Index to the Cabinet des titres on CD-ROM
John P. DuLong
Thanks to Mr. W. Charles Hollier, yesterday I learned that there is now a
CD-ROM index to the Cabinet des titres of the Bibliothèque nationale de
France. The Cabinet des titres is the collection of manuscripts containing
submitted proofs of nobility and ancestry. It is the essential place to
research any French noble family.
The CD-ROM is available from GeneaGuide.Com. Point your browser to
http://www.geneaguide.com/a-store/boutique.htm, you will then have to expand
the "CD-ROM et autres" category under "Logiciels et CD-ROM" and then select
"Bases de données." Wait a few seconds, and then go down the page until you
see "Répertoire alphabétique des Six séries généalogiques du Cabinet des
Titres de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France."
This CD-ROM index is apparently based on the manuscript "Répertoire
alphabétique" at the BNF, but it has been verified and corrected. It
indexes over 70,000 surnames. Specifically, it covers the follow series:
Pièces originales,
Dossiers bleus,
Carrés de d'Hozier,
Cabinet de d'Hozier,
Nouveau d'Hozier,
Fonds Chérin
It does not cover the seventh series, but the most important genealogical
items in the seventh series are indexed in several publications.
The price is 145 Euros, which would be around $125. (For a CD-ROM this
seems a little too expensive, but the old manuscript index on microfiche is
part of a huge set costs thousands of dollars.)
I have not yet seen this CD-ROM, but I plan to order it as soon as my
finances permit it. In the past I have ordered La Chesnaye-Desbois's
_Dictionnaire de la noblesse_ and Père Anselme's _Histoire généalogique et
chronologique de la maison royale de France, des pairs, grands officiers de
la couronne et de la maison du roy_ from this same web site. My order was
promptly processed and I had no problems installing or using the products.
(Though I must add that the scanned images are not the best. However, the
quality is on par with CD-ROMs I have acquired from Family Tree Maker. I
usually find the page I am interested, zoom in to make sure it has what I
want, and then print it off. I would hope that the quality of this index
will be better.) Has anyone out there already seen this new CD-ROM? If so,
what is your opinion of it?
It will sure be more convenient for me to consult this index at home on
CD-ROM than to hop in the car, drive to the University of Michigan, and view
the old manuscript index on microfiche. Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make it
available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams would
come true.
JP
John P. DuLong, Ph.D.
Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy
959 Oxford Road
Berkley, MI 48072-2011
USA
(248) 541-2894
http://habitant.org
Pierre Aronax
John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message :
a5tcq3$a1jb3$1...@ID-28226.news.dfncis.de...
<...>
> Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
> de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make it
> available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams would
> come true.
But it would be a great damage for the Bibliothèque nationale which would
lose all the benefits of its right of property over this found, without
retaining even the intellectual standing of a scientific edition.
Pierre
John P. DuLong
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
> > de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make it
> > available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams would
> > come true.
>
> But it would be a great damage for the Bibliothèque nationale which would
> lose all the benefits of its right of property over this found, without
> retaining even the intellectual standing of a scientific edition.
I understand this concern. The French want to retain their interest in the
intellectual property rights of this collection. However, this interest has
to be weighed against making the collection more accessible to people. The
Family History Library is the easiest way to make documents accessible to
the world. But I would be equally happy with having the Bibiothèque
nationale setup a system to interlibrary loan the documents on microfilm.
The way the system works now it is painfully slow and expensive. Using the
various indexes I have to put in a request for documents to be microfilmed,
it takes about three to six months for this order to go through. I pay
several hundred dollars, carefully go through the documents on microfilm,
and find that only about 10 percent of them relate to my family of interest.
Going to the Bibliothèque nationale in person is not much better. You are
only allowed I think five documents a day! This is a frustrating situation.
If the whole Cabinet des titres was on microfilm, then I could go through
the dossiers the indexes indicate might be of interest, find what I need,
and then have it photocopied.
Making the Cabinet des titres more accessible to the world would enhance the
Bibliothèque nationale by making more people aware of it and its potential
for genealogical research. In my opinion, these documents should be in the
public domain and made as easily accessible as possible, but perhaps this is
just a North American view.
By the way, I remember meeting a Belgian researcher at the Family History
Library a few years ago. He had been working in Utah for several years, I
believe as a chemist, and had come to love the library. However, his
contract was over and he was to go back to Belgium. I can remember he was
nearly in tears when he told me this. I asked him why? He should be happy
because he will be closer to the sources for his research in Belgium. He
told me that it was far easier to do Belgian genealogical research in Salt
Lake City than back in Belgium because of the regional system of archives
and all the rules blocking easy access. This has been my experience in
doing Irish and French research. It is easier to do in Utah than in Europe.
(Besides, when I am in Europe I would rather travel and visit ancestral
sites, then be locked away in an archives for days on end.) This is why I
would like to see even more European resources available through the Family
History Library. But I would be equally satisfied with any system that
would make documents on microfilm or CD-ROM easily accessible.
I know that my dream of having the Cabinet des titres on microfilm and
easily available is just that, a dream, but please let me have my dream.
Pierre Aronax
>
> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
> > > de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make
it
> > > available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams
would
> > > come true.
> >
> > But it would be a great damage for the Bibliothèque nationale which
would
> > lose all the benefits of its right of property over this found, without
> > retaining even the intellectual standing of a scientific edition.
>
> I understand this concern. The French want to retain their interest in
the
> intellectual property rights of this collection. However, this interest
has
> to be weighed against making the collection more accessible to people.
The collection IS accessible : you confuse accessibility and appropriation.
> The
> Family History Library is the easiest way to make documents accessible to
> the world. But I would be equally happy with having the Bibiothèque
> nationale setup a system to interlibrary loan the documents on microfilm.
>
> The way the system works now it is painfully slow and expensive. Using
the
> various indexes I have to put in a request for documents to be
microfilmed,
> it takes about three to six months for this order to go through. I pay
> several hundred dollars, carefully go through the documents on microfilm,
> and find that only about 10 percent of them relate to my family of
interest.
> Going to the Bibliothèque nationale in person is not much better. You are
> only allowed I think five documents a day! This is a frustrating
situation.
Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
> If the whole Cabinet des titres was on microfilm, then I could go through
> the dossiers the indexes indicate might be of interest, find what I need,
> and then have it photocopied.
>
> Making the Cabinet des titres more accessible to the world would enhance
the
> Bibliothèque nationale by making more people aware of it and its potential
> for genealogical research. In my opinion, these documents should be in
the
> public domain and made as easily accessible as possible, but perhaps this
is
> just a North American view.
I don't see what exactly you mean by "public domain". The data are already
in the public domain : you can publish what you have found in this
documents, nobody will sue you in justice for that. I think what you want in
fact is the dematerialisation of the documents themselves, by their
reproduction on CD-roms, which will be in fact their appropriation by those
who you call "people", but who are in fact only people who have the computer
material and the funds needed to acquire and use the CR-roms. My own opinion
is that material archives are intellectual property of the institutions who
keep and preserved them : the only equitable way to make them public is by
publishing them, and not by a mechanical process of reproduction which, I
repeat, is no more than a cultural pillage, giving the advantages of the
property to anybody who can pay for that without the pains and charges of
the conservation, and so depriving the State and the institution who have
conserved the documents and still take care of them of all the benefits of
their efforts.
> By the way, I remember meeting a Belgian researcher at the Family History
> Library a few years ago. He had been working in Utah for several years, I
> believe as a chemist, and had come to love the library. However, his
> contract was over and he was to go back to Belgium. I can remember he was
> nearly in tears when he told me this. I asked him why? He should be
happy
> because he will be closer to the sources for his research in Belgium. He
> told me that it was far easier to do Belgian genealogical research in Salt
> Lake City than back in Belgium because of the regional system of archives
> and all the rules blocking easy access. This has been my experience in
> doing Irish and French research. It is easier to do in Utah than in
Europe.
Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only steal.
If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default of
financial support, partly because European institutions have far less funds
than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of all
in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library has
not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
despoil.
> (Besides, when I am in Europe I would rather travel and visit ancestral
> sites, then be locked away in an archives for days on end.)
Good for you : that's your problem.
> This is why I
> would like to see even more European resources available through the
Family
> History Library. But I would be equally satisfied with any system that
> would make documents on microfilm or CD-ROM easily accessible.
>
> I know that my dream of having the Cabinet des titres on microfilm and
> easily available is just that, a dream, but please let me have my dream.
Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with this
imperialist spoil system.
Pierre
John P. DuLong
materials they normally make a copy of the microfilm and give it to the
institution owning the original documents. Furthermore, they perform an
important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their well
protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City. They will make
additional copies of the microfilm for institutions who lose their microfilm
copies or original documents. This is an extremely important service. Had
they Mormons done more microfilming in France before World War II perhaps
more documents would have been saved. Also, I should point out that the
Family History Library only microfilms documents with the permission of the
authorities.
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
Of course research can be painful and difficult, that is the challenge of
it, but what I deplore is unnecessary delays and the blocking of access.
<snip>
> I don't see what exactly you mean by "public domain". The data are already
> in the public domain : you can publish what you have found in this
> documents, nobody will sue you in justice for that. I think what you want
in
> fact is the dematerialisation of the documents themselves, by their
> reproduction on CD-roms, which will be in fact their appropriation by
those
> who you call "people", but who are in fact only people who have the
computer
> material and the funds needed to acquire and use the CR-roms. My own
opinion
> is that material archives are intellectual property of the institutions
who
> keep and preserved them : the only equitable way to make them public is by
> publishing them, and not by a mechanical process of reproduction which, I
> repeat, is no more than a cultural pillage, giving the advantages of the
> property to anybody who can pay for that without the pains and charges of
> the conservation, and so depriving the State and the institution who have
> conserved the documents and still take care of them of all the benefits of
> their efforts.
Yes the documents are in the public domain in the sense that I can use them
in my research without paying a copyright fee, but they are not in the
public domain in the sense that they are easily accessible. What we have
here are two interests in competition, the public wants easy access to
materials and archival institutions, whether in Europe or North America,
want to protect their investment in the documents. This is indeed a complex
issue, but I think we can make the documents more accessible, less costly,
and still protect the interests of the archives.
