Peals on Six Bells

[nitramwe]

Chris Pickford wrote:
" Quite a number of five- and six-bell peals were rung in the C18th - try looking at Morris "History and Art" and/or at Cyril Wratten's collection of newspaper reports in John Eisel's excellent 2010 edition entitled "Order and  Disorder in the Eighteenth Century: Newspaper extracts  about Church Bells and Bellringing"

I'm afraid that when one starts looking into this topic, as I have, it soon becomes evident that there may have been 5040s rung which had neither local newspaper report nor commemorative peal board. As an example, in William Laughton's notebook, under the date 21st March 1733-4, when telling of going to ring at Westminster Abbey, after observing various tombs he almost casually refers to what to me is the earliest mention of a 5040 of Minor – being fourteen 360s.  
Initially referring to the tombs, what he actually writes is:

"Not far from these lies honest Jimmy
Newcombe by name, and pray forgive me
If I tell you he rang fourteen eighteen scores
At Giles-in-the-fields with me and four more
Which by none had e're been done before,
And this I may be bold to say,
That they have not been equaled to this day.
Two places i' th' Abbey to him was given
Which brought him in a charming living
But there's no certainty under heaven
For just as he'd got into good bread
Death called upon and struck him dead"

The Registry of burials at the Abbey reveals that in "1733/4 Feb 5th  James Newcom was buried in the Dark Cloister." There is a note that "The funeral book says that he died 2nd Feb, aged 40. Doubtless from the place of burial, a servant or minor official."

14 360s rung at St Giles at some time between say 1713 and 1733 suggests 14 different methods – but we probably will never know if that is the case nor yet what they were. These men were contemporaries of Benjamin Annabel whose notebook contained numerous 6-bell methods including some which do not run to a true 720 but may go as far as 360. This again suggests a different mind-set to what we are used to these days.

Richard wrote:

"Oxford TB, Cambridge S, and Morning Exercise are almost certainly the method that still bear these names, as evidenced by their inclusion in Campanalogia Improved [p. 90-4, 115 and 111, respectively, in Monk's 1766 edition]. I would speculate that York Surprise might the method now know as York Delight; in any case, I'm sure it's not the modern York Surprise with it's wrong-place underwork.  What Bristol and Worcester are, I know not."

Im not at all convinced that Campanalogia Improved is a reliable witness to all that was being rung in the first half of the 18th century. (By comparison, imagine that the only book available today & over the last 50 years has been the excellent "Ringers' Handbook" by E.S. & M.E. Powell. This book serves a valuable purpose but 
) Huge chunks of word-for-word type occur in every edition from 1702 to 1766 with very little added (Cambridge Surprise Minor appears first in the fourth ed.(1753) with the Major being introduced in the fifth ed. (1766)  
A mere 20 years later, in the 1788 and 1796 editions of The Clavis we read:
"We might proceed to an infinite variety of six bell methods, which we must beg to be excused from entering on, it being foreign to our present purpose; yet for the sake of those who are curious in this particular we shall insert the sixteen surprise peals." Frustratingly neither Campanalogia Improved nor The Clavis tell us why these were considered `surprise', but in being presented as _THE 16 surprise_ suggests to me that they were known by that name amongst the more advanced ringers who had not been catered for by Campanalogia Improved. These 16 methods are set out on pages 50, 51, 52, 53. Of these 16, only 4 of them have right places: Coventry, Cambridge, Rochester & Ely 


Richard goes on to ask:
"Do we think these methods are old enough to have been rung in 1737?  All of the methods on six or more bells that Monk gives in his 1766 Campanalogia Improved are right place. Of course, that could be Monk's personal prejudice, or perhaps the wrong-place methods simply hadn't caught on or  attracted Monk's attention.  But do we have any evidence of wrong place methods before the Clavis?  Understanding how to make a wrong place treble dodging minor method without  falseness is quite a leap."

Well, yes. After all we are told that at St. Mary's, Whitechapel, April 16, 1737, 5040 Minor was rung consisting of "seven compleat Surprise six-bell peals".  As named, only four of these are included in The Clavis's 16 surprise methods: Cambridge, Bristol, Worcester & York. Of the others mentioned, Morning Exercise is no longer considered to be one of the 16 & Oxford Tripple Bob is simply referred to as Treble Bob. The Clavis also  includes Cambridge S. Major (p.175) with a 5152 rung by ASCY at St. Giles-in-the-Fields, Sun. Feb 23 1783 which even though by now they were aware of potential repetition in T.B. methods (see p. 167) I calculate has 68 repeated rows. This is followed with London Surprise and a true 5600 which we are told may be reduced to 5152. Then Superlative, apparently created by the authors and at the time of printing not yet rung. Included is a true 5376. This concludes the chapter on 8-bell ringing with the note that similar to London & Cambridge, the other fourteen Surprise Major may be had by extension from the Minor.

With respect regarding Richard's "Understanding how to make a wrong place treble dodging minor method without  falseness is quite a leap." I disagree. As regards 6-bell methods this was well understood by Stedman. In that if a 6-bell method has a lead block whose structure is symmetrical about the path of the treble, then any two rows of like nature having the treble in the same place may adequately represent the whole lead block. In Bristol Surprise  Minor 
(PN = x 36 x 16 x 12 x 36 14 x 14 36 with  LH 12  to give 142563)compare say the + rows with treble in 1sts: 123456 & 145236 or say the – rows with treble in say 4ths: 625134 & 643152. In these instances as with any other similar instance, we have 1& 6 in the same positions  with 2 & 4 swapped and 3 & 5 swapped. Therefore, no matter how these rows were produced, by right or by wrong place making, this whole lead block can be adequately expressed by any two rows of like nature with treble in the same position and provided that static 16 with 2x4 and 3x5 occurs only once in the 720 (and all other combinations are included, occuring once each) then the 720 must be true.

Alan Glover writes: 
"On the subject of the Whitechapel peal and Worcester S., York S. and Bristol S., it may be a coincidence but these three methods are listed consecutively in William Woodcock's Notebook (undated) and are described as Oxford and London, Cambridge and London and Tulip and London respectively."
This makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I don't know when William Woodcock lived, but in my time I have rung York S. Minor many times, but have never felt the need to learn the blue line; simply ring Cambridge above & London below

Eddie Martin