Forums
Hello,
I am looking for help with a particular Parish Register that seems to fit into multiple models:
Church Books: Named Volumes Held Off-Site, and
Derivatives – Church Record Book, Recopied, and
(maybe something else)
I think the pertinent background information is as follows:
· Pettigrew’s Chapel was formed about 1799 and continued to actively exist until
· It was consecrated as an Episcopal Church named St. David’s Church in 1857
· Although the church still officially exists, it is no longer active
· The Parish Register for Pettigrew’s Chapel / St. David’s Church is held in the archives of Christ Church located in Creswell, North Carolina
· Starting in late 1855, the parish records of Pettigrew’s Chapel were copied into a new Parish Register. Although it was stated by the person who copied the records that “the old register” still exists, it is no longer to be found.
· The title page for the Parish Register states that it contains records for “Parish of St. David’s Church, Scuppernong, Washington County, Diocese of North Carolina” (The Scuppernong area is now part of the town of Creswell, which was created in 1874)
· The existing Parish Register contains sections for Baptisms, Confirmations, Communicants, Marriages, and Burials. The overall register does not contain page numbers, neither do the sections.
· In some cases it is obvious that information was added to individual entries at a later time (different ink, different handwriting)
My questions concern how to cite entries in this register, both pre-1857 when the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, and post-1857 when the church was known as St. David’s Church. Looking through EE and trying to come up with a “template” that covers this situation, I came up with the following:
Example 1: An example of an entry copied from “the old register” from the period when it was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel
Source: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register. Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
Citation: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register, Baptisms, 14 September 1852, Nathan Bateman Fortune; Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. The information contained in this Baptism record was copied into this register from “the old register which is still preserved” by Reverend Joseph W. Murphy on 25 December 1855, however “the old register” cannot be located.
Example 2: An example of an entry that was clearly copied from “the old register” from the period when it was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, but the entry does not state that it was copied.
Source: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register. Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
Citation: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register, Burials, 09 February 1856, James M Fortune; Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. There are no notations that this information was copied into this register from other sources, although examination of the ink and handwriting on adjacent entries indicates that it is probable that the entries were made at a later time. The entries are in the handwriting of Reverend Joseph W. Murphy who served at St. David’s Parish until approximately April 1862.
Example 3: An example of an original entry from the period when it was known as St David’s Church
Source: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register. Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
Citation: St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register, Marriages, 6 January 1858, Wm J. Liverman and Nancy L. Davenport; Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
My questions:
Is my source entry correct for all cases?
Are my citations properly structured for each unique type of situation?
Do citations covering the time when it was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel need to contain information that provides that name, and, if so, how it should be denoted?
Thanks!
Tom
Tom,
You have certainly found an instance in which multiple quirks are rolled into one. You are also well analyzing the record you are using so that you can develop an understandable citation. Would that all researchers would be so careful!
There is, however, a fundamental issue we have to address before your source can be adequately identified.
QUESTION: Are you actually using EE? Or are you trying to construct a citation using options built into some software that has created problematic templates and provides no basic instruction in the fundamentals of citation?
PROBLEM: You present 3 examples. For each, you offer 2 formats that you call
These two terms do not represent different formats. They are totally different entities. A source is what we use. A citation is the “sentence” in which we identify that source. A source is a tangible thing. It’s not a group of words that we assemble to identify an object.
Citations, in the humanities, come in three basic formats. Each has a specific function:
It seems that, for each example, you are trying to construct the Source List Entry and the Full Reference Note. However, your “full” format is also using the source-list format, which does not work at all in a reference note. The reasons why—and the problems that are created when we confuse the two—are simply too many to go into here. EE’s chapter 2 “Fundamentals of Citation” discusses these issues—most explicitly in 2.38.
Starting there should help you immensely in your effort to construct good explanations of the source you have used. Also read (and study the examples at) 4.11 Changes in institutional or corporate identity. That, too, applies to your problem.
And yes, EE knows it would be a whole lot easier for you, here and now, if EE just rewrote your citations for you. But, that wouldn't help you with the next problem you encounter, would it?
Thanks for the response, and
Thanks for the response, and for letting me know that I have an interesting mess that I am working on.
To answer your question, yes I am trying to use EE. I understand (I think) the difference between a Source and a Full Reference Note. What I labeled "Citation" is intended to be the "First Reference Note". I copied and pasted these examples from my research log, where I personally find it easier to put in both the Source and Citation/Reference Note in the same place so that I am sure I am building my Source List at the same time I am doing my references/citations so that I know I have a source for each citation. It is my own work style. I understand that they are different but I find this discipline helps me keep myself organized - a challenge under the best of circumstances.
Obviously since I have only a single source document, the Source is identical in each of my examples, and I probably confused things by including it with each example. I admit to missing the information in 4.11 Changes in Institutional or Corporate Identity. Reading that, it looks to me like the change does not impact the Source statement, since that "record[s] the specific location of each piece of data", which is the single Parish Register. Based on what I understand from Chapter 2, and looking at the examples of sources for church records found in Chapter 7, specifically 7.12, I believe my Source entry: "St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register. Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina." is properly constructed. (I omitted dates because this is the only Register for the church.) Of course I am writing to get your feedback on my understanding.
