<html><head></head><body><div class="ydpa3bab38byahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><div><div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Thank you for a detailed response.</div><div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">I had overlooked the significance of the middle initial.<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"><div dir="ltr">I've attached a composite image of the name and numbers.<br></div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">The second image has digital lines added for emphasis.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">The base image has various adjustments to improve definition </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">and reduce the file size. A couple of numbers are incomplete.</div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I think they are readable based on the regular size & shapes. </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">Note, this location is awkward for writing (and photographing). </div><div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I think the rows may be slanting because of limited access.</div><div dir="ltr">Please let me know what you think.<br></div></div><div dir="ltr" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Tony</div></div><br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="yahoo_quoted_4138066526" class="yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Thursday, 27 January 2022, 00:09:23 GMT, Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">Tony via Bell-historians wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> Thank you for the feedback, here are some answers and more questions.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> The tower is in St. Helen's church, Little Eversden.<br clear="none">> The old wooden frame with only 4 bells was deemed un-safe around 1953.<br clear="none">> The actual date that 4 bells were installed is not currently known.<br clear="none">> There could have been 4 bells in the frame in 1641, but there is no evidence<br clear="none">> for 5.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Thanks. I've looked up Little Eversden in Raven's Church <br clear="none">Bells of Cambridgeshire, but he has little to add. I agree, <br clear="none">though, that there seems to be no evindence that there were <br clear="none">more than four bells until recently. That effectively rules <br clear="none">out the possibility that these figures are the bells a fifth <br clear="none">bell follows.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> I believe records show 3 bells in St. Helen's in the 1552, and then 4 bells<br clear="none">> in 1869.<br clear="none">> However, the 4th youngest bell is dated 1756, which suggests an earlier date<br clear="none">> for 4.<br clear="none">> <br clear="none">> Numbers, name and date are in an isolated spot, and survived relatively<br clear="none">> untouched.<br clear="none">> The name is in old fashioned script but I believe it is Willyam F. Battell. <br clear="none">> (A Will in national archives for this name dated 1651 shows a wealthy, local<br clear="none">> man)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Just to be clear, are you saying that in addition to the <br clear="none">figures, there is the name 'Willyam F. Battell' and the year <br clear="none">1641, and all are seemingly in the same script? If the name <br clear="none">includes a middle initial, I would suggest this is very <br clear="none">strong evidence that it was *not* written in 1641. Almost <br clear="none">no-one had a middle name back then. I've taken a quick look <br clear="none">at his 1651 will, and this uses no middle name, just <br clear="none">'William Battell of Eversden parva in the County of <br clear="none">Cambridge'. He was old enough to have married children in <br clear="none">1651, and one of his sons was also named William, so there's <br clear="none">another possible candidate for the name.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> I have lots of photos, but although the inscription is well 'carved', they<br clear="none">> are not great.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I would be very keen to see one.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> Regarding the sequences, could they be the number of lead between calls for<br clear="none">> touches?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">We sometimes describe touches in that way today, but I've <br clear="none">not seen this notation used any earlier than the late <br clear="none">eighteenth century. Clavis Campanalogia, published in 1788, <br clear="none">is the earliest use of it I can think of. I'm quite willing <br clear="none">to believe it was decades old in 1788, but not nearly a <br clear="none">century and a half.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> This isn't good for a 4-bell method with lead lengths of 8.<br clear="none">> But it might work for a 4 bell principle with lead length of 6.<br clear="none">> I've found Erin and Badbury as examples of minimus principles but don't know<br clear="none">> their origin.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Badbury was invented early this century. Erin is much <br clear="none">older. The name only dates to the early twentieth century, <br clear="none">but the minimus method can be found in Benjamin Annable's <br clear="none">notebook, which was probably written in the second quarter <br clear="none">of the eighteenth century. Annable does not suggest it was <br clear="none">new then, and I think it highly likely that would have been <br clear="none">known to Stedman and his contemporaries in the 1670s, based <br clear="none">on other similar methods that were being rung.<div class="yqt0710338817" id="yqtfd06340"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">> Were any minimus principle methods widely known in the 1640's? </div><br clear="none"><br clear="none">It's possible Erin Minimus was that old, but I would guess <br clear="none">it's not quite that old. In any case, they wouldn't have <br clear="none">rung touches of Erin Minimus as the plain course is an <br clear="none">extent, and there's absolutely no evidence that touches <br clear="none">longer than an extent were rung before the late nineteenth <br clear="none">century. Several extents back-to-back, yes, but you don't <br clear="none">need calls for that in Erin Minimus.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">The only principles that I would be confident in saying were <br clear="none">that old are Original Minimus (i.e. Plain Hunt) and two <br clear="none">principles called 'All Over' and 'All Under'. You won't <br clear="none">find them in modern method collections, but on four bells <br clear="none">they had the place notations 34.14.12 and 12.14.34 <br clear="none">respectively. There is no evidence that touches were ever <br clear="none">rung of All Over and All Under, and they have major problems <br clear="none">with falseness.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Could they be touches of Original? No, I don't think so. <br clear="none">No only would this be unprecedently advanced for the time, <br clear="none">and in a direction we don't believe seventeeth century <br clear="none">ringing took, they would also be too long. Add the numbers <br clear="none">on a line together and you get 20, 14, 20 and 15. If each <br clear="none">figure is the number of leads between calls, then the total <br clear="none">is the number of leads in the touch. Anything above 12 is <br clear="none">longer than the extent.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">However, I don't have a better theory, and I don't buy the <br clear="none">idea that this is seventeenth century record of a tune to be <br clear="none">played on the bells. Perhaps it is a tune, but if so I I'm <br clear="none">sceptical it is anywhere near so old. Push the date back a <br clear="none">century or two then I can well believe it might be a tune. <br clear="none">Perhaps the figures are not by the person who wrote the name <br clear="none">and year. Or perhaps 1641 is not a year, or it is a year <br clear="none">but the year it was written. Alternatively, maybe the <br clear="none">figures are this old and have a different meaning entirely.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Richard</div>_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Bell-historians mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk" href="mailto:Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians" target="_blank">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><div class="yqt0710338817" id="yqtfd00157"><br clear="none"></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>