[Bell Historians] Incised Inscription

La Greenall laalaagrr@googlemail.com [bellhistorians] bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sat May 5 13:27:32 BST 2018

Both assumptions, that the inscription was forgotten, and that the donor 
insisted it was inscribed, could be true.

Some years ago, a book published by our historical society had a 
misplaced foreword unwittingly not included at the layout stage; we 
later had to insert printed slips by hand into every copy of the book.

Lawrence Greenall

On 05/05/2018 11:59, 'George Dawson' georgebellringer at gmail.com 
[bellhistorians] wrote:
> In the absence of a similar diameter bell by Joseph in 1760 I think it 
> fair to assume the donor insisted on his name appearing AFTER casting.
> There are other incised inscriptions on Eayre bells eg. Church Langton.
> G
> *From:*bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* 05 May 2018 10:55
> *To:* bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* [Bell Historians] Incised Inscription [1 Attachment]
> *[Attachment(s) <#TopText> from Richard Bimson included below]*
> The 1760 Eayre’s ring of 6 at Swithland, Leicestershire, (3^rd recast 
> 1793 by Arnold) all bear an inscription regarding the donor.  However, 
> the tenor also bears the final verse of Psalm 150.  The interesting 
> thing about this inscription is that (unlike the other bells), whilst 
> the Psalm verse is a normal inscription the one to the donor is 
> incised into the bell.  I am conjecturing that the donor inscription 
> was forgotten and therefore incised after casting, but would be 
> interested if there are any other theories.  I have hopefully attached 
> a picture showing the tenor.  Many thanks in advance, Richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20180505/a60dd21f/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list