[r-t] Stedman Doubles in Campanologia

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Wed Oct 12 22:49:22 UTC 2011

Thanks again Eddie. I've scanned p95 but can't immediately see where 
symmetry is discussed in this - can you elaborate please?

The Orpheus course is interesting. What is the point of the start here? 
It is not a point of symmetry; there are no calls to guide it. Why also 
does he not discuss or describe the method at all, excepting the bald 
statement, "One change is double, the next single, and so by turns"? 
There are no references linking Orpheus to Stedman, either, that I can see.

I am drawn to the view that, whilst as you say Fabian must have 
understood symmetry and its value in the construction of hunt-dominated 
methods, the start for Stedman was chosen by virtue of the positioning 
of the easiest or natural call for Grandsire-ringers. It's not really 
clear to me that he would have considered the symmetry important. Am I 
being fair?

I am really trying to ascertain whether "because it is a point of 
symmetry" is the correct answer to the question "why do we usually start 
ringing Stedman from the middle of a quick six?". On reviewing 
Campanologia, and listening to your guidance Eddie, I think, whilst 
attractive, this is probably not historically correct. What do you think?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list