Oft expectation fails, and most oft there
Where most it promises.
—William Shakespeare, All’s Well that Ends Well (Act II, Scene I)
About the title. It is drawn from the subject heading under which,
in the catalogue of the New York Public Library, appears a single and
singular item: the periodical
British Rainfall. Issued by the
Meteorological Office, this “regular annual publication” was devoted to
the study of the “distribution of rain in space and time over the
British Isles.” The Meteorological Office—imagine musty chambers in
which masses of data are sorted and shuffled in search of a governing
rule, a
perfect patterne—was the successor to the still more
august-sounding British Rainfall Organization.
Established in 1858 by
George James Symons, an exemplar of the Victorian obsession with
statistics, the British Rainfall Organization made the British Isles a
realm of watchful, patchily distributed observers. What was the weather
like, say, on 1 December 1860, the date Charles Dickens—who all but
invented London’s fog—published the first installment of
Great Expectations in
All the Year Round: A Weekly Journal?
(In London: barometric pressure 29.66", temperature 45˚, wind from the
east, overcast. That is, about what you would expect.) Rain and
Rainfall—Great Britain—Periodicity—Periodicals. What kind of subject is
this, so tightly corseted by inflexible hyphens? Does it yield to the
smoothing and curve-fitting techniques of the mathematician? Or is it an
irregular conjunction of things, somehow fixed in time, the meaning and
sense of which only the poet can hope to scan? That it answers to
neither and both of these descriptions will be shown in the following
attempt to coax from it, however improbably, a thesis on history.
Our
focus will be upon a group of mid-1920s papers, culled from journals on
meteorology, statistics, and geography, whose authors were testing new
methods for spotting undetected periodicities in time-series (sequences
of observational data). Thus we will be on a “muddy road,” retracing the
steps of these seekers of order—or of the screwily ordinal nature of
data—as they plotted what all signs had led to them believe was the
sinusoidal shape of time. The question such inquiry poses is whether
there is a (straight, curving, zigzag, broken, continuous) plot to
history and if so, how it should be limned. The reasoning runs as
follows: in the recorded history of rainfall, made up of countless
particulars which seem not so much to depart from as never care to
approach the
general reason of things, is written the prospect
of a future regularity. This tenuous connection, between the once was
and the not yet, breaks down not only of its own accord; it is
uninterruptedly available to external disturbance. Model that
disturbance and win the day, and days past, and days to come.
What
we shall consider is a once seemingly possible merger between the
Meteorological Office and that of the historian. Records were their
common stock in trade. Time, order, and causation were the stuff of
their shared meditation on before and after, on the consecution of
tenses. Where the historians and meteorologists failed to come to terms
was with what appeared likely in the unapprehended relations of things.
Confronted with a tumultuous mass of facts, the historian loses sight of
the presumable shape of time; the meteorologist finds in it a latent
pattern. In his essay “Hypercritica, Or A Rule of Judgment For Writing
or Reading Our Histories” (ca. 1618), Edmund Bolton writes, regarding
varied opinions about how Britain came to be named Britain, “[I]f
anything be clear in such a Case, or vehemently probable, it is both
enough, and all which the Dignity of an Historian’s office doth permit.”
Could students of the constitutively inconstant weather ask for any
greater degree of certainty? It seems so. They heard secret harmonies,
periodic rhythms repeated years on end.
A final preliminary word
about periodicals. They appear weekly, fortnightly, quarterly, or at
some other nominally regular interval. Except when they fail to do so.
Particularly with laboriously tabulated meteorological data, the attempt
to keep up with the present often proves the source of delay. Symons
placed the blame for the chronically late appearance of
British Rainfall
on the negligence of his correspondents and on the time needed to
correct errors in the records they eventually submitted. Better late
than never. “Gave up hope of more,” reads the note appended to the
catalogue entry for the
Supplement to
British Rainfall (1961–1965).
A break in communication, a dry spell, a printers’ strike, the
inexhaustible logic of the supplement? How do we read this desperate
note? Was the cataloguer’s darkening hope that this regular annual
publication would complete its run, the distribution of rain in space
and time ever tending to norm? Or was it that the regular annual
publication would merely resume, if only for appearance’s sake?
Certainly there is always rain on the way. But what proves more
difficult and correspondingly more rewarding to bring into line,
editorially and otherwise, is that which is most subject to precipitate
change: the past. Correction: make that history.