[r-t] Long lengths of minor

[Ben Waller]

Philip wrote:
> Please do shout if any of my attributions are suspect


Because this performance was in 1816, there is potential that some of the names are indeed muddled, as some methods were 'legitimised' by Law James and Co. in the early 1900s by transferring names around; Karl Grave's 'Forbidden Methods' is a good guide to such methods. Thus I think Primrose is as follows:

Primrose &x3x4x2x3x4x3, 16 'Queen Mary Surprise'


> "Bob Royal" - any ideas what this might be?

I would suspect that this is Royal Bob Surprise:


Bob Royal/Royal Bob &x34x4x2x3x4x5, 14 'Royal Bob Surprise'


This was originally published in Campanalogia Improved in 1702 (as were many of those rung in the Wath long length).


> 1 is a plain method with rotational (rather than conventional palindromic)
>symmetry:
>Evening Delight         +x1x1x1x3x4x6, 16        "Evening Delight Bob Minor"


I would also question this attribution. Reading Philip's post I was surprised that this plain method would be rung in a performance with treble dodging methods, especially as a true extent is not obtainable with Evening Delight. As far as I know it never appeared in print, but only in Annable's Notebook (and a note below the method suggests that the falseness was known back then). So I had a look in Campanalogia Improved of 1702, and found another 'Evening Delight' (&x34x4x3x3x1x34, 4).


Interestingly it is still different from the other methods in the peal, being a treble place method. It does also appear in Annable's Notebook and Monk's edition of Campanalogia of 1766. However, it is rather false, and again a true extent is not possible with the usual calls - I suspect in this case this wasn't realised at the time.


Cheers,


Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20161219/c02c5fdb/attachment.html>