Also, microfilming these documents, or putting them on CD-ROM, makes them
more accessible to a greater number of people, not less accessible. CD-ROMs
in particular are relatively inexpensive. For less than $100 dollars I can
purchase on CD-ROM multivolume publications that would normally cost several
hundred dollars and take up a lot of my shelve space. These technologies do
not benefit a rich elite, but anyone who can afford to purchase them and
many people can. It is far cheaper to purchase a microfilm of documents or
a CD-ROM, then to fly to Europe, pay for a hotel, pays for meals, spend many
days in the archives, etc. This later approach is much more elitist and
will cost several thousands dollars than making materials widely available
using new technologies.
<snip>
> Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
> only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only
steal.
> If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default
of
> financial support, partly because European institutions have far less
funds
> than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of all
> in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library has
> not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> despoil.
Again, I must disagree with you. The Family History Library produces an
enormous amount of genealogical materials and contributes some important
indexing projects. This is not dispoiling or cultural pillaging. The fact
that they are willing to assist European libraries and archives in
conservation by making microfilm copies for them proves that they are not
robbing you. If you do not have the funds to make the microfilms, then why
not let the Mormons help?
> Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with
this
> imperialist spoil system.
This is indeed sad. Of course, the unwillingness to share data is not
limited to Europe. In general, the Catholic Church in the United States
will not allow the Mormons to microfilm parish registers for religious
reasons. In contrast, in Québec, where the parish register is considered a
civil document as well as a religious document, the Mormons have microfilmed
all the parish registers. These microfilms are available in the Family
History Library in Salt Lake City, at Family History Centres across the
globe, and at libraries and archives in Québec. We Franco-Americans are
thrilled by the easy access to them and stymied by the inability to access
our Catholic parish registers here in the United States on microfilm. There
should be more cooperation, not less with the Family History Library.
By the way, I should add that I am not a Mormon. I admire their work and
the fabulous library and system they have given the world. Also, I do not
mean to pick on France. I have noticed this same problem in Ireland. This
summer I did some research there and enjoyed the experience. But I saved
several things to do relating to the records of the Irish Genealogical
Office (the equivalent of the Cabinet des titres) because I knew I would be
visiting the Family History Library in the winter and it would be easier to
work with the records on microfilm. This was indeed the case. In a week of
research at the Family History Library I was able to do what would have
taken months in Ireland.
If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
heavily in France before 1914 or 1940, or in Ireland before 1922, then we
would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
Of course, you can protect your cultural heritage and refuse to cooperate
with the Mormons. But who will lose? ( I bet a lot of Croatian, Serbian,
and Bosnian genealogists wish that the Family History Library had
microfilmed their records before their recent troubles.)
One last point, I believe that the Family History Library will also make
microfilm copies of documents and place restrictions on their access if
requested to do so by the owner. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
But I believe that there are some microfilms that can only be used with
special permission and in Salt Lake City.
Todd A. Farmerie
> Also, microfilming these documents, or putting them on CD-ROM, makes them
> more accessible to a greater number of people, not less accessible. CD-ROMs
> in particular are relatively inexpensive. For less than $100 dollars I can
> purchase on CD-ROM multivolume publications that would normally cost several
> hundred dollars and take up a lot of my shelve space.
As to LDS microfilms, those cost $3.25 to view locally - a lot less
expensive than a trip to Europe.
You also don't risk running into what I did - I was in a major city in
Ireland, and went to view the 'open' parish records. The dialog that
followed was classic:
Archivist: Unless you know that they were from the city itself, you will
have to search 40+ parishes, but I am a professional genealogist, doing
research for people on the side, and for L40, I will do the search for you.
Researcher: I know they were from the city.
A: These were large parishes, so unless you know the precise date of
birth of the person you are interested in, you will have to search
through too many records, but for L40 . . . .
R: I know the precise date in question.
A: Well, the 19th century script of the records will make them
impossible for you to read, but for L40, . . . .
R: I am familiar with various 19th century scripts, so I don't see this
as being a problem.
A: But these records are in Latin, so you won't be able to read them,
but for L40 . . . .
R: I am familiar with Latin, and it's use in 19th century church
records, so this will not be a problem.
A: Well, we really don't have space here for people to do their own
research, but for L40 . . . .
R: (Looking at a large room, with 4 twenty-foot long wooden tables and
several dozen chairs, occupied only by the archivist and his secretary,
the researcher finally 'get's it' and admits defeat.)
(Hint as to location:
He went to a large Irish city
and while his responses were witty,
He was given the rounds
Over forty pounds
And was forced to withdraw, what a pity.)
> If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
> more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
> heavily in France before 1914 or 1940,
And in the latter case, England (particularly Devon and Cornwall).
> or in Ireland before 1922,
Or the US before the 1890 census went up in flames.
> then we would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
> One last point, I believe that the Family History Library will also make
> microfilm copies of documents and place restrictions on their access if
> requested to do so by the owner. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
> But I believe that there are some microfilms that can only be used with
> special permission and in Salt Lake City.
This is the case. I have most often seen it when living people may
appear in the records, when the records are not in the public domain (in
the copyright sense), or when they contain confidencial LDS information.
taf
John P. DuLong
of the Irish have learned the potential value of their records and want to
make money off of them. I suppose I would not mind this if it was openly
stated, rules clearly established, fast, reliable, and efficient service
provided, and a way allowed for exceptions when a researcher has to examine
the records. But I have read very mixed reviews about the heritage center
system in Ireland.
What would be nicer though would be the records all on microfilm and easily
accessible at the heritage centers in Ireland and Family History Centres.
Professional genealogists could still make money because some people will be
unable or unwilling to do the research. The heritage centers could then
concentrate on building indexes and selling them on a pay-per-use basis.
Again, I hold Québec up as the model. We have all of our vital records from
about 1620 to 1799 in a computer database. You can search the PRDH
[Programme de recherche en démographie historique] database, available at
http://www.genealogy.umontreal.ca, for a reasonable fee. Once you find the
record of interest, you can either order an original copy from the
appropriate regional branch of the Archives nationales du Québec or you can
copy it yourself from the parish register on microfilm at Family History
Library or a Family History Centre. Furthermore, we also have all the
notarial records of Québec for about the same period computerized. This has
to be searched at one of the many libraries in Québec with a copy of the
Database on CD-ROM. Even though we have great access to genealogical
records in Québec, I would say that Québec professional genealogists are
doing no better or worse than genealogists in any other country (as we know
it is hard to make a living doing genealogy anywhere!).
I would argue that easier access to records encourages more genealogical
research, leads to more break throughs, results in more publications for
sale, and still supports professional genealogists because there will always
be people who can not or will not do their own work. Now that many of us
North Americans want to trace our ancestry back in Europe, it is only
natural that we would like to see easy access to records on both sides of
the Atlantic Ocean. The growing number of genealogical publications
reprinted on CD-ROM for Medieval genealogists to use is an important step in
the right direction. We need more developments like the publications I see
available at GeneaGuide.Com and elsewhere. And we need easier access to
original records on microfilm.
By the way, the Bibliothèque nationale de France is already in the forefront
of providing electronic images of rare books online. It is only a matter of
time before they will start doing the same for manuscripts. I would even be
willing to pay X number of dollars (or Euros) for Y number of hours of
viewing manuscripts online over the Internet. This would keep the documents
in the control of the archives and yet make them more easily available. The
technology already exists for a system like this. As long as I could save
copies of the images to my system, this would be nicer than using microfilm
at the Family History Library.
Denis Beauregard
arrogant in your post.
Le Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:59:45 +0100, "Pierre Aronax"
<pierre...@hotmail.com> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
>John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message :
>a5tihj$a1t60$1...@ID-28226.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
>> > > de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make
>it
>> > > available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams
>would
>> > > come true.
>> >
>> > But it would be a great damage for the Bibliothèque nationale which
>would
>> > lose all the benefits of its right of property over this found, without
>> > retaining even the intellectual standing of a scientific edition.
>>
>> I understand this concern. The French want to retain their interest in
>the
>> intellectual property rights of this collection. However, this interest
>has
>> to be weighed against making the collection more accessible to people.
>
>The collection IS accessible : you confuse accessibility and appropriation.
I visited about 10 AD centers in France. I created the newsgroup
about research in France and heard a lot of comments about ease to do
search in France. It is anything but fully accessible.
An example: some AD centers have absolutely no sign except when you
are in face of the building, but it is located in a complicated area
of a town. So, you can't find them without luck. In some cases, they
focus on the "preservation" mission but completely skip the "access"
mission. You can see daily 5 or 10 set of registers in many centers.
The rules change in each AD center.
Many AD are closed during vacation, the only time many French
genealogists can do research. Only few AD will exchange their own
microfilms with other AD so you have no choice but when you are in
France, you have to use LDS to read French records. This is bad
for both external genealogists who have a few days to search or for
genealogists living far from the ancestors home. Fortunately, some
AD centers are good, have microfilms, accept microfilm exchange and
even put some data available in the Internet. BNF made a good
decision in publishing some old books in their web site. And they
are finally accepting the idea of a national center.
Even for French people, genealogy is not easy to do in France and the
problem is often a matter of access.
>> The
>> Family History Library is the easiest way to make documents accessible to
>> the world. But I would be equally happy with having the Bibiothèque
>> nationale setup a system to interlibrary loan the documents on microfilm.
>>
>> The way the system works now it is painfully slow and expensive. Using
>the
>> various indexes I have to put in a request for documents to be
>microfilmed,
>> it takes about three to six months for this order to go through. I pay
>> several hundred dollars, carefully go through the documents on microfilm,
>> and find that only about 10 percent of them relate to my family of
>interest.
>> Going to the Bibliothèque nationale in person is not much better. You are
>> only allowed I think five documents a day! This is a frustrating
>situation.
>
>Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
So, why promoting worse conditions ?
Bad faith. To go to BNF you have to prove you already published
some paper. So, at first, potential searchers who would concentrate
on their family and possibly will publish only if they find, they
can't search. Then, one has to go to Paris, then locate the
good library (is it Caran, BNF, SHAT, and then which of center as
some have many centers). And then, you have to register (in each AD,
you have to spend some time to get a visitor card). Then filling
a card to get a microfilm in some centers (but self service is more
and more common).
As for the pillage, this makes no sense. In many cases, once someone
found the data and publish it, nobody else will ever use the original
records as they will all copy the publication. They will have the
data, will put it in some CD-ROM or expensive printed publication for
which French archives will get nothing anyway.
