[Bell Historians] Royal, or other names

[edward martin]

I wonder why it should George
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?

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
mew

On 8/21/06, George Dawson <george at 8tqeuFsHp1JRkQb7BItaFSlfTvOtBT-Y4woTZf9l5O5mTuJPQ7IKpD_w8g_G6VVvwAER3QSg6Ba1e-iaJpyHM2iczgmM.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>  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.
> GAD
>
>
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *edward martin
> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2006 3:01 PM
> *To:* bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Royal, or other names
>
>  What a strange reaction from George Dawson and Richard Offen who in
> the past have almost invariably demonstrated an active & veritably
> responsible interest in the history of bell ringing.
>
> The 'original' question (Richard please note) was not from George, he
> merely repeated part of the original question, which was from Roderick
> Bickerton who wrote:
>
> " I have often wondered about these names on all numbers why doubles
> when 5 is an odd number? Were they all settled on by a convention of
> the ancients? Why are changes on 10 bells called Royal?"
>
> Richard Smith accurately explained part of the question but (speaking
> of the titles Minor & Major), admitted that he was "unsure exactly
> where these came from and why, for example, 'minor' refers to six bell
> ringing rather than (say) four bell ringing. And 'royal' is a
> complete mystery to me".
>
> Although I am a comparatively recent subscriber to this list, I tried
> to take an historian's approach by looking at such evidence that
> exists in known historic bell ringing literature & trying to see from
> this, how and perhaps when the terminology was in use or had actually
> developed. Richard Smith had raised a good point and Matthew's
> reflections on a possible musical connection was reminiscent of the
> old medieval musical terms of "treble" & "tenor" being adapted by our
> forefathers.
>
> Then came this response from Richard Offen
>
> "It's doubles because a maximum of two pairs of bells can be swapped in
> any one change; triples has a maximum of three pairs; Caters
> (derivation from French for four), four pairs; etc. Quite when this
> convention came to be I am unsure".
>
> which didn't offer anything that hadn't already been more accurately
> explained by RAS
> I pointed out that even in Stedman's day 'doubles referred to the
> number of pairs of bells involved in switching places and had nothing
> to do with how many bells were involved in total (eg in Stedman's day
> there were several 6 bell methods carrying the title DOUBLES!! The
> reason being that even though six bells were involved, two pairs of
> bells and NEVER three pairs produced every actual change. This is an
> Historical FACT and not a matter of method theory construction yet it
> prompted Richard's odd response:
>
> "Shouldn't we transfer this topic to the ringing theory list (of which
> I'm not a member!)?"
>
> Finally, Matthew who admitted to not being able to read music but
> could play the piano by ear, reflected (giving absolutely no
> historical support) that perhaps "minor was something to do with the
> musical relationship between the treble and tenor of a ring of six.
> Certainly major would then make sense, eing rung on a major scale of
> eight. Maybe all even bell names are related to musical terms."
>
> 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 x0Joo-Q3MX40YULuRsdKusXg6j-iyoAzRpEKxuAZr_iy0oyPA-ReSyBMJa4AWkUzjAZCAfId.yahoo.invalid <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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>
           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20060821/4e5d26c0/attachment.html>