[r-t] History question

[edward martin]

The idea was put forward as early as 1843 Sheffield, in a 5600 of
'Hudson's New Light' ie leads of both Kent & Oxford.But from then on,
when the idea was eventually put into more frequent practice, I think
that they were always known as 'Variations'
Schofield (1867) produced several comps where Kent is rung but with
Oxford leads to keep 7-8 out of the Slow. (Later this became known as
'The Worcester Variation')
Edward Gobey introduced 'The Ilkeston Variation' being Kent with bobs
at MWH & one lead of Oxford again to keep 7-8 from the Slow.
I think Ernest Morriss introduced 'Liversedge Variation' being
'Ilkeston' but with two bobbed leads of Oxford. H.Law James introduced
other variations called Gonville, Cam & Granta really being Kent with
spliced little methods acting as shunts. This stuff was rung quite a
bit in the early decades of 20th century. However, in every case, I
don't think that any of it was thought of or referred to as being
'spliced'. In the 1970s when they were discussing accepting peals of
half-lead spliced, I pointed out to Central Council Member, Frank
Price, that we already had this in these Kent/Oxford Variations, but
he shot me down by saying that these were thought of as 'Variations'
with change of method made when Treble was in 3-4 down. I didn't
understand his argument but there we are.

Eddie


2008/8/5 Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>:
> I have a question relating to the history of the evolution of our modern
> view of what a method is.
>
> Today I think most ringers tend to view things like Ilkeston, Granta
> and Cam as spliced, possibly at the half-lead.
>
> When such things were first being rung were they instead viewed as
> distinct methods? That they appear to have received their own names
> would seem to imply that was the case.
>
> Can they not be viewed rather than as spliced, instead as other
> examples of Dixonoid type constructions? Albeit particularly tractable
> ones that can be easily cast into the form of splices of our modern
> conception of methods, if we so choose.
>
> Is this dichotomy of views of such constructions at root the same
> issue as whether New Grandsire and Grandsire are the same method
> rotated, or distinct methods?
>
>
>
> --
> Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
> "Everyone suspects himself of at least one of the cardinal
> virtues."     -- F. Scott Fitzgerald, _The Great Gatsby_
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>