The Full Reference Notes, or what I called "Citations" in my examples, are where I expect that I have issues. I am confused by your comment that my "'full' format is also using the source-list format". I built my Reference Notes/Citations on the model found in 7.12 (second example of First Reference Note). I tried to reflect the fact that some of the entries were copied from an earlier register with my text to indicate when it was copied and by whom, since that information is available and could be useful in judging the quality of the information. Since the register does not contain page or line numbers, I felt that using the exact date of the baptism or marriage would enable others to more easily find the information. I recognize that there should probably be an additional statement added, something like "Until organization as St. David's Church on 17 April 1858, the church was known as Pettigrew's Chapel" for each reference that is for a date earlier than the referenced date.
So a long-winded answer for saying I remain confused about my Full Reference Notes, other than the need to reflect the change in identify from Pettigrew's Chapel to St. David's Church. (Please don't think I am being defensive. I am not asking you to rewrite my citations [although feel free!], but I am looking for guidance on where my understanding and logic in constructing what I wrote is off base.)
(I should also add that everything I have done is intentionally in the style of a First Reference Note. Since these are in my research log attached to my "facts", this is what I think I need to do. I will construct Subsequent Notes" as appropriate once I get to writing something.)
Tom
Tom,
Tom,
You've raised a valuable point here amid this discussion of the terms we use to identify aspects of our work. Most new researchers begin this craft "on their own." They become comfortable grouping things in certain ways that seem logical to themselves, as well as using certain labels for what they do. On the other hand, if each person in a field uses different terms to describe the same thing, the result always will be communication problems. That is why research fields, a century ago, developed standardized terms to express basic things.
You are also wise to look to the First Reference Note format as your model when citing the specific source of each piece of information you use. There is a problem in the execution of that format in your examples above—and it become an especially serious problem when a reference note cites multiple sources. Have you had time to read 2.38 yet?
Hello,
Hello,
Yes, I read EE 2.38, and I read everything else that you suggested. I see one thing from EE 2.38, but I am not sure whether that is what you are trying to get me to see. I am also having problems with “a problem in the execution of that format in your examples above.” Obviously your teaching is not getting through to me.
So I am going to try again, looking carefully once again at what EE is asking for and stating what sections I am using, as best I can. I will redo everything below, so please ignore the examples I listed in prior comments.
-----------------------
The Situation
I want to follow the Evidence Explained recommended formats for citing my sources, but I am having trouble with a particular source and various types of information it provides.
I have a single instance of a Parish Register with entries that appear to fit into multiple EE situations:
EE 4.11 (subheading) Changes in Institutional or Corporate Identity
EE 7.12 (Church Records) Record Books, Archived Off-site
EE 7.30 (Church Records) Recopied Registers
Others that I don’t see?
Pertinent background information:
1. Pettigrew’s Chapel was formed about 1799
2. It continued to actively exist until 17 April 1858 when it was consecrated as an Episcopal church with the name St. David’s Church
3. Although the church continues to exist, it is no longer an active congregation
4. The Parish Register for Pettigrew’s Chapel / St. David’s Church is held in the archives of Christ Church located in Creswell, North Carolina; this single Parish Register contains the complete records for Pettigrew’s Chapel / St. David’s Church (the Parish Register does not have specific beginning or ending dates)
5. Creswell, North Carolina was incorporated in 1874; prior to that time the area included within the borders of Creswell was known as Scuppernong
6. The title page for the Parish Register states that it contains records for “Parish of St. David’s Church, Scuppernong, Washington County, Diocese of North Carolina”
7. The existing Parish Register contains sections for Baptisms, Confirmations, Communicants, Marriages, and Burials; the overall register does not contain page numbers, neither do the sections
8. Various entries in the existing Parish Register were copied from “the old register” (probably no longer in existence – it cannot be located); dates when the copies were made and the person making the copies are identified within the existing Parish Register
9. Certain information, specifically some birth dates, were added at a later time “on authority of family records”, but when they were added is not stated; the person who added them can be determined from the handwriting
10. In some cases it is obvious that information was added to individual entries at a later time (different ink, different handwriting)
I am trying to determine the correct way to cite information drawn from this Parish Register using EE.
Source List Entry
I believe that the specific case driving the Source List Entry for this Parish Register is that found in EE 7.12 Record Books, Archived Off-site. As I interpret the examples in EE 4.11 Changes in Institutional or Corporate Identity, my source needs to reflect what my source is, and where it can be found – information about the change in name of the church that is reflected in specific data found within it does not need to be reflected in the Source List Entry. Following EE 7.12, I think the Source List Entry for this document is (the fomatting in the original uses a hanging indent but that does not appear in this copy):
St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina). Parish Register. Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
Reference Notes
I have created four specific examples below that reflect the most common scenarios that apply to my research using this Parish Register. Three of the examples reflect dates that occurred during the period when the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, while the fourth example is for a later date. The first three examples are for transcriptions from “the old register”, while the fourth example is an original entry in this register. I created these reference notes (all in the style of First Reference Notes), I was guided by information found in EE 4.11, EE 7.4, EE 7.12, EE 7.15, and EE 7.30, all guided by the definitions and structure found in EE 2.38.
