to discover why since 1816 the various stages have
been given the names that they have been given The answer is in the
past not in modern mathematical argument and if putative historians
cannot find it why trust the quest to those with considerably less
expertise in this field?<br>
<br>
I would have thought that this questiuon belongs on this list and
deserves an answer from this list Perhaps you should ask Richard why he
thought the matter would be more relevant to the other list rather than
to this one. I would be interested to know myself<br>
mew<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/21/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">George Dawson</b> <<a href="mailto:george@H6yU4G5Hz3UKTldKUaxJXlsB3uhwmuYcnyveqUHPkCcO3ZkA_sc0yG2ia5kS_IzOr5yN6CU8nd4AVP54xdH8DueQvKQ.yahoo.invalid">george@H6yU4G5Hz3UKTldKUaxJXlsB3uhwmuYcnyveqUHPkCcO3ZkA_sc0yG2ia5kS_IzOr5yN6CU8nd4AVP54xdH8DueQvKQ.yahoo.invalid</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span>All I
was trying to say was, as I'm not a member of the Ringing Theory chat-line (or
whatever you call these things), could someone please let me know if a
definitive answer came out of that chat-line. Nothing more or nothing less.
</span></font></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span>GAD</span></font></div></div><div><span class="e" id="q_10d31190857e7e46_1">
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<div><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font> </div>
<blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;">
<div></div>
<div align="left" dir="ltr" lang="en-us"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original Message-----<br><b>From:</b>
<a href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>edward martin<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 21, 2006 3:01
PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Bell
Historians] Re: Royal, or other names<br><br></font></div>
<div>
<p>What a strange reaction from George Dawson and Richard Offen who in<br>the
past have almost invariably demonstrated an active &
veritably<br>responsible interest in the history of bell ringing.<br><br>The
'original' question (Richard please note) was not from George, he<br>merely
repeated part of the original question, which was from Roderick<br>Bickerton
who wrote:<br><br>" I have often wondered about these names on all numbers why
doubles<br>when 5 is an odd number? Were they all settled on by a convention
of<br>the ancients? Why are changes on 10 bells called Royal?"<br><br>Richard
Smith accurately explained part of the question but (speaking<br>of the titles
Minor & Major), admitted that he was "unsure exactly<br>where these came
from and why, for example, 'minor' refers to six bell<br>ringing rather than
(say) four bell ringing. And 'royal' is a<br>complete mystery to
me".<br><br>Although I am a comparatively recent subscriber to this list, I
tried<br>to take an historian's approach by looking at such evidence
that<br>exists in known historic bell ringing literature & trying to see
from<br>this, how and perhaps when the terminology was in use or had
actually<br>developed. Richard Smith had raised a good point and
Matthew's<br>reflections on a possible musical connection was reminiscent of
the<br>old medieval musical terms of "treble" & "tenor" being adapted by
our<br>forefathers.<br><br>Then came this response from Richard
Offen<br><br>"It's doubles because a maximum of two pairs of bells can be
swapped in<br>any one change; triples has a maximum of three pairs;
Caters<br>(derivation from French for four), four pairs; etc. Quite when
this<br>convention came to be I am unsure".<br><br>which didn't offer anything
that hadn't already been more accurately<br>explained by RAS<br>I pointed out
that even in Stedman's day 'doubles referred to the<br>number of pairs of
bells involved in switching places and had nothing<br>to do with how many
bells were involved in total (eg in Stedman's day<br>there were several 6 bell
methods carrying the title DOUBLES!! The<br>reason being that even though six
bells were involved, two pairs of<br>bells and NEVER three pairs produced
every actual change. This is an<br>Historical FACT and not a matter of method
theory construction yet it<br>prompted Richard's odd
response:<br><br>"Shouldn't we transfer this topic to the ringing theory list
(of which<br>I'm not a member!)?"<br><br>Finally, Matthew who admitted to not
being able to read music but<br>could play the piano by ear, reflected (giving
absolutely no<br>historical support) that perhaps "minor was something to do
with the<br>musical relationship between the treble and tenor of a ring of
six.<br>Certainly major would then make sense, eing rung on a major scale
of<br>eight. Maybe all even bell names are related to musical terms."<br><br>I
am amazed that such a simple question as raised by Roderick should<br>have had
such a dismal response; Absolutely amazed.<br><br>For those subscribers to
this group who might be interested in bell<br>ringing history and can access
the following books, may I suggest that<br>you might take a look for
yourselves? Please study each book in turn<br>before offering any speculation
of your own making. I have noted pages<br>of particular interest to me in my
search for clues, but do feel free<br>to ignore these and make your
own.<br><br>1: Shipway's Campanalogia (1816) paying particular attention to
Book 1 page 21<br>2: page 40 of History of Change Ringing Vol 2<br>3:
Stedman's Campanalogia (1677) pp 112, 173, 175<br>4: Campanalogia Improved
(1702 etc) pp 169, 172, 175<br>5: The Clavis (1788) pp26,213,245<br><br>My own
Speculative conclusions:<br>The comparison of Minor/ Major as musical terms is
purely<br>coincidental, but I think that the progression in terms of size
of<br>numbers involved from minor to major to royal to maximus is
very<br>logical. (Within the genus of the English language, one could have
a<br>progression of say meals or feasts: minor feast, or a major feast or<br>a
right royal feast or a totally maximus feast). Shipway's tome is<br>noted in
that he classified all known systems as well as all stages,<br>so that whilst
the movement to standardize the names of the various<br>stages was already in
progress (according to my reading of The<br>Clavis), Shipway undoubtedly
nailed this down in his very influential<br>book in 1816.<br>The clues that I
followed was to trace the evolution of Plain Bob on<br>all numbers
particularly noting titles of stages that had already been<br>well established
from the earliest times<br>As the higher numbers became available Plain Bob
remained popular on<br>all numbers from 6 through to 12. Obviously Stedman's
"Bob Major" had<br>been the 8-bell stage since its first introduction in 1677.
and<br>eventually it was seen to be basically the same method on all
numbers,<br>however, initially Plain Bob on six had already been long
established<br>with its own title of "Grandsire Bob" (from circa 1657).
Nevertheless,<br>by 1788, when Plain Bob was finally being rung regularly on
all<br>numbers of bells, rather than continue with " Grandsire Bob on 6"
or<br>"Plain ten In" or "Plain 12 In" ringers of the mid 1700s
preference<br>prevailed & suggested that as the number increased Plain Bob
on 12<br>would be Plain Bob at its Maximus stage; we already had Bob Major
and<br>instead of "Bob Major Royal" just "Royal" would do well to
classify<br>ten. Therefore, to be in keeping with this progression in size
of<br>numbers, we are told that in the 1788 book that on 6 the stage is
to<br>be known as "MINOR"<br><br>mew<br><br>On 8/20/06, Richard Offen <<a href="mailto:richard%40s4h.biz" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">richard@nb7nrYEtWFQC2wBXB3r4oafzUSIaWnLB_6_KLOeVyr32omBimzlFPEdSHrUtMjZOQLpq4nWsIA.yahoo.invalid</a>> wrote:
<br>> I
do not subscribe (or whatever it is) to<br>> > 'ringing theory'.<br>>
><br>> > GAD<br>><br>> Nor do I ...it would make my brain hurt
:-)<br>><br>>
R<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Yahoo!
Groups
Links<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br></p></div></blockquote></span></div><div><span class="q">
<span width="1" style="color: white;"></span>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br>