ROOTS-L ArchivesArchiver > ROOTS > 2001-12 > 1009378963
Subject: [ROOTS-L] RE: VITAL RECORDS
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:02:43 EST
Dear John and listers:
It is my opinion that if the "Special Directions" from the master of
Genealogy, Charles Henry Pope, is followed there should be no problems. It is
only when we start changing records to suit our own purpose that records then
become unreliable. It should also be stated that the copy is from the already
published records and not from the original records. Error in the copying is
great. This is a huge task you have taken upon yourself and you are to be
commended for your efforts. All the best to you.
This is an exact copy, spelling and all. Hope it helps.
1. Look for many variations of surnames; allow for phonetic spelling and
carelessness. The diphthong ea was usually pronounced a long; consonants were
often doubled after long vowels; ph and f were interchanged recklessly; and
other alterations were loosely made, such as Hayward, Heywood, Howard and
Hawoorth. The indexing of such matter is therefore difficult; and one must
sometimes look on several pages before discovering a desired name. Not only
did public recorders vary the orthography, but a man sometimes spelled his
own name in two or more ways.
2. Always consult the index, and there exercise the same liberal method.
3. Fail not to guage the meaning of the Abbreviations employed, since many
lines of original record have sometimes been compressed into one, in this
4. The source from which a particular word or statement has been drawn can be
inferred in most cases from its nature; as proprietorship and town office
from town records; church membership, dismission, etc., from those of the
churches; ourchase and sale of lands from county Records of Deeds;
depositions, giving age, etc., from records or files of the Courts or
Colonies; designations of trade, occupation or social position were usually
given in deeds, but sometimes in records of admission to churches; wills and
administrations of estate in Probate Records or those of the County or
colony. when an item was found in an unusual place, the source has been
5. The dates are given as they were recorded. March 25 was New Year's Day
in England and her colonies in the seventeenth century. It is at once a
blunder and a crime to alter such dates to suit a calendar which our
Forefathers did not use. Their "style" was just exactly "old style," not at
all "new". From January 1 to March 25, during which some other nations used
the New Year number, they often wrote a double date; as "3 February, 1621-2";
but February was still "moneth 12," and even 24 March" was in the old year,
although the month, by anticipation of "day 25," was "moneth 1.
6. The Author will be grateful for information of any error discovered in
this volume, and for facts of definite importance respecting the Pioneers
recorded in either American or English documents of that period.