Titles, Titles, Titles....what makes a title?

niteowl, you've identified a common problem with the use of old registers. To sort it all out, let's walk through the processes that created what we are now using.

(1)

Originally, church and civil clerks bought blank books to record stuff in.  Even before that, they bought folios of paper that had no covers at all.  These did not have "title pages" with official titles for us to copy. The clerk would just use the first page to identify in his own words the time and place and type of record.

Sometimes, as time went on, more prosperous parishes or government offices bought books that had stamped titles on the outside--generic words: Baptisms or Deeds.  Then clerks would personalize them by inking additional words into the leather (or, later, canvas) to identify the locale, the time frame, or the record type. Often with church records, clerks in the 20th century taped tags on the covers to more fully identify them.

Where we see early volumes that are identically bound, with full identifiers stamped onto covers, those are usually situations in which old books have been rebound because original covers had fallen off.

The result of all this is that (1) there's no consistent titling and rarely a formal title; the title that appears on the cover may be stamped, inked, or taped.

(2)

In the mid-1900s, microfilmers then approached these record books and tried to create some uniform framework for their project. They often created a "series name" for a set of erratically named registers. They typed their identifications onto a target board and then filmed that target at the start of the roll.  What's on the target typically does not match what is on the record book itself, but it will be an appropriate description.

(3)

Then the film would go to the library or archive where the film was to be stored.  Catalogers there had their own rules to follow in creating record descriptions. With FamilySearch film (created originally by the Genealogical Society of Utah and deposited with the Family History Library), a roll of film might carry any number of individual registers or other items—even unrelated items.  Catalogers would then create a catalog description for each film roll that was broad enough to describe what was on the roll; but it did not necessarily duplicate the targets that the filmers made. But: Cataloging descriptions are not "titles." They are cataloging descriptions.

So now to your question: What title do we cite when using these records?

Best approach:

We cite exactly whatever title is on the cover of the register--or first page if there's nothing on the cover. If the cover has both stamped words and penned additions, we copy both, maintaining sequence for the whole. Ditto, if the cover has taped on words.  Then we put those words in quotation marks because, after all, we're quoting.

Caveat:  If we're using a named series—e.g., Deeds, Book 1—then we do not use quotation marks. Whether we're citing a published book or unpublished registers, series names do not go in quotes.

Examples (I'm using more common English examples here to simplify confusion):

• If we're using individually titled registers—let's say that the words on the cover say "Baptisms Performed by Rev. J. B. Blanc, Cloutierville, 1867–1882"—then we copy that exactly, with quote marks around those words.

• If the church has established an organizational scheme for its records, with separate series for baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and burials, then we might have ten books for marriages, with each of them being identified on the cover (even with a taped tag) as "Marriage Book 1," or "Marriage Book 2," etc. In that case, we just cite the series and the number, with no quotation marks: Marriage Book 1.

Alternate Approach:

Often in dealing with the old church and courthouse records, we may have books that plunge into page 1 of the records with no titles at all—or page 21 of the records, because pages 1–20 have been torn away.  If there is no title at all, and we're using the filmed version, then the next best approach is to quote the filmer's target. But, then, we should note that it's the filmer's target. We should not leave the impression that it is the title on the original book because anyone who attempts to use our citation to locate the book at its repository, would fail to find a book with that title.

The Do-Not-Never-Ever-Use Approach:

niteowl, you've identified a common problem with the use of old registers. To sort it all out, let's walk through the processes that created what we are now using.

(1)

Originally, church and civil clerks bought blank books to record stuff in.  Even before that, they bought folios of paper that had no covers at all.  These did not have "title pages" with official titles for us to copy. The clerk would just use the first page to identify time and place and type of record.

Sometimes, as time passed, more prosperous parishes or government offices bought books that had stamped titles on the outside--generic words: Baptisms or Deeds.  Then clerks would more distinctly identify each volume by inking additional words to identify the locale or the time frame or the record type. Often with church records, clerks in the 20th century taped tags on the covers to more-fully identify them.

Where we see early volumes that are identically bound, with full identifiers stamped onto covers, those are usually situations in which old books have been rebound because original covers had fallen off.

The result of all this is that there's no consistent titling and rarely a formal title; the title that appears on the cover may be stamped, inked, or taped.

(2)

Beginning in the mid-twentieth century, microfilmers then approached these record books and tried to create some uniform framework for their project. They often created a "series name" for a set of erratically named registers. They typed their identifications onto a target board and then filmed that target at the start of the roll.  What's on the target typically does not match what is on the record book itself, but it will be an appropriate description.

(3)

Then the film would go to the library or archive where the film was to be stored.  Catalogers there had their own rules to follow in creating record descriptions. With FamilySearch film (created originally by the Genealogical Society of Utah and deposited with the Family History Library), a roll of film might carry any number of individual registers or other items—sometimes totally unrelated items.  Catalogers would then create a catalog description for the film roll that described what was on the roll; but it did not necessarily duplicate the targets that the filmers made. But: Cataloging descriptions are not "titles." They are catalog descriptions.

So now to your question: What title do we cite when using these records?

Best approach:

We cite exactly whatever title is on the cover of the register--or first page if there's nothing on the cover. If the cover has both stamped words and penned additions, we copy both, maintaining sequence. Ditto, if the cover has taped on words.  Then we put those words in quotation marks because, after all, we're quoting.

Caveat:  If we're using a named series—e.g., Deeds, Book 1—then we do not use quotation marks. Whether we're citing a published book or unpublished registers, series names do not go in quotes.

Examples (I'm using more common English examples here to create less confusion for our readers):

• If we're using individually titled registers—say, "Baptisms performed by Rev. J. B. Blanc, Cloutierville, 1867–1882"—then we copy that exactly, with quote marks.
• If the church has established an organizational scheme for its records, with separate series for baptisms, confirmations, marriages, and burials, then we might have ten books for marriages, with each of them being identified on the cover (even with a taped tag) as "Marriage Book 1," or "Marriage Book 2," etc. In that case, we just cite the series and the number, with no quotation marks: Marriage Book 1.

Alternate Approach:

Often in dealing with the old church and courthouse records, we may have books that plunge into page 1 of the records with no titles at all—or page 21 of the records, because pages 1–20 have been torn away.  If there is no title at all, and we're using the filmed version, then the next best approach is to quote the filmer's target. But, then, we should note that it's the filmer's target. We should not leave the impression that it is the title on the original book because anyone who attempts to use our citation to locate the book at its repository, would fail to find a book with that title.

The Do-Not-Never-Ever-Use Approach:

niteowl, I smiled when I saw you say you read it twice. That was right after I realized that somehow I managed to post it twice. :)

To clarify: FamilySearch did not exist when this filming was done. The filming was done by the Genealogical Society of Utah (which was the genealogical arm of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The filmers were LDS members volunteering for GSU. They were the ones who created the targets. (EE 2.24 explains this background for the film that was deposited at the Family History Library.)

The GSU no longer exists. Its functions are now under the aegis of the new entity, FamilySearch. FamilySearch is now making digital film from the old GSU microfilm and putting them online.  But the targets were created by the GSU volunteers who did the filming.