Examples (all of these are indented in my original, but that formatting was lost when I copied them in):
1. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Baptisms: unnumbered, 14 September 1852, Nathan Bateman Fortune (copied from “the old register” on 25 December 1855); Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. In 1852 the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, located in an area then known as Scuppernong, North Carolina.
2. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Burials: unnumbered, 9 February 1856, James M Fortune (copied from unnamed source on unstated date); Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. In 1856 the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, located in an area then known as Scuppernong, North Carolina.
3. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Baptisms: unnumbered, 9 June 1844, William Lawrence Langley (copied from “the old register” on 1 June 1856, birth date added on unstated date “on authority of family records”); Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. In 1844 the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, located in an area then known as Scuppernong, North Carolina.
4. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Marriages: unnumbered, 12 April 1860, Carney Spruill and Cary Ann Swain; Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina.
I would appreciate feedback as to where my Source List Entry and Reference Notes fall short of EE standards, and how I can improve them. One specific question – should the person who made the copies from “the old register” be identified, or is it sufficient to reference when the copy was made since the name of the person who copied it is available in the register?
Tom,
Tom,
Your latest drafts do correct the problems in the original—and you did, indeed, figure out what the problems were.
With regard to your last question ("Should the person who made the copies from 'the old register' be identified ...?"): Yes, if that data is known, it should be included at least in your research notes. As an anology, would we say that we don't need to identify the author of a book--it would suffice to give the title and date/place of publication—because people could get the name of the author when they use the book? Whether a work is published or unpublished, much of the reliability lies in the skill, knowledge, and experience of the creator.
I do sense that you have hoped for more out of this forum, perhaps a specific evaluation and correction of each citation. In this regard, I'll have to refer you to our first FAQ, particularly this part of it:
We try to help users think through the issues involved in situations that are not covered by one of those 1,100+ models. ... However, EE does not have a staff to custom-design source citations. Attempting to create a reliable and effective citation for a source one has not personally seen and carefully studied would be a fool’s adventure. In all three forums, we try to help researchers evaluate what they have at hand. But we cannot craft—or give an EE ‘stamp of approval’ for—a citation to a document we’ve never seen; and we do not have the available personnel to study individual documents for all inquirers.
Kind regards,
Thank you for all your help.
Thank you for all your help.
If I was expressing frustration, it was more focused on myself for not understanding what you were trying to get me to see. Once I went back and essentially started over, using the clues and directions you offered, it came together for me. I was probably looking for something more focused than "your reference notes are flawed", but the end result was that I had to think it through again for myself, which will undoubtedy serve me better in the future.
Tom, that precisely is EE's
Tom, that precisely is EE's mission: to encourage researchers to "think it through." That deep thinking about the source also translates into deeper thinking about the nature and validity of the source, and that translates into solving far bigger issues than just how to cite something.
I have one followup question.
I have one followup question. I debated whether to post it here or in the "When to use a short footnote" topic, but decided to do it here because it refers back to something above.
Repeating one of my First Reference Note examples from above:
1. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Baptisms: unnumbered, 14 September 1852, Nathan Bateman Fortune (copied from “the old register” on 25 December 1855); Christ Church, Creswell, North Carolina. In 1852 the church was known as Pettigrew’s Chapel, located in an area then known as Scuppernong, North Carolina.
I want to refer to this same source again in a Subsequent Note. My understanding of EE is that I only need to cite the information that gets me to the record, not all of the detail. As I look at the examples of Subsequent Notes in EE 7.12 and EE 7.15, it looks simple if I have numbered pages, but I don't. My understanding is that I need to get the reader to the correct page. The only way to I see to do that is to point them to the date within the section. But it does not seem like I need to repeat the person's name. So if my analysis and understanding of the intent and standards are correct, then I think I would cite this same reference as:
Subsequent Note
11. St. David’s Church (Creswell, North Carolina), Parish Register, unpaginated, Baptisms: unnumbered, 14 September 1852.
Is my interpretation correct, or am I missing something again?
Tom,
Tom,
You've analyzed the situation well, but EE would recommend adding the identification of the parties, especially when pages are unnumbered. In many church registers, dates of the acts often are not sequential. Examples: EE 7.18 or QuickCheck Model p. 314.
The time saved by not typing a name is paltry compared to the time required to search an unpaginated book for a date that is not in chronological sequence.
At the risk of using the
At the risk of using the offensive "double negative", I do not disagree. I debated back and forth whether to include the name or not. I guess in the future I should probably opt for more rather than less whenever I am in doubt.
Thanks!