>> By the way, I remember meeting a Belgian researcher at the Family History
>> Library a few years ago. He had been working in Utah for several years, I
>> believe as a chemist, and had come to love the library. However, his
>> contract was over and he was to go back to Belgium. I can remember he was
>> nearly in tears when he told me this. I asked him why? He should be
>happy
>> because he will be closer to the sources for his research in Belgium. He
>> told me that it was far easier to do Belgian genealogical research in Salt
>> Lake City than back in Belgium because of the regional system of archives
>> and all the rules blocking easy access. This has been my experience in
>> doing Irish and French research. It is easier to do in Utah than in
>Europe.
>
>Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
>microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
Can you explain me why, if the preservation is so important, French
archives begun only recently to microfilm their records ? And
why the records of the Cayenne jail were destroyed recently ?
>only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only steal.
>If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default of
>financial support, partly because European institutions have far less funds
I visited many AD centers. Often, it is a recent and expensive
building. But no sign to tell where the center is. So, they
have money, but they don't want to spend it for genealogists.
>than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of all
>in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library has
>not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
>particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
>despoil.
It is a pity French government didn't microfilm their records
sooner.
>> (Besides, when I am in Europe I would rather travel and visit ancestral
>> sites, then be locked away in an archives for days on end.)
>
>Good for you : that's your problem.
You are obviously from France but I don't remember any of
your contribution in the French genealogy newsgroup.
>> This is why I
>> would like to see even more European resources available through the
>Family
>> History Library. But I would be equally satisfied with any system that
>> would make documents on microfilm or CD-ROM easily accessible.
>>
>> I know that my dream of having the Cabinet des titres on microfilm and
>> easily available is just that, a dream, but please let me have my dream.
>
>Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with this
>imperialist spoil system.
Actually, much more Europeans use it.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Web de généalogie: http://www.genealogie.com (français)
|\ Genealogy Web site: http://www.francogene.com (English)
/ | >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
oo oo Ancestors in Quebec ? What about vacations in your homeland!
Pierre Aronax
> Perhaps I should clarify that when the Family History Library microfilms
> materials they normally make a copy of the microfilm and give it to the
> institution owning the original documents.
For what is of the Bibliothèque nationale, there is no particular generosity
of the Family History Library here : evribody, including myself, who wants a
microfilm from the Bibliothèque as also to pay for a second copy made for
the institution.
> Furthermore, they perform an
> important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their well
> protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to justify
the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
ahsamed justification.
> They will make
> additional copies of the microfilm for institutions who lose their
microfilm
> copies or original documents. This is an extremely important service.
Had
> they Mormons done more microfilming in France before World War II perhaps
> more documents would have been saved.
Perhaps, but that from a bad thing can come a good thing doesn't prevent to
consider it a bad thing. My position was moral and not practical.
> Also, I should point out that the
> Family History Library only microfilms documents with the permission of
the
> authorities.
It is a minimum I think !
> <snip>
> > Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
>
> Of course research can be painful and difficult, that is the challenge of
> it, but what I deplore is unnecessary delays and the blocking of access.
In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale, I don't see what you are speaking
about : you want to do the research without the pain of the travel, that's
all.
Again, it depends what you mean by "easily accessible". For you, "easily
accessible" is always "easily accessible for an American citizen". Of
course, for a Londonian, it is easier to see the Pantheon marbles in the
British Museum rather than to have to go tho Athens.
> What we have
> here are two interests in competition, the public
Which public ? If myself I am part of the public, I want easy access to the
material, but not at any price.
> wants easy access to
> materials and archival institutions, whether in Europe or North America,
> want to protect their investment in the documents. This is indeed a
complex
> issue, but I think we can make the documents more accessible, less costly,
> and still protect the interests of the archives.
Again, more accessible for who ? Anyway, CD-ROM are a rather different thing
than microfilm. I don't object if the CD-ROM is made by the institution
which possess the documents. Nevertheless, I think and edition is always
preferable : this is the real research work.
> Also, microfilming these documents, or putting them on CD-ROM, makes them
> more accessible to a greater number of people, not less accessible.
CD-ROMs
> in particular are relatively inexpensive. For less than $100 dollars I
can
> purchase on CD-ROM multivolume publications that would normally cost
several
> hundred dollars and take up a lot of my shelve space.
It seems you don't like books : I do.
> These technologies do
> not benefit a rich elite, but anyone who can afford to purchase them and
> many people can.
I don't think many people in Europe can do what I have seen done by American
students : to microfilm all an archivistical fund without even visiting the
Archive.
> It is far cheaper to purchase a microfilm of documents or
> a CD-ROM, then to fly to Europe,
Except if you live in Europe of course, but this eventuality didn't cross
your mind.
> pay for a hotel, pays for meals, spend many
> days in the archives, etc. This later approach is much more elitist and
> will cost several thousands dollars than making materials widely available
> using new technologies.
It depends what is the research : if you want only to see one document, of
course it is far less expensive to make the reproduction, and that's for
that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if you
have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you live in
Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive than
to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
students.
> <snip>
> > Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> > microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library
is
> > only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only
> steal.
> > If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default
> of
> > financial support, partly because European institutions have far less
> funds
> > than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of
all
> > in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library
has
> > not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> > despoil.
>
> Again, I must disagree with you. The Family History Library produces an
> enormous amount of genealogical materials and contributes some important
> indexing projects.
For what I have seen on the internet, it is rather catastrophic, at least
for what is of the Medieval part.
> This is not dispoiling or cultural pillaging. The fact
> that they are willing to assist European libraries and archives in
> conservation by making microfilm copies for them proves that they are not
> robbing you. If you do not have the funds to make the microfilms, then why
> not let the Mormons help?
Because they do that for themselves and not for everibody. I'm delighted to
meet American scholars who work on France, know it very well, made very
valuable research and editions and have sometime a very original point of
view on its history. But they can do that because they made real researches,
came to the Archive, spend some time here. I maintain that somebody who
reproduced an Archive for his own use (or primarily for his own use),
because he refuses to take the pain to consider it in its context and wants
only to appropriate the documents, is a pillar and not a scholar.
> > Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with
> this
> > imperialist spoil system.
>
<off topic deleted>
>
> By the way, I should add that I am not a Mormon. I admire their work and
> the fabulous library and system they have given the world. Also, I do not
> mean to pick on France. I have noticed this same problem in Ireland.
Which problem exactly ?
> This
> summer I did some research there and enjoyed the experience. But I saved
> several things to do relating to the records of the Irish Genealogical
> Office (the equivalent of the Cabinet des titres) because I knew I would
be
> visiting the Family History Library in the winter and it would be easier
to
> work with the records on microfilm. This was indeed the case. In a week
of
> research at the Family History Library I was able to do what would have
> taken months in Ireland.
Good for you. That is not my point.
> If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
> more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
> heavily in France before 1914 or 1940, or in Ireland before 1922, then we
> would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
Again, that's not my point : it is an evidence which as nothing to do with
the cultural spoiling.
> Of course, you can protect your cultural heritage and refuse to cooperate
> with the Mormons. But who will lose?
All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
> ( I bet a lot of Croatian, Serbian,
> and Bosnian genealogists wish that the Family History Library had
> microfilmed their records before their recent troubles.)
>
> One last point, I believe that the Family History Library will also make
> microfilm copies of documents and place restrictions on their access if
> requested to do so by the owner. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
> But I believe that there are some microfilms that can only be used with
> special permission and in Salt Lake City.
This seems rather good. That's the same I think in France at the Institut de
Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes at Orléans : there is an huge collection
of microfilms of manuscripts, but they can only be consulted in place and
not reproduced without the consent of the institution which owns them.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Denis Beauregard <bou...@genealogie.com.invalid> a écrit dans le message :
2at58ucca03jmdi2o...@4ax.com...
Since we were speaking of the Cabinet des Titres, which is preserved in the
Bibliothèque nationale, your remarks about the supposed inaccessibility of
the Archives Departementales centers are irrelevant.
> I created the newsgroup
> about research in France and heard a lot of comments about ease to do
> search in France. It is anything but fully accessible.
>
> An example: some AD centers have absolutely no sign except when you
> are in face of the building, but it is located in a complicated area
> of a town. So, you can't find them without luck. In some cases, they
> focus on the "preservation" mission but completely skip the "access"
> mission. You can see daily 5 or 10 set of registers in many centers.
> The rules change in each AD center.
>
> Many AD are closed during vacation, the only time many French
> genealogists can do research. Only few AD will exchange their own
> microfilms with other AD so you have no choice but when you are in
> France, you have to use LDS to read French records. This is bad
> for both external genealogists who have a few days to search or for
> genealogists living far from the ancestors home. Fortunately, some
> AD centers are good, have microfilms, accept microfilm exchange and
> even put some data available in the Internet. BNF made a good
> decision in publishing some old books in their web site. And they
> are finally accepting the idea of a national center.
>
> Even for French people, genealogy is not easy to do in France and the
> problem is often a matter of access.
>
I think you prefer to do work in a chair : that's understandable, but it
also implies a moral price.
<...>
> >
> >Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
>
> So, why promoting worse conditions ?
I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which will be
reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a desappropriation
of national patrimony. You can disagree, of course. I am of course for the
diffusion of data, but not under the form of a mechanical reproduction. One
more intelligent thing would be to finance a collection for the publication
of the Cabinet des Titres, but a real publication, a scientific edition.
That's absolutely wrong of course : you have only to proove you have a good
reason to go, to make some real research. I went, and I didn't have
published anything.
> So, at first, potential searchers who would concentrate
> on their family and possibly will publish only if they find, they
> can't search.
Again, this is totaly wrong : the access to the BNF is absolutely not
researved for those who have already published !
> Then, one has to go to Paris, then locate the
> good library (is it Caran, BNF, SHAT, and then which of center as
> some have many centers). And then, you have to register (in each AD,
> you have to spend some time to get a visitor card). Then filling
> a card to get a microfilm in some centers (but self service is more
> and more common).
Yes, that's called doing research. Of course, it is easier to stay in your
chair somewhere in Midle West and paying to have the information coming
directly at home. If you have the money to pay...
> As for the pillage, this makes no sense. In many cases, once someone
> found the data and publish it, nobody else will ever use the original
> records as they will all copy the publication.
