Q wrote:
> 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.
snip
>
> 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
The Es*** County Probate records are at the Massachusetts Archives.
You probably can only see the official transcription.
The early Es*** Probate Records transcriptions < 1671 have been
published in a book and are on the Es*** county VR CD by Search and
ReSearch and possibly on-line also.
> - Order this on microfilm
The FHL has only the records from 1671 in film 0860485
> Find a copy of Es*** Antiquarian, vol. 7, page 125.
If you have quoted everything that is in the Es*** Antiquarian it
did not have the Inventory which has an interesting note that
Elizabeth, his wife died before 28 Sep 1665 when administration was
granted to Henry Bartholomew and Hilliard Veren.
In this particular case, I suggest that you subscribe to MAES***
list; and in case of other wills that you need to check or confirm,
join the locality/county or state list for the area and ask how best
to check.
Your actual source is the GenForum posting which quoted the Es***
Antiquarian.
> 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 <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
