DAVID WICKENS_____________________________________________

FROM THE ARCHIVE

It is always worth trying the Archive.

You may think it has nothing you do not already know, or you may think that because it does not have the books of the particular organ builder you are concerned with, there can be nothing of relevance to you. This is a mistake. You should leave no stone unturned. Here are two examples of unexpected revelation.

A Wadsworth organ of 1883 was rebuilt by Scovell of Edinburgh, in 1904. It is now the subject of appraisal. It has tubular-pneumatic action throughout, and the surveyor notes that the console shows no signs of conversion from mechanical action. The question is Is this action the work of Wadsworth or of Scovell? It seems highly unlikely that it would be the former: too early. But is there any evidence to throw light on the matter? The Wadsworth books are in the Archive, but there is a 'hole' between 1881 and 1885 in the midst of which this query hangs. (I am amazed at how many Wadsworth queries concern this five-year period!) The main Archive index, however, has the location noted for Blackett & Howden - in !904! A look at the reference in the B & H books reveals the entry 'supply of console & pneumatic action per Scovell & Lewis'. The query is thus answered, from an unexpected direction. A less conscientious researcher would have been content with the Archive listing, showing that the relevant Wadsworth books were missing, and not bothered to enquire.

The second instance concerns a three-manual organ by Brindley & Foster. The Archive has no books of the Firm. The enquirer wants a date for the instrument. J. Knott's monograph on the firm lists the organ in the gazetteer but without a date. It is mentioned, also, in the Dictionary of Organs and Organists (1921 edition) but again without a date (possibly the source of Knott's information). The limitation is, however, in the main Archive index, with a reference to Hill. A look at the relevant Hill estimate book shows that the firm submitted an estimate for a three-manual organ in 1892, which was not accepted. The likelihood is that they did not get the job because Brindley & Foster did - and that 1892 (or thereabouts) is, therefore, the date of the Brindley organ. Of course, you cannot be sure on that evidence alone, but it does give a point of focus for further research, such as ploughing through endless pages of local newspapers.

It is always worth trying the Archive.

There will be many instances when nothing whatever can be turned up, but there are plenty of surprises in store. I know of at least one organ booklet - exceedingly well turned out, and generally a model of scholarship- which lacks information it could have had from the Archive had the writer enquired!

Return to Index Page for this issue