I'm absolutely not against PUBLICATION, on the contrary I think this is the
real research work. I am against the reproduction of originals which is, I
maintain, an illegitimate appropriation of the original. I understand
reproduction when it is a part or a result of a larger research, for
punctual documents already identified, I strongly reject it when it is the
reproduction of all an archivistic fund, to do the reaserch in an other time
in an other place, without consideration for the real document and the place
where it is really conserved.
> They will have the
> data, will put it in some CD-ROM or expensive printed publication for
> which French archives will get nothing anyway.
You are supposed to give an exemplar of all publication to the institution
where the documents are kept.
<...>
> >Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> >microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
>
> Can you explain me why, if the preservation is so important, French
> archives begun only recently to microfilm their records ?
Yes of course : they don't have the money and they were too understaffed to
do that earlier.
> And
> why the records of the Cayenne jail were destroyed recently ?
I have no information on this particular case, and I don't see your point
anyway : did you mean that when a fund is destroyed without being
microfilmed it is lost ? I agree on that, and that's a pity, but that's not
a reason to accept pillage.
> >only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only
steal.
> >If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default
of
> >financial support, partly because European institutions have far less
funds
>
> I visited many AD centers. Often, it is a recent and expensive
> building. But no sign to tell where the center is.
This is rather subjective : I have an other point of view. I have never
encountered particular difficulties to find archivistical centers, they were
always in the phone directory, and the staff was always very kind.
> So, they
> have money, but they don't want to spend it for genealogists.
When a new modern building is made for the conservation of the archives, it
is made ALSO for the benefit of genealogists. I think genealogists are
sometime very egocentric, very critical and think genealogy is the only
purpose of the conservation of documents. So I correct you : "they don't
want to spend their money ONLY for genealogists". I agree with them.
> >than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of
all
> >in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library
has
> >not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> >particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> >despoil.
>
> It is a pity French government didn't microfilm their records
> sooner.
I agree : but it must have done that for itself.
>
> >> (Besides, when I am in Europe I would rather travel and visit ancestral
> >> sites, then be locked away in an archives for days on end.)
> >
> >Good for you : that's your problem.
>
> You are obviously from France but I don't remember any of
> your contribution in the French genealogy newsgroup.
I'm not particularly interested by French genealogy in itself, except
medieval, but, as I said earlier, there are other reasons to go to the
Archives than to do is own genealogy. Anyway, if your argument was of
authority (something like "you don't have the right to speak because you are
not a genealogist), I pretend to have a point of view on this questions as a
citizen and not as a genealogist.
> >> This is why I
> >> would like to see even more European resources available through the
> >Family
> >> History Library. But I would be equally satisfied with any system that
> >> would make documents on microfilm or CD-ROM easily accessible.
> >>
> >> I know that my dream of having the Cabinet des titres on microfilm and
> >> easily available is just that, a dream, but please let me have my
dream.
> >
> >Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with
this
> >imperialist spoil system.
>
> Actually, much more Europeans use it.
You have statistical information I don't have : you are the only one
European I know which is delighted to know that European scholars are
deprived of the exploitation of their own archives by people who have only
the advantage of being more rich. One of my friend work on 20th century
American history : I don't think he would have ever envisage to do is
research from France, only ordering a microfilm of all the archivistical
fund he wanted to examine, and without learning a single word of English.
Pierre
Doug McDonald
Pierre Aronax wrote:
>
>
> > Furthermore, they perform an
> > important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their well
> > protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
>
> I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to justify
> the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> ahsamed justification.
>
An utterly stupid and wrong argument: everyone is asking only for
COPIES.
We're noting that whaty is to be protected in, say, Salt Lake City, is
COPIES. The information content, that is.
>
> Perhaps, but that from a bad thing can come a good thing doesn't prevent to
> consider it a bad thing. My position was moral and not practical.
Your position is simply the arrogance of a one-time somewhat
important country that is now totally irrelevant.
Doug MCDonald
Denis Beauregard
<pierre...@hotmail.com> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
>> Actually, much more Europeans use it.
>
>You have statistical information I don't have : you are the only one
There are newsgroups used by French people. They post in French
and talk about what they have to do to do research.
>European I know which is delighted to know that European scholars are
I am not a European and John Dulong has many common ancestors
with me. Like the few posters from Quebec in this medieval
newsgroup.
>deprived of the exploitation of their own archives by people who have only
>the advantage of being more rich. One of my friend work on 20th century
We call this "anti-americanisme primaire". This is why I won't
comment any more in this thread: it is useless.
>American history : I don't think he would have ever envisage to do is
>research from France, only ordering a microfilm of all the archivistical
>fund he wanted to examine, and without learning a single word of English.
you're comparing apples with oranges.
Todd A. Farmerie
> John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message :
> a5tvh3$a1o7d$1...@ID-28226.news.dfncis.de...
>
>>Furthermore, they perform an
>>important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their well
>>protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
>>
>
> I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to justify
> the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> ahsamed justification.
This is just silly. No one is taking the manuscripts, just
photographing them. By your argument it is also cultural
pillaging to take a photograph of Notre Dame or Mont St. Michel.
Time to confiscate all cameras at the border?
> In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale, I don't see what you are speaking
> about : you want to do the research without the pain of the travel, that's
> all.
And what is bloody wrong with that? You might be singing a
different tune if you were researching Gutenburg Bibles. Then
you would have to travel over here, and you still wouldn't get to
look at it. That is why the Library of Congress is letting
theirs be scanned, to be made accessible to everyone, worldwide.
The value of a collection is not something intrinsic, best
preserved by rationing access, but rather its value is in the
benefit that can come from its use by scholars.
> Again, it depends what you mean by "easily accessible". For you, "easily
> accessible" is always "easily accessible for an American citizen". Of
> course, for a Londonian, it is easier to see the Pantheon marbles in the
> British Museum rather than to have to go tho Athens.
Missing the point again. It is easier for everyone to see the
church records of the City of Portsmouth, even for people in the
Portsmouth City Record Office, now that they have been filmed by
the LDS. I don't know about French records, but I have been to
the British Library (where I proved unable to "justify" my need
to use the facility and was sent packing), and the PRO, and most
of those records aren't "easily accessible" on-site. The same
can be said for most of the records in the U.S. National
Archives. No one is asking to walk out of those institutions
with the documents (the microfilming of the records will even
reduce the risk of people walking out with them).
>>What we have
>>here are two interests in competition, the public
>
> Which public ? If myself I am part of the public, I want easy access to the
> material, but not at any price.
That terrible price apparently being that others (and
specifically Americans) also have easy access?
> I don't think many people in Europe can do what I have seen done by American
> students : to microfilm all an archivistical fund without even visiting the
> Archive.
Tragic isn't it - accomplishing their research without the
expense of travelling half-way around the world. Just imagine
how deplorably egalitarian scholarship would be if this could be
done for other archives, and if those films were made accessible
to anyone by the LDS, not just to a few rich Americans. We can't
have that - scholarship must be protected from the great
unwashed, and limited to the elite.
>>It is far cheaper to purchase a microfilm of documents or
>>a CD-ROM, then to fly to Europe,
>
> Except if you live in Europe of course, but this eventuality didn't cross
> your mind.
It is cheaper for a European to get a film from Salt Lake City
than to cross the English Channel, or even travel from one part
of France to another. You don't even know the system you are
arguing against.
> It depends what is the research : if you want only to see one document, of
> course it is far less expensive to make the reproduction, and that's for
> that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if you
> have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you live in
> Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive than
> to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
> thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
> students.
And perhaps the cost-benefit equation explains why they do it -
it is still cheaper than the trip. Why does this offend you so?
Because they can? Better that they, too, have to spend even
more money to access the records.
You have argued elsewhere in favor of publishing authoratative
editions. That's great, in a perfect world, but, for example,
the English PRO has been working for the better part of a century
on such editions of inquisitiones post mortem, and they still
aren't even half-way through, and that is just the tip of the
iceberg. Having those records filmed in a systematic way would
in no way reduce the value of the authoratative editions, because
most people don't read the latin and script well enough anyhow.
All it does is prevent individual scholars from looking at them
without massive expense. Then take, say, the Royal Navy
Lieutennant's exam certificates. There simply is neither enough
time nor enough interest to justify a formal edition of these
records - why not film them? This is not a Europe vs. America
thing either. I would argue the same for the U.S. Civil War
Pensions. This is not because I am too lazy to go to D.C. It is
because when I go there, half of the files are misfiled, or the
wrong ones are called up (not an exageration - I left without
seeing literally half of the records I requested). Filming them
is not going to interfere with any published edition, because
there are not enough trees on the planet, nor time left before
the end of time to compile and print such a series. What is
possibly served by limiting access to these records? Oh, I
forgot, protecting the 'national partimony', whatever that is.
>>Again, I must disagree with you. The Family History Library produces an
>>enormous amount of genealogical materials and contributes some important
>>indexing projects.
> For what I have seen on the internet, it is rather catastrophic, at least
> for what is of the Medieval part.
Again you are confused. The IGI and Ancestral File have nothing
to do with the microfilming of archival records, nor the indexing
projects such as the 1880 US census and the 1881 British census -
which has made these records more accessible to the natives of
the respective countries as well as anyone else in the world who
is interested.
>>This is not dispoiling or cultural pillaging. The fact
>>that they are willing to assist European libraries and archives in
>>conservation by making microfilm copies for them proves that they are not
>>robbing you. If you do not have the funds to make the microfilms, then why
>>not let the Mormons help?
>
> Because they do that for themselves and not for everibody.
They do it for everybody. As I said, when I was in the
Portsmouth City Records Office, I used LDS Films. You can have
one sent to France to look at.
>>By the way, I should add that I am not a Mormon. I admire their work and
>>the fabulous library and system they have given the world. Also, I do not
>>mean to pick on France. I have noticed this same problem in Ireland.
>
> Which problem exactly ?
In my case, not being able to access the records, even when I go
there.
>>If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
>>more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
>>heavily in France before 1914 or 1940, or in Ireland before 1922, then we
>>would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
>
> Again, that's not my point : it is an evidence which as nothing to do with
> the cultural spoiling.
I still don't get how it is cultural spoiling because more people
are able to be exposed to the culture. Scholarship only enriches
a culture, it does not take away from it. All I see here is
cultural nationalism - can't let all those foreigners do any
research without coming and cowtowing to each and every tinpot
dictator and petty kinglet that controls a collection.
