[r-t] Court Bob Minor

[Richard Smith]

Hayden Charles wrote:

> Richard Smith wrote on 19/09/2017 10:20:
>> * The various Campanalogias (possibly including Clavis in 1887 -- can 
>> anyone verify this?) use the "Court Bob" to refer to the modern Double 
>> Court.
>
> Is this the correct edition? In which case, same as modern Double Court.
>
> <https://hdl.handle.net/2027/chi.65523977?urlappend=%3Bseq=91>
>
> Catalog(ue) record says 1887, title page is 1788, but was it a reprint 
> or a 'revised and enlarged edition'?

Thanks, yes, that is the edition I meant.  The typography is 
solidly Victorian, and the title page with the date 1788 is 
not remotely like the actual title page from the 1788 
edition.  Digging around a bit, it seems the 1788 edition 
was a a non-facsimile reprint of the 1788 edition produced 
by Bell News; I'm sure that must be what we have here.  The 
wording under Court Bob is identical to that in the undated 
c1808 edition which was titled /New Campanalogia/, though in 
two instances the use of punctuation has been modernised. 
I can't see any material differences between the c1808 
edition and this 1887 reprint anywhere in the sections on 
Doubles and Minor.

(There's an entertaining typo on the title page of the 1887 
edition.  The Bell News compositor evidently thought I. 
Bowtell, Cambridge was an address and typeset it 1, Bowtell, 
Cambridge.  In fact it is the name of the printer/publisher, 
John Bowtell, a noted ringer in Cambridge at the end of 
the 19th century.)

So now we have three books printed over a 15 year period in 
the 1870s and '80s, each giving a different method under the 
title "Court Bob".  What a mess.  I can see why reformers 
wanted a central authority on what methods were called, but 
it's such a shame they went about it in such a unnecessarily 
heavy-handed way.

RAS