I'd like to get some input on this groups opinion of a problem with
citation and sources. This is a general problem that I frequently
encounter in my own work, and so I'm not so much interested in the
specific answer to the problem, as to the general answer to the
problem.
___________________________________________________________
Recently I obtained a copy of a will for Thomas Scudder who died
sometime between Sept 1657, and June 1658 (will and probate dates),
in Salem Mass. The copy was in response to a message placed a
GenForum message board. The reply included the following:
By the will of God Amen, I Thomas Scudder inhabitant of Salem in
Newengland, being sick, & weake in bodye, but of perfect strength of
memorye, & vnderstandinge, doe appoint, ordeeine, & make this my
last will & testament. I doe therefore by these presents appoint, &
give vnto my welbeloved wiffe Elizabeth Scudder, dureinge her life,
all my wordly goodes, & estate whatsoever of houses, landes, Cattle,
& all moveable goodes, & vsentles of what kind soever, & all
personall estate whatsoever & I doe allso ordeine, & make, & appoint
her my said Wiffe, my full, & sole Execatrixe after my death onely
my desire is that after her death, what shee shall leave, of any of
my foresaid personall estate, it shalbe devided amongst my Children,
John Scudder, & Thomas Scudder & Hennry Scudder, & Elizabeth
Barthelmew, And Thomas Scudder my Grandchilde, the sonne of my sonne
William Scudder desesed, & my mynde & will is, that all such estate,
as my said wiffe Elizabeth Scudder shall leave after her death
shallbe valewed, & equally devided to my said Children, &
Grandchild, & my said Grandchild to have as much as any one of them.
Neverthelesse, one Cowe, which I formerlye gave my said wiffe, I doe
in noe wise dispose of, butt leaue itt wholly to my said wiffe to
dispose of itt, as shee shall thinke good. And that this is my last
Will, & testament I have herevnto sett my hand, and seale, this
thirtyeth daye of September, one thousand sixe hundred fiftye &
seaven: his mark Thomas C Scudder Witness: Richard Waters, Wilom
Traske, Joseph F Boyse and Thomas Deutch. his mark Proved in Salem
court June 29, 1658, by Richard Waters and Cap. William Traske.
Es*** Co. Quarterly Court Files, vol 4. leaf 63.
As you can see, the response include a specific reference to the
court records. I believe the will has also been published in Es***
Antiquarian, vol. 7, page 125.
There may, or may not, be a need to verify this record. Several
methods are available to me for this purpose.
I could:
- Visit the Es*** County court repository, and view the original
- Order this on microfilm
- Find a copy of Es*** Antiquarian, vol. 7, page 125.
Any of these approaches would probably be sufficient for my purposes
of verifying this will. Going to the Es*** County Court repository
and viewing the original would, of course, be the "best" solution,
but realistically, I'm not likely to do that, since it would involve
a substantial trip, and I'm not likely to be in the area for any
other reason.
So the next best thing would be the microfilm, which is easy enough
to obtain. Its not the original, but its presumably pretty close to
the original, and any information loss would probably be negligible.
I think I'd really only need to see the original if there was an
issue with the content of the will, and where even a good quality
photocopy or microfilm would not be suffcient. (I've run into that
kind of thing before; in one case, for example, it was only by
viewing the original that you could tell that an amendation to the
record was by a later hand--blue ball point pen markings being a
sure give away in an 18th century document. You couldn't tell that
from the black and white photocopies that were in circulation for
this item.)
Going to the Es*** Antiquarian would be the least satisfactory
solution, since its version is presumably a transcription of the
original, and subject to the introduction of human errors. But, all
things considered, its probable that the transcription is accurate,
and normally I'd expect a problem only in some of the finer nuances
(exact spelling of words in the will, interpretation of handwriting,
etc. Its only when a serious inconsistency arose that I'd really
feel the necessity of view the original at least in microfilm. From
a professional perspective, that's perhaps a bit lazy, but from an
amateur genealogist perspective, one can't vet everything as
thoroughly as one might like, and still get as much done as one
would like. There's always a tradeoff---loose precision and
accuracy or spend time and dollars.
So, in general, barring some severe issue arising, I'd probably be
willing to accept the version in Es*** Antiquarian as reasonably
authoritative. However, I'm guessing that my source on GenForum used
either the Es*** Antiquarian or microfilm of the Es*** County Court
records to get this will original. Either he did, or he obtained it
from someone else, or another source, that did. The information he
provided seems complete, detailed, and is well sourced to the
ultimate location of this will. They didn't provide the information
as to the exact source they used for the intermediary versions,
(Possibly Es*** Antiquarian, or some similar source? Original
Records? probably not), but they did provide more information than
you often find on Message Boards, as to sources. Bottom line is
that I've really no obvious reason to be concerned about the
accuracy of this transcription.
That brings me to the reason for this query. What's the best way to
cite this particular will? I need to couch this question in the
context of a specific way that I view the purpose of citing
sources---namely, the reason I cite a source is so that I, or
others, can return to the original source, and confirm that this is
what that source said. That being said, I could cite, for example,
1. The author of the message
2. The specific message on GenForum
3. The Es*** Antiquarian
4. The Original will in Es*** County Court Records
Choice one and two are the more accurate, since that's actually
where I got the information. Unfortunately, citing a specific
individual has a problem since at some point that individual will
not be available for responding to queries (I take a long term view
of things).
Citing the GenForum message is something of an improvement, since,
in theory, its going to have a longer lifespan. But its not fully
satisfactory since I can point to message forums where messages have
been removed wholesale (for sufficient reason I suppose, but perhaps
not for a good reason), and I can point to other forums that have
been taken out altogether. So with a GenForum citation you get a
bit better "revisitability", but there's still something of a chance
that no one will ever be able to see this again.
So, with that in mind, I might cite something like The Es***
Antiquarian, or the original court records, as the source, knowing
that those particular sources should be revisitable in the
foreseeable future---at least they have a better shot at long term
preservation than something like GenForum.
If I did that, then the citation might read something like the
following:
Es*** Co. Quarterly Court Files, vol 4. leaf 63, per
http://genforum.genealogy.com/scudder/messages/1186.html,
See also Es***
Antiquarian, vol. 7, page 125.
This meets, I think, the need to both cite the immediate source of
information, but also provides the needed pointer to the original
source, should that ever have to be examined.
I'd like to get your thoughts on how things of this sort should be
handled.
Q
Q <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