After all (from your other post):
> I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which will be
> reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a desappropriation
> of national patrimony.
Can't let those "filthy Americans" have access, can we? (You
might want to check an encyclopedia, by the way. The standard of
living has improved somewhat since France was sent packing. We
now have soap, running water, washcloths, and such.)
And what's with this "national patrimony" crap? For example,
just because you live in France, and the town of Cocheren is in
France, does not make the records of that town any more your
patrimony than they are mine - unless we are related, probably
the opposite is true.
>>Of course, you can protect your cultural heritage and refuse to cooperate
>>with the Mormons. But who will lose?
>
> All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
Compete for what? They can also order the films from Salt Lake
for nothing more than the additional postage, which is still
cheaper than them taking a trip to the archives in many cases.
Again from the other post:
> Yes, that's called doing research. Of course, it is easier to stay in your
> chair somewhere in Midle West and paying to have the information coming
> directly at home. If you have the money to pay...
Research is research, whether you are looking at the original or
a copy. Yes, true, if you can't spring for $3.25, you can't
order the microfilm. It is much better to make people shell out
$1000 to go see the original - much more egalitarian. (And
considering how rich you think all Americans are, I had better
check in the matress, in all of my pants pockets, and under the
furnature, because somewhere I must have a whole load of money I
don't know about.)
taf
Kay Allen AG
The Bibliotheque is only accesible if they want it to be accessible to you. I
was in France on a business trip with my husband. A friend had asked me to have
something researched at the Bibliotheque from the Cabinets d' Hozier. I applied
for a reader's ticket. They deliberately lied about the material being at
another facility. I kept telling them it was there. They kept denying it. So I
played their lousy little game and when to that facility and was assured that I
was correct and that it was back at the Bibliotheque. So I went back complete
with all my credentials and was told that I needed to go to the American
Embassy for more
paperwork, after which I duly traipsed . When I returned, I was told that I
had been sent on a wild goose chase, that material for which I had been sent to
the Embassy was totally unnecessary. By then my time had evaporated, so my
friend and I were out of luck. And that is my French poodle witch story. And,
yes, you may indulge yourself in a bit of consonental transmutation about
witch.
As to the Family History Library, you are way off base. In short, your
chauvinism is showing, or is it religious bigotry? It is not parasitism, but
symbiosis. The FHC films records of various jurisdictions, some of which have
not been preserved very well. A copy is given to the institution in question
and a master is kept in the Granite Vault. Some of the institutions then use
this film for their on-site clientele, which then allows the original to be
retired. If the Family History Library had been able to film the probates in
Devonshire prior to WW II, those probates would have survived, to be used by
people today.
If the people in Europe don't like it, tough. their archivists have made the
decisions. Fortunately, many European Archivists are not as short-sighted. They
can see the value in it. And no one holds a gun to the archivist's head to get
him/her to agree to the filming. Also the circulation may be limited to viewing
at the Salt lake Library only, with no circulation to branch facilities. So it
is sharing, not "imperial spoils".
Perhaps your Algerian terrorists will see fit to blow up the Biblitheque and
then no one will have access to its treasures. God forfend.
You have been frank in your feelings. I hope that you are not too horribly
offended in my exposition of my feelings.
Kay Allen AG
Pierre Aronax wrote:
> John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message :
> a5tihj$a1t60$1...@ID-28226.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Now if the Bibliothèque nationale
> > > > de France would only microfilm the entire Cabinet des titres and make
> it
> > > > available to the Family History Library all my genealogical dreams
> would
> > > > come true.
> > >
> > > But it would be a great damage for the Bibliothèque nationale which
> would
> > > lose all the benefits of its right of property over this found, without
> > > retaining even the intellectual standing of a scientific edition.
> >
> > I understand this concern. The French want to retain their interest in
> the
> > intellectual property rights of this collection. However, this interest
> has
> > to be weighed against making the collection more accessible to people.
>
> The collection IS accessible : you confuse accessibility and appropriation.
>
> > The
> > Family History Library is the easiest way to make documents accessible to
> > the world. But I would be equally happy with having the Bibiothèque
> > nationale setup a system to interlibrary loan the documents on microfilm.
> >
> > The way the system works now it is painfully slow and expensive. Using
> the
> > various indexes I have to put in a request for documents to be
> microfilmed,
> > it takes about three to six months for this order to go through. I pay
> > several hundred dollars, carefully go through the documents on microfilm,
> > and find that only about 10 percent of them relate to my family of
> interest.
> > Going to the Bibliothèque nationale in person is not much better. You are
> > only allowed I think five documents a day! This is a frustrating
> situation.
>
> Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
>
> > If the whole Cabinet des titres was on microfilm, then I could go through
> > the dossiers the indexes indicate might be of interest, find what I need,
> > and then have it photocopied.
> >
> > Making the Cabinet des titres more accessible to the world would enhance
> the
> > Bibliothèque nationale by making more people aware of it and its potential
> > for genealogical research. In my opinion, these documents should be in
> the
> > public domain and made as easily accessible as possible, but perhaps this
> is
> > just a North American view.
>
> I don't see what exactly you mean by "public domain". The data are already
> in the public domain : you can publish what you have found in this
> documents, nobody will sue you in justice for that. I think what you want in
> fact is the dematerialisation of the documents themselves, by their
> reproduction on CD-roms, which will be in fact their appropriation by those
> who you call "people", but who are in fact only people who have the computer
> material and the funds needed to acquire and use the CR-roms. My own opinion
> is that material archives are intellectual property of the institutions who
> keep and preserved them : the only equitable way to make them public is by
> publishing them, and not by a mechanical process of reproduction which, I
> repeat, is no more than a cultural pillage, giving the advantages of the
> property to anybody who can pay for that without the pains and charges of
> the conservation, and so depriving the State and the institution who have
> conserved the documents and still take care of them of all the benefits of
> their efforts.
>
> > By the way, I remember meeting a Belgian researcher at the Family History
> > Library a few years ago. He had been working in Utah for several years, I
> > believe as a chemist, and had come to love the library. However, his
> > contract was over and he was to go back to Belgium. I can remember he was
> > nearly in tears when he told me this. I asked him why? He should be
> happy
> > because he will be closer to the sources for his research in Belgium. He
> > told me that it was far easier to do Belgian genealogical research in Salt
> > Lake City than back in Belgium because of the regional system of archives
> > and all the rules blocking easy access. This has been my experience in
> > doing Irish and French research. It is easier to do in Utah than in
> Europe.
>
> Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
> only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only steal.
> If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default of
> financial support, partly because European institutions have far less funds
> than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of all
> in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library has
> not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> despoil.
>
> > (Besides, when I am in Europe I would rather travel and visit ancestral
> > sites, then be locked away in an archives for days on end.)
>
> Good for you : that's your problem.
>
> > This is why I
> > would like to see even more European resources available through the
> Family
> > History Library. But I would be equally satisfied with any system that
> > would make documents on microfilm or CD-ROM easily accessible.
> >
> > I know that my dream of having the Cabinet des titres on microfilm and
> > easily available is just that, a dream, but please let me have my dream.
>
> Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with this
> imperialist spoil system.
>
> Pierre
Kay Allen AG
"Todd A. Farmerie" wrote:
> John P. DuLong wrote:
>
> > Also, microfilming these documents, or putting them on CD-ROM, makes them
> > more accessible to a greater number of people, not less accessible. CD-ROMs
> > in particular are relatively inexpensive. For less than $100 dollars I can
> > purchase on CD-ROM multivolume publications that would normally cost several
> > hundred dollars and take up a lot of my shelve space.
>
> As to LDS microfilms, those cost $3.25 to view locally - a lot less
> expensive than a trip to Europe.
Our FHC charges $3.55 for an initial order. It varies fron Center to Center.
Fortunately, for me I flash my Accreditaion ID at them and they generally shut up
and leave me alone. But I am still fighting with PRONI to get them to give me a
readable copy of certain documents for which I have already paid.
Kay Allen AG
>
>
> > If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
> > more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
> > heavily in France before 1914 or 1940,
>
> And in the latter case, England (particularly Devon and Cornwall).
>
> > or in Ireland before 1922,
>
> Or the US before the 1890 census went up in flames.
>
> > then we would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
>
> > One last point, I believe that the Family History Library will also make
> > microfilm copies of documents and place restrictions on their access if
> > requested to do so by the owner. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
> > But I believe that there are some microfilms that can only be used with
> > special permission and in Salt Lake City.
>
Kay Allen AG
of how the Family History Library system works.
Pierre Aronax wrote:
>
>
> > Furthermore, they perform an
> > important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their well
> > protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
>
> I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to justify
> the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> ahsamed justification.
That is unadulterated chauvinism and to compare the filming system to the rape
of the Elgin marbles is apples to oranges. These films are accessible, not only
to Americans but to citizens of the world who have access to a branch of the
Family History Center system, and they don't have to be Latter-Day Saints.
>
>
> > They will make
> > additional copies of the microfilm for institutions who lose their
> microfilm
> > copies or original documents. This is an extremely important service.
> Had
> > they Mormons done more microfilming in France before World War II perhaps
> > more documents would have been saved.
>
> Perhaps, but that from a bad thing can come a good thing doesn't prevent to
> consider it a bad thing. My position was moral and not practical.
Your morality is a bit strange. You object to the filming of national
treasures, but you will avail yourself of the Internet to access information,
perhaps you should only subject yourself to the rigors of on-site research in
order to maintain your intellectual honesty and integrity.
>
>
>
Snip
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating thing.
> >
> > Of course research can be painful and difficult, that is the challenge of
> > it, but what I deplore is unnecessary delays and the blocking of access.
>
> In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale, I don't see what you are speaking
> about : you want to do the research without the pain of the travel, that's
> all.
How about when I was there and allowed myself to be subjected to the
humiliation and abuse they heaped on me because I am an American. I assure you
that you wouldn't be subjected to this in an American facily, especially not in
Salt Lake City. They would bend over backwards to be of assistance. Or perhaps
you see this as your due. Which as a human being, one should expect common
courtesy as one's due.
>
>
> > <snip>
These films are made with the permission of the archives in question. Contracts
are drawn up and signed. You claim these archives are preserving them. That
they still exist is unquestioned. But some are not being care fo at all well.
