charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1=
250">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY:=
Arial"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968395917-27022005>Flaming Nora - are you under the infl=
uence=20
of some massively mind expanding drugs, or standing for the Labour Party at=
the=20
next election?</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968395917-27022005></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D968395917-27022005>Clarrie</SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px soli=
d; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FO=
NT=20
face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> GRBlundell@a...=
om=20
[mailto:GRBlundell@a...] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 26 February 2005=20
17:27<BR><B>To:</B> bellhistorians@yahoogroups.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Be=
ll=20
Historians] Re: Woodchurch etc<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT id=3Drole_docume=
nt=20
face=3DArial>
<DIV>Before I get going on this, I will start by acknowledging that ultim=
ately=20
we may have to agree to disagree. But I think that there is a genuine poi=
nt to=20
be made about what 'bell historians' should be doing with their time - an=
d=20
while I am more of an interested observer than a 'bell historian', I have=
n't=20
seen anyone else make this point yet.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as I can see, this debate has raised 2 issues:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- the weight of the tenor at Woodchurch;</DIV>
<DIV>- the purpose of changing Woodchurch's 'recorded' weight.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To take these in turn, despite my comments in my previous email, the=
=20
Woodchurch debate may have been historically valuable. John Hyden tells u=
s=20
that 3-3-27 was sourced from a weight written on the bell as delivered. T=
hat=20
strikes me as pretty good evidence that 3-3-27 _may_ be accurate. Please =
note=20
that I do not say that it is clinching proof that it _is_ accurate. =
So=20
the valuable historic point that this raises is that the Whitechapel tuni=
ng=20
book may not be an unchallengeable source of evidence for the weight of a=
=20
bell. As I understand it, the evidence remains strongly in favour of the=
=20
Whitechapel book - but in the event of a dispute, there are grounds for s=
ome=20
uncertainty.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Moving to whether it is important to change the recorded weight, Chr=
is=20
Dalton feels that I have missed the point. I'm sorry, but I think th=
e=20
fault is mine - I did not make my point clear enough, and Chris missed wh=
at I=20
was trying to say. The question is not what the weight of a given bell is=
, but=20
what we can do with this information.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>My argument is that while correcting the known weight of a tenor may=
=20
increase our knowledge, it does not automatically increase our _useful_=20
knowledge - knowledge that we can do something with. This is actually a=20
quantifiable argument: if we discover that the tenor at Liverpool Cathedr=
al=20
actually weighs 2 tons rather than 4 tons, this is significant as it impa=
cts=20
on our understanding of bellfounding, tuning, hanging and so on. But a ch=
ange=20
in a bell's reported weight of under 1% does none of these things. I woul=
d=20
argue that as things stand, our understanding of Whitechapel's work in th=
e=20
early 1970s has only changed in one aspect from this discussion of the we=
ight=20
of Woodchurch tenor - we now have grounds to believe that the tuning book=
may=20
not invariably be the best source of evidence for a bell's weight.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And this is the crux of my argument, which I did not make clear so C=
hris=20
could not address it. History, ultimately, is not about facts. Rather, it=
is=20
about how these facts relate to each other, and cast light on the past. I=
f we=20
do not try to draw facts together, and create a coherent narrative which =
they=20
all can sit in, then we are not writing history, or carrying out historic=
al=20
research; instead, we are following a pursuit very closely related to tra=
in=20
spotting, of collecting facts just for the fun of it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Let me make it clear, particularly as my last simile is somewhat=20
dismissive, that the collection of facts is not unimportant. It's a noble=
and=20
necessary task to provide the material for historians to work on. But it =
isn't=20
history, any more than digging copper ore out of the ground is bell casti=
ng.=20
The facts (the ore) need to be considered and refined, with perhaps some=
=20
(irrelevant facts, stones dug up by mistake) being rejected before t=
he=20
final product (the history, the bell) emerges.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is real work to be done in bell history. For example, we still=
have=20
little more than an outline theory of when and where change ringing emerg=
ed,=20
and how it spread across England. My understanding is that the evidence t=
o=20
support the East Anglian idea is thin. (I would be delighted to have my=20
ignorance exposed if I'm wrong on this.) I firmly believe that there=
is=20
historical research to be done on the basis of surviving and recorded=20
artefacts and records that can allow us to form an evidence based theory =
of=20
were the exercise comes from - but none of the evidence for this sort of=
=20
project is likely to be changed one jot by correcting the weight of a ten=
or=20
bell by an amount of less than 1%.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Giles</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT><BR><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>--<BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Check=
ed by=20
AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release D=
ate:=20
25/02/2005<BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>--<BR>
No virus found in this outgoing message.<BR>
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.<BR>
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 25/02/2005<BR>
</FONT> </P>