[Bell Historians] Re: Royal, or other names

[Bickerton, Roderic K (SELEX) (UK)]

Thank you for summing up! It turned out to be far more interesting than
I expected.

Your "Speculative conclusions" would be a nice little article in the RW.

Roderic, (Gallic spelling, I blame the parents..  ...)

I am amazed that such a simple question as raised by Roderick should
have had such a dismal response; Absolutely amazed.

For those subscribers to this group who might be interested in bell
ringing history and can access the following books, may I suggest that
you might take a look for yourselves? Please study each book in turn
before offering any speculation of your own making. I have noted pages
of particular interest to me in my search for clues, but do feel free to
ignore these and make your own.

1: Shipway's Campanalogia (1816) paying particular attention to Book 1
page 21
2: page 40 of History of Change Ringing Vol 2
3: Stedman's Campanalogia (1677) pp 112, 173, 175
4: Campanalogia Improved (1702 etc) pp 169, 172, 175
5: The Clavis (1788) pp26,213,245

My own Speculative conclusions:
The comparison of Minor/ Major as musical terms is purely coincidental,
but I think that the progression in terms of size of numbers involved
from minor to major to royal to maximus is very logical. (Within the
genus of the English language, one could have a progression of say meals
or feasts: minor feast, or a major feast or a right royal feast or a
totally maximus feast). Shipway's tome is noted in that he classified
all known systems as well as all stages, so that whilst the movement to
standardize the names of the various stages was already in progress
(according to my reading of The Clavis), Shipway undoubtedly nailed this
down in his very influential book in 1816.
The clues that I followed was to trace the evolution of Plain Bob on all
numbers particularly noting titles of stages that had already been well
established from the earliest times As the higher numbers became
available Plain Bob remained popular on all numbers from 6 through to
12. Obviously Stedman's "Bob Major" had been the 8-bell stage since its
first introduction in 1677. and eventually it was seen to be basically
the same method on all numbers, however, initially Plain Bob on six had
already been long established with its own title of "Grandsire Bob"
(from circa 1657). Nevertheless, by 1788, when Plain Bob was finally
being rung regularly on all numbers of bells, rather than continue with
" Grandsire Bob on 6" or "Plain ten In" or "Plain 12 In" ringers of the
mid 1700s preference prevailed & suggested that as the number increased
Plain Bob on 12 would be Plain Bob at its Maximus stage; we already had
Bob Major and instead of "Bob Major Royal" just "Royal" would do well to
classify ten. Therefore, to be in keeping with this progression in size
of numbers, we are told that in the 1788 book that on 6 the stage is to
be known as "MINOR"

mew

On 8/20/06, Richard Offen <richard at SDx5BSfbrx6x8JFBy17VCHt_S23Y37E6Qavz4oDRg7bH9pEUzZKT5Y5uHHBbzxJe4Lk8IA0.yahoo.invalid <mailto:richard%40s4h.biz> >
wrote:
> I do not subscribe (or whatever it is) to
> > 'ringing theory'.
> >
> > GAD
>
> Nor do I ...it would make my brain hurt :-)
>
> R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************