And even when they are being cared for in state-of-the-art surroundings, there
is no guarantee against destruction by other means.
>
> >
> > Yes the documents are in the public domain in the sense that I can use
> them
> > in my research without paying a copyright fee, but they are not in the
> > public domain in the sense that they are easily accessible.
>
> Again, it depends what you mean by "easily accessible". For you, "easily
> accessible" is always "easily accessible for an American citizen". Of
> course, for a Londonian, it is easier to see the Pantheon marbles in the
> British Museum rather than to have to go tho Athens.
Again you anti-American sentiments are clouding your intellect. These films can
be ordered by anyone with access to a Family History Center. And they are
located world-wide. One should be easily accessed by a drive of a few hours or
less. As you say research can be rigorous. :-)
Also the Family History Library is not a bunch of American students. They are a
recognized archival institution who undertake this work under contract with the
archive in question.
Do you have heartburn with students or just American ones? How American
students or any students could purloin an entire archive by microfilming it is
beyond me. Microfilming is time -consuming and equipment intensive. I would
think that any archive which is properly protecting its treasures would soon
spot any unauthorized copying and shut it down before all its treasures were
stolen; to say nothing of putting these students in durance vile.
>
> Snip.
>
> Except if you live in Europe of course, but this eventuality didn't cross
> your mind.
I think he did. He mentioned the Belgian gentleman as a case in question. Do
you really feel that only Eurpeans should have ready access to European
materials? Even when it has been demonstrated that even Europeans don't have
ready access to archives in their own countries. I think that it speaks ill of
European archives when Europeans have to come to the US to do their European
research. And it also costs them time and money. But I can assure you that they
are better treated than they are in their home archives.
>
>
> > pay for a hotel, pays for meals, spend many
> > days in the archives, etc. This later approach is much more elitist and
> > will cost several thousands dollars than making materials widely available
> > using new technologies.
>
> It depends what is the research : if you want only to see one document, of
> course it is far less expensive to make the reproduction, and that's for
> that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if you
> have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you live in
> Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive than
> to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
> thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
> students.
Humbug. Intellectual dishonesty again rears its ugly head.
>
>
> > <snip>
> > > Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> > > microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library
> is
> > > only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it only
> > steal.
> > > If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by default
> > of
> > > financial support, partly because European institutions have far less
> > funds
> > > than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of
> all
> > > in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library
> has
> > > not to deal with.
This is again idiotic, ignorant humbug. You don't have a clue as to what the
LDS Church has invested for the preservation of these materials. They have even
held several world-wide conferences on the preservation of records which were
attended by internationally-known and internationally-based
archivists.archivists. As an archives, the Library in Salt lake has an
Internationally-favorable reputation. Even now, they are dumping much cash and
equipment into archives of the former Soviet Union to ensure the continued
existence of these archives and their treasures
> In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > > particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> > > despoil.
Unabashed French chauvinism. Also extremely ignorant and intellectually
dishonest, to say nothing. of short-sighted. My husband works for a
French-based company, Schlumberger, so I have spent much time in France. I am
glad that not all the French are superannuated tadpoles such as yourself. And I
am sure that you will attempt to return the favor concerning my American
nationality. Don't bother. I have heard it before, and probably much more
wittily.
>
> >
> > Again, I must disagree with you. The Family History Library produces an
> > enormous amount of genealogical materials and contributes some important
> > indexing projects.
>
> For what I have seen on the internet, it is rather catastrophic, at least
> for what is of the Medieval part.
On this we can agree :-)
>
>
> > This is not dispoiling or cultural pillaging. The fact
> > that they are willing to assist European libraries and archives in
> > conservation by making microfilm copies for them proves that they are not
> > robbing you. If you do not have the funds to make the microfilms, then why
> > not let the Mormons help?
>
> Because they do that for themselves and not for everibody.
Again a lie. Everybody, Latterday Saint or not.is welcome. You should have see
the preparation the Library made for the Olympic visitors. While I was there, I
had European journalists interupting my research to do interviews and
participate in photographs. Europeans were also welcome to do research and they
had people who were fluent in every European language to assist them. And this
just wasn't for the Olympics. It is a day-in and day-out situation. That
everyone is welcome also applies to the world-wide system.
> I'm delighted to
> meet American scholars who work on France, know it very well, made very
> valuable research and editions and have sometime a very original point of
> view on its history. But they can do that because they made real researches,
> came to the Archive, spend some time here. I maintain that somebody who
> reproduced an Archive for his own use (or primarily for his own use),
> because he refuses to take the pain to consider it in its context and wants
> only to appropriate the documents, is a pillar and not a scholar.
Again bigotted bullroar. If you are so concerned about original research, why
don't you remove yourself from the Internet. You are undoubtedly contaminating
yourself by associating with us.
I have done original research both in archives and by using microfilms of
original materials. Does that make my research any less valid? I think not. And
I have made original discoveries using these materials. Sir, perchance are you
a member of the French Academy? If so, it would explain you chauvinistic,
insular attitude.
>
>
> > > Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with
> > this
> > > imperialist spoil system.
> >
>
> <off topic deleted>
>
> >
> > By the way, I should add that I am not a Mormon. I admire their work and
> > the fabulous library and system they have given the world. Also, I do not
> > mean to pick on France. I have noticed this same problem in Ireland.
Yes, indeed. Both in the North and the Republic. Research is much nicer in
Britain proper.
>
>
> Which problem exactly ?
>
> > This
> > summer I did some research there and enjoyed the experience. But I saved
> > several things to do relating to the records of the Irish Genealogical
> > Office (the equivalent of the Cabinet des titres) because I knew I would
> be
> > visiting the Family History Library in the winter and it would be easier
> to
> > work with the records on microfilm. This was indeed the case. In a week
> of
> > research at the Family History Library I was able to do what would have
> > taken months in Ireland.
>
> Good for you. That is not my point.
>
> > If more countries and institutions would cooperate with the Mormons, then
> > more records would be preserved. If the Mormons had microfilmed more
> > heavily in France before 1914 or 1940, or in Ireland before 1922, then we
> > would still have some valuable documents that are now sadly destroyed.
>
> Again, that's not my point : it is an evidence which as nothing to do with
> the cultural spoiling.
>
> > Of course, you can protect your cultural heritage and refuse to cooperate
> > with the Mormons. But who will lose?
>
> All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
Bull roar. Most of the people who use these facilities are normal people with a
desire to trace their ancestry.
Or are you also an academic elitist that would deny common people from access
to these materials? Should only Academics have access to these materials?
These same allegedly disadvantaged European scholars can go to a Family History
Center branch and have access. Therefore, they are not at a disadvantage. I
also notice that you do not accord non-European scholars the same concern.
Kay Allen AG
>
>
> > ( I bet a lot of Croatian, Serbian,
> > and Bosnian genealogists wish that the Family History Library had
> > microfilmed their records before their recent troubles.)
> >
> > One last point, I believe that the Family History Library will also make
> > microfilm copies of documents and place restrictions on their access if
> > requested to do so by the owner. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
> > But I believe that there are some microfilms that can only be used with
> > special permission and in Salt Lake City.
>
Kay Allen AG
Comments interspersed.
Pierre Aronax wrote:
> Denis Beauregard <bou...@genealogie.com.invalid> a écrit dans le message :
> 2at58ucca03jmdi2o...@4ax.com...
> > Pierre, I really don't understand why you want to be
> > arrogant in your post.
> >
> >
> > Le Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:59:45 +0100, "Pierre Aronax"
> > <pierre...@hotmail.com> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
> >
> > >John P. DuLong <dul...@habitant.org> a écrit dans le message :
> > >a5tihj$a1t60$1...@ID-28226.news.dfncis.de...
> > >>
>
>
> I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which will be
> reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a desappropriation
> of national patrimony. You can disagree, of course. I am of course for the
> diffusion of data, but not under the form of a mechanical reproduction. One
> more intelligent thing would be to finance a collection for the publication
> of the Cabinet des Titres, but a real publication, a scientific edition.
Is that supposed to be filthy or wealthy Americans? Again your ignorance and
chauvinism,
which I find very characteristic of so-called French intellectuals or really,
pseudo-intellectuals, is showing and it really is rather tiresome. People who
are not wealthy
use these facilities, it is the only way they could access many of the foreign
records which are necessary for their successful research. Or would you deny
them access because they are not wealthy Americans, and who can't afford
European travel or cannot afford overpriced problematically qualified European
researchers?
>
>
> <...>
>
> > >Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> > >microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of library is
Bull. And it is not the people of Utah. It is the Family History Library, which
is located in Salt Lake City, but is supported by moneys from world-wide
sources.
>
> >
> > Can you explain me why, if the preservation is so important, French
> > archives begun only recently to microfilm their records ?
>
> Yes of course : they don't have the money and they were too understaffed to
> do that earlier.
Then perhaps they don't deserve to have stewardship of these materials if they
are too parsinonious to adequately care for the treasures in their care.
> Snip.
>
>
> > So, they
> > have money, but they don't want to spend it for genealogists.
Again bull. Some people prefer the thrill of the chase. Also there are many
people, both stateside and wordwide who call themselves genealogists, but have
the qualifications of a goose, or less. This is why in the States we have
created the Board for Certification of Genealogists and ICAPGEN which is
responsible for Accreditaion. These two bodies test
genealogists on their knowledge and abilities. When genealogists have passed
these rigorous tests, the can use postnominials identifying themselves. It is
sort of like earning a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Perhaps your
European genealogists would submit themselves to this testing, then we
Americans could trust that your European genealogists are as good as they would
like us to think they are and there would be some form of retribution if the
didn't live up to their claims.
>
>
> When a new modern building is made for the conservation of the archives, it
> is made ALSO for the benefit of genealogists. I think genealogists are
> sometime very egocentric, very critical and think genealogy is the only
> purpose of the conservation of documents. So I correct you : "they don't
> want to spend their money ONLY for genealogists". I agree with them.
>
> > >than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first of
> all
> > >in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah Library
> has
> > >not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > >particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> > >despoil.
Again bull.
>
>
>
> > >
> > >Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree with
> this
> > >imperialist spoil system.
> >
> > Actually, much more Europeans use it.
There may be many more Europeans who use it than you think. They, obviously,
don't share your elitist sentiments and are grateful for accessibility.
