[r-t] Court Bob Minor

[Richard Smith]

Don Morrison wrote:

> ​​On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
> wrote:
>> However, I've just re-read Banister's /Art and Science of Change
>> Ringing/ (1871), and it gives the numbers for a method it calls
>> "Court Bob Minor"; the method is a non-palindromic,
>> rotationally-symmetrical one with court places in 3-4 around the
>> treble in the first half of the lead only. In place notation it's
>> -4-3-6-6-6-6.
>
> I wonder when, and on what basis, the Council decided it 
> should be called Evening Exercise Bob Minor?

It was added to the modern methods collections as a result 
of a quarter rung at Ockbrook, Derbys on 11 Sept 2013 
(printed RW, 27 Sept 2013 (5344), p 985) which said it was 
called Evening Exercise in Annable's note book.  I can't 
verify this, but have no reason to doubt it.  I can't see a 
method of this name in any of the Camapanalogias I have 
access to.

> I also wonder how many of those extents were true. Any idea when it became
> common knowledge that the usual standard extent isn't true for most
> non-palindromic methods? Come to think of it, since the standard extent is,
> I'm pretty sure, false in this case how do you call a true extent of it?

That's a very good question.  Banister lists the standard 
calling: in, out, in six times with a 1236 single half-way 
and end.  (1236 singles were the norm in methods with a 16 
lead-end at this time.  It was largely due to Snowdon that 
1456 singles became standard.)  This is, as you say, false. 
They rang a 1440 at Ockbrook, presumably to get around these 
difficulties.

The fact that Banister published this composition in 1874 
suggests he it was not then commonly known that the standard 
calling is rarely true for non-palindromic methods.  He was 
one of the last authors to write before the zeal to expunge 
ringing of "illegitimate" methods hit at the end of the 
century -- it was already underway when the Central Council 
was formed -- and after then the question became moot as 
non-palindromic methods were branded "illegitimate" and 
ceased being rung.

Back to "Court Bob", we have three competing uses of the 
name:

   * The various Campanalogias (possibly including Clavis in 
1887 -- can anyone verify this?) use the "Court Bob" to 
refer to the modern Double Court.

   * Banister in 1874 uses the name to refer to this 
non-palindromic method, and any 19th century extents of this 
method are suspect.

   * Shipway uses the name to refer to the modern Single 
Court, as does Snowdon in later editions.

RAS