<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<!-- Network content -->
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1561" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN class=076451114-21082006>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 face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=076451114-21082006>GAD</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=076451114-21082006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=076451114-21082006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=076451114-21082006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=076451114-21082006></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com] <B>On
Behalf Of </B>edward martin<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 21, 2006 3:01
PM<BR><B>To:</B> bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Bell
Historians] Re: Royal, or other names<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV id=ygrp-text>
<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">richard@s4h.<WBR>biz</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><!--End group email --></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>