Kay Allen AG Accredited Genealoigist. I can prove I know what I'm doing :-)
>
>
Snip
>
>
> Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> a écrit dans le message :
3C83A874...@interfold.com...
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> > I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to
justify
> > the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> > than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> > ahsamed justification.
>
>
> This is just silly. No one is taking the manuscripts, just
> photographing them. By your argument it is also cultural
> pillaging to take a photograph of Notre Dame or Mont St. Michel.
> Time to confiscate all cameras at the border?
I think some uses of images of works of art (not Notre Dame or Mont
Saint-Michel which as part of the landscape of course), particularly on the
web, without the consent or the financial or moral participation of the
owner are indeed a form of cultural pillage. As far as I know, use of
cameras in museums is regulated, and for my part I find that excellent.
>
> > In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale, I don't see what you are
speaking
> > about : you want to do the research without the pain of the travel,
that's
> > all.
>
>
> And what is bloody wrong with that? You might be singing a
> different tune if you were researching Gutenburg Bibles. Then
> you would have to travel over here, and you still wouldn't get to
> look at it. That is why the Library of Congress is letting
> theirs be scanned, to be made accessible to everyone, worldwide.
I'm also for the amelioration of the condition of access to the documents,
and for it is of the scanning of books, I think the work of the Bibliothèque
nationale, through Gallica, is excellent. If the Bibliothèque nationale
wants to scanne the Cabinet des Titres and put it on the Internet, well,
perfect, it is its right. It is not the right of an American institution,
public or private, to do so.
> The value of a collection is not something intrinsic, best
> preserved by rationing access, but rather its value is in the
> benefit that can come from its use by scholars.
Whos said the contrary I wonder. Certainly not me.
> > Again, it depends what you mean by "easily accessible". For you, "easily
> > accessible" is always "easily accessible for an American citizen". Of
> > course, for a Londonian, it is easier to see the Pantheon marbles in the
> > British Museum rather than to have to go tho Athens.
>
>
> Missing the point again.
At least from your point of view.
> It is easier for everyone to see the
> church records of the City of Portsmouth, even for people in the
> Portsmouth City Record Office, now that they have been filmed by
> the LDS. I don't know about French records, but I have been to
> the British Library (where I proved unable to "justify" my need
> to use the facility and was sent packing), and the PRO, and most
> of those records aren't "easily accessible" on-site. The same
> can be said for most of the records in the U.S. National
> Archives. No one is asking to walk out of those institutions
> with the documents (the microfilming of the records will even
> reduce the risk of people walking out with them).
I know that thank you. I think that's you who missed my point.
> >>What we have
> >>here are two interests in competition, the public
> >
> > Which public ? If myself I am part of the public, I want easy access to
the
> > material, but not at any price.
>
>
> That terrible price apparently being that others (and
> specifically Americans) also have easy access?
No, that is that American scholars which have absolutely no historical right
on his material can have a better acces to it than European scholars only
because they have more money.
> > I don't think many people in Europe can do what I have seen done by
American
> > students : to microfilm all an archivistical fund without even visiting
the
> > Archive.
>
>
> Tragic isn't it - accomplishing their research without the
> expense of travelling half-way around the world. Just imagine
> how deplorably egalitarian scholarship would be if this could be
> done for other archives, and if those films were made accessible
> to anyone
Anyone ? Anybody doesn't live in Salt-Lake City.
> by the LDS, not just to a few rich Americans. We can't
> have that - scholarship must be protected from the great
> unwashed, and limited to the elite.
That was not my point : my point was the financial inegality between
European and American scholars. Your "elite" doesn't exist : anybody can be
a scholar, he has only to work.
> >>It is far cheaper to purchase a microfilm of documents or
> >>a CD-ROM, then to fly to Europe,
> >
> > Except if you live in Europe of course, but this eventuality didn't
cross
> > your mind.
>
>
> It is cheaper for a European to get a film from Salt Lake City
> than to cross the English Channel, or even travel from one part
> of France to another. You don't even know the system you are
> arguing against.
Some scholars have worked for years to eventory the funds of the city where
they lives or where they have chosen to work, sometimes with great
difficulties. They had fund the documents because they have a familiarity
with the funds. That's something very different from ordering a microfilm.
And who will make a research with only one microfilm I wonder : do you
really know what is a research in archive ? For my part, it is certain I
don't know all the details of the system I'm arguing against, but I'm
arguing against its principle : I don't care for the details.
> > It depends what is the research : if you want only to see one document,
of
> > course it is far less expensive to make the reproduction, and that's for
> > that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if
you
> > have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you
live in
> > Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive
than
> > to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
> > thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
> > students.
>
>
> And perhaps the cost-benefit equation explains why they do it -
> it is still cheaper than the trip. Why does this offend you so?
> Because they can? Better that they, too, have to spend even
> more money to access the records.
>
> You have argued elsewhere in favor of publishing authoratative
> editions. That's great, in a perfect world, but, for example,
> the English PRO has been working for the better part of a century
> on such editions of inquisitiones post mortem, and they still
> aren't even half-way through, and that is just the tip of the
> iceberg.
We have the time : a good edition, even if its publication is slow, is
always better than a bad photocopy.
Because that gives an unequal privilege of excess for people born on your
side of Atlantic.
> Scholarship only enriches
> a culture, it does not take away from it. All I see here is
> cultural nationalism - can't let all those foreigners do any
> research without coming and cowtowing to each and every tinpot
> dictator and petty kinglet that controls a collection.
>
> After all (from your other post):
>
> > I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which
will be
> > reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a
desappropriation
> > of national patrimony.
>
>
> Can't let those "filthy Americans" have access, can we? (You
> might want to check an encyclopedia, by the way. The standard of
> living has improved somewhat since France was sent packing. We
> now have soap, running water, washcloths, and such.)
My appologise, it seems I make a confusion and used a word who didn't exist
in English, "fealthy" : it was a typo for wealthy, and I certainly not have
"filthy" in mind (I didn't even know the word and have to search in the
dictionnary.)
> And what's with this "national patrimony" crap? For example,
> just because you live in France, and the town of Cocheren is in
> France, does not make the records of that town any more your
> patrimony than they are mine
In a sense no, because this is part of the patrimony of all humans, so from
the intellectual point of view, it is no more mine patrimony than yours (and
no more yours than mine). But, from an other point of view, yes, it is more
my patrimony than yours, because this is France who have inherited the
custody of this part of the collective patrimony, and because I'm French and
I live in this country, even if my ancestors were not, and you are not and
you don't, even if yours were and did.
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> a écrit dans le message :
3C8385F6...@scs.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Furthermore, they perform an
> > > important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their
well
> > > protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
> >
> > I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to
justify
> > the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> > than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> > ahsamed justification.
> >
>
> An utterly stupid and wrong argument: everyone is asking only for
> COPIES.
> We're noting that whaty is to be protected in, say, Salt Lake City, is
> COPIES. The information content, that is.
It must be literate English because I don't understand a word.
> >
> > Perhaps, but that from a bad thing can come a good thing doesn't prevent
to
> > consider it a bad thing. My position was moral and not practical.
>
> Your position is simply the arrogance of a one-time somewhat
> important country that is now totally irrelevant.
I think it is rather clear where the arrogance lies.
Pierre
Francisco Antonio Doria
Please: there are more than Americans and Frenchmen in
this list. I've lived twice for quite some time with
my family in the U.S., where I've been a Senior
Fulbrighter.
De l'autre part, mes parents avaient l'habitude de
parler français entre eux chez nous. Mon père a été
décoré par le gouvernement français: il était un
palmarès, il a reçu les Palmes Académiques.
Donc, mon coeur balance entre les deux côtés de la
dispute...
My heart lies between both countries.
Please, let's go back to genealogy.
chico
--- Kay Allen AG <all...@pacbell.net> escreveu: >
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Empregos
O trabalho dos seus sonhos pode estar aqui. Cadastre-se hoje mesmo no Yahoo! Empregos e tenha acesso a milhares de vagas abertas!
http://br.empregos.yahoo.com/
Rafal T. Prinke
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
> > All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
>
> Compete for what? They can also order the films from Salt Lake
> for nothing more than the additional postage, which is still
> cheaper than them taking a trip to the archives in many cases.
Not that I am against filming/digitizing of records (I see it
indeed as protecting them for the future) - but the above statement
is grossly exaggerated. The films can only be ordered from
those countries where there are FHL branches. As there is
none in Poland - I, for one, cannot order a film from SLC.
When I enquired, they said there are too few Mormons in Poland
to establish a branch library - which shows the policy of
allowing access to be religiously biased.
Quite an amount of Polish records and archival documents were
taken to Germany in 1944/1945 - and now they are microfilmed
and available to Americans, Germans, etc. - but not to Poles.
In an earlier message John P. DuLong mentioned that the Roman
Catholic Church in the USA did not allow the LDS microfilm
their records "on religious grounds". I don't think it was
on religious grounds, as all Polish diocesan archives allowed
microfilming (some is still under way) - and there are certainly
no theological differences between the RC churches in Poland
and the USA. On the other hand, I am told the Lutheran church
(Reformed Evangelical) did not want to let the LDS microfilm
what they have (even though most of that church's records
are in state archives and already microfilmed by the LDS).
Best regards,
Rafal
Pierre Aronax
Denis Beauregard <bou...@genealogie.com.invalid> a écrit dans le message :
<...>
> We call this "anti-americanisme primaire".
I don't think questionning American cultural hegemony is anti-americanisme.
> This is why I won't
> comment any more in this thread: it is useless.
I agree with you on that.
Pierre
Kay Allen AG
"Rafal T. Prinke" wrote:
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
> > > All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
> >
> > Compete for what? They can also order the films from Salt Lake
> > for nothing more than the additional postage, which is still
> > cheaper than them taking a trip to the archives in many cases.
>
> Not that I am against filming/digitizing of records (I see it
> indeed as protecting them for the future) - but the above statement
> is grossly exaggerated. The films can only be ordered from
> those countries where there are FHL branches. As there is
> none in Poland - I, for one, cannot order a film from SLC.
> When I enquired, they said there are too few Mormons in Poland
> to establish a branch library - which shows the policy of
> allowing access to be religiously biased.
Yes, there are currently too few LDS in Poland to justify the outlay of
funds. Yes, the primary purpose is to provide the LDS membership first.
However, I think that your saying that allowing access is religiously
based is a tad strong. It is Church money that finances them. Since LDS
Church money is finite, why shouldn't they chose to put them where there
are sufficient Church members who will support the facility and staff
it.
They cannot expect non-members to do the work. Maybe instead of feeling
that the LDS Church is slighting you, you should pray that more people
become members and then your wish will be granted :-) But in no case,
is anybody denied entrance because of their religious faith or lack of
it.
Have you considered asking someone to order the films and make copies,
reimbursing the person for the costs of the film and the copying? Or
offering to trade for something that you have which might interest them?
The Library offers a copying plan for people who can't get access. Have
you tried that?
And, yes, I am willing to put my access where my mouth is.
>
>
> Quite an amount of Polish records and archival documents were
> taken to Germany in 1944/1945 - and now they are microfilmed
> and available to Americans, Germans, etc. - but not to Poles.
That is not the fault of the LDS. Perhaps you could find an American or
a German to get the material for you, if you are truly interested in it
and not just carping.
>
>
> In an earlier message John P. DuLong mentioned that the Roman
> Catholic Church in the USA did not allow the LDS microfilm
> their records "on religious grounds". I don't think it was
> on religious grounds, as all Polish diocesan archives allowed
> microfilming (some is still under way) - and there are certainly
> no theological differences between the RC churches in Poland
> and the USA. On the other hand, I am told the Lutheran church
> (Reformed Evangelical) did not want to let the LDS microfilm
> what they have (even though most of that church's records
> are in state archives and already microfilmed by the LDS).
Some RC bishops are more tolerant than others. Some English
Anglican dioceses are more cooperative than others, also.
Kay Allen AG
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rafal
Kay Allen AG
I have a large intolerance for intolerance and intellectual dishonesty. I believed that M. Aronax has been displaying same and felt
that he should be set straight in his facts, with the hope that he might think on it.
I also notice that you didn't see fit to talk to him earlier and that you only addressed the post to myself and the list. Hardly
inspiring of warm feelings concerning your impartiality.
Kay Allen AG
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Kay Allen AG" <all...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C912131...@pacbell.net...
Pierre Aronax
Kay Allen AG <all...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message :
3C90EB3F...@pacbell.net...
> Again your chauvinism is showing rather badly. And you are obviously
ignorant
> of how the Family History Library system works.
>
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Furthermore, they perform an
> > > important role by preserving a backup copy of the microfilm in their
well
> > > protected vaults in a mountain nearby Salt Lake City.
> >
> > I think this is more or less the argument of the British Museum to
justify
> > the theft of the Parthenon marbles : they are better preserved in London
> > than in Athens. It may be true, but that is nevertheless no more than an
> > ahsamed justification.
>
> That is unadulterated chauvinism and to compare the filming system to the
rape
> of the Elgin marbles is apples to oranges.
Treat someone of chauvinism is a good excuse to refuse to consider problems
from an other point of view than a beatific satisfaction in front of the
worldwidisation of information. A comparison is a comparison : it does not
make the two situations equal, it points to their similarities.
> These films are accessible, not only
> to Americans but to citizens of the world who have access to a branch of
the
> Family History Center system, and they don't have to be Latter-Day Saints.
The British Museum is also accessible to Greek citizens.
> > > They will make
> > > additional copies of the microfilm for institutions who lose their
> > microfilm
> > > copies or original documents. This is an extremely important service.
> > Had
> > > they Mormons done more microfilming in France before World War II
perhaps
> > > more documents would have been saved.
> >
> > Perhaps, but that from a bad thing can come a good thing doesn't prevent
to
> > consider it a bad thing. My position was moral and not practical.
>
> Your morality is a bit strange. You object to the filming of national
> treasures,
Rather to the uncontrolated use and diffusion of this microfilming.
> but you will avail yourself of the Internet to access information,
When did I do that ? I search rather discussion and sharing of points of
view than brute information on the Internet : books are better for
information.
> perhaps you should only subject yourself to the rigors of on-site research
in
> order to maintain your intellectual honesty and integrity.
I don't understand you well.
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> Snip
>
> >
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Indeed : research IS a rather painfull and sometimes frustrating
thing.
> > >
> > > Of course research can be painful and difficult, that is the challenge
of
> > > it, but what I deplore is unnecessary delays and the blocking of
access.
> >
> > In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale, I don't see what you are
speaking
> > about : you want to do the research without the pain of the travel,
that's
> > all.
>
> How about when I was there and allowed myself to be subjected to the
> humiliation and abuse they heaped on me because I am an American.
Well, I would be surprised if it was the only reason, but anyway if the
staff of the Bibliothèque really humilated you, this was certainly
unjustifiable.
> I assure you
> that you wouldn't be subjected to this in an American facily,
I think this as nothing to do with the debate : the particular abuses of
which you were the victim in the Bibliothèque nationale are perhaps
scandalous, but they are only individual problems. The question I put here
is far more general.
As I said before, that is of course the minimum.
> Contracts
> are drawn up and signed. You claim these archives are preserving them.
That
> they still exist is unquestioned. But some are not being care fo at all
well.
> And even when they are being cared for in state-of-the-art surroundings,
there
> is no guarantee against destruction by other means.
Indeed and I'm absolutely not against microfilming archives as I said
previously. My question is WHO does this microfilming and for what purpose.
> >
> > >
> > > Yes the documents are in the public domain in the sense that I can use
> > them
> > > in my research without paying a copyright fee, but they are not in the
> > > public domain in the sense that they are easily accessible.
> >
> > Again, it depends what you mean by "easily accessible". For you, "easily
> > accessible" is always "easily accessible for an American citizen". Of
> > course, for a Londonian, it is easier to see the Pantheon marbles in the
> > British Museum rather than to have to go tho Athens.
>
> Again you anti-American sentiments
I'm absolutely not anti-American, but it seems some Americans tend to
consider that questioning American hegemony, particularly on cultural
matter, is necessarily anti-Americanism.
> are clouding your intellect. These films can
> be ordered by anyone with access to a Family History Center. And they are
> located world-wide. One should be easily accessed by a drive of a few
hours or
> less. As you say research can be rigorous. :-)
>
> Also the Family History Library is not a bunch of American students. They
are a
> recognized archival institution who undertake this work under contract
with the
> archive in question.
>
> Do you have heartburn with students or just American ones? How American
> students or any students could purloin an entire archive by microfilming
it is
> beyond me.
Well, I've seen American students doing a thesis on French history doing
that.
> Microfilming is time -consuming and equipment intensive.
The work is done by the institution itself, that's the better : you only
have to have the money !
> I would
> think that any archive which is properly protecting its treasures would
soon
> spot any unauthorized copying
This are not unauthorized copy.
> and shut it down before all its treasures were
> stolen; to say nothing of putting these students in durance vile.
>
> >
> > Snip.
> >
> > Except if you live in Europe of course, but this eventuality didn't
cross
> > your mind.
>
> I think he did. He mentioned the Belgian gentleman as a case in question.
Do
> you really feel that only Eurpeans should have ready access to European
> materials?
No, I think everybody must have the same access to the archive : if the
archive are in France, then you have to go to France to see them, that's
all. You can be permitted to order microfilm for scientific purpose of
course, but only of the documents you have identify during your work of
research, and not of all a fund.
> Even when it has been demonstrated that even Europeans don't have
> ready access to archives in their own countries.
I don't think nobody as demonstrated anything of that kind. For my part, I
find the access to libraries and archives rather satisfying in the part of
Europe I know a little.
> I think that it speaks ill of
> European archives when Europeans have to come to the US to do their
European
> research.
Did it cross your mind that perhaps economical questions can explain why
American libraries have generally a better equipement, a more important
staff and can have more books than European ?
> And it also costs them time and money. But I can assure you that they
> are better treated than they are in their home archives.
I can assure you than neither me nor any animal of my acquaintance was never
victim of ill-treatment in a European library or archives :)
> >
> >
> > > pay for a hotel, pays for meals, spend many
> > > days in the archives, etc. This later approach is much more elitist
and
> > > will cost several thousands dollars than making materials widely
available
> > > using new technologies.
> >
> > It depends what is the research : if you want only to see one document,
of
> > course it is far less expensive to make the reproduction, and that's for
> > that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if
you
> > have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you
live in
> > Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive
than
> > to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
> > thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
> > students.
>
> Humbug. Intellectual dishonesty again rears its ugly head.
Well, what do you imply : that I didn't see all a fund of an Archive
microfilmed for the use of American students ?
Again, you don't need to convince me the Library of Salt Lake City has a
better equipment than the archives of the former Societ Union : that's a
pity but that's certainly true.
> > In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > > > particularly French government has permitted such extensive
microfilm
> > > > despoil.
>
> Unabashed French chauvinism.
You like this word, don't you ?
> Also extremely ignorant and intellectually
> dishonest, to say nothing. of short-sighted. My husband works for a
> French-based company, Schlumberger, so I have spent much time in France. I
am
> glad that not all the French are superannuated tadpoles such as yourself.
I don't know this word, "tapdol", but I think it's better like that : you
seem to be short of arguments and so now going into insults. Unfortunetly,
my English is rather basic, and I don't think to be able to understand you
very well in that field.
> And I
> am sure that you will attempt to return the favor concerning my American
> nationality. Don't bother. I have heard it before, and probably much more
> wittily.
Well, if you are sure...
> > > Again, I must disagree with you. The Family History Library produces
an
> > > enormous amount of genealogical materials and contributes some
important
> > > indexing projects.
> >
> > For what I have seen on the internet, it is rather catastrophic, at
least
> > for what is of the Medieval part.
>
> On this we can agree :-)
>
> >
> >
> > > This is not dispoiling or cultural pillaging. The fact
> > > that they are willing to assist European libraries and archives in
> > > conservation by making microfilm copies for them proves that they are
not
> > > robbing you. If you do not have the funds to make the microfilms, then
why
> > > not let the Mormons help?
> >
> > Because they do that for themselves and not for everibody.
>
> Again a lie.
Again an insult.
> Everybody, Latterday Saint or not.is welcome.
I go back to my favorite comparison : everybody is welcome to the British
Museum, and nevertheless British keep the Elgin marbles for themselves.
> You should have see
> the preparation the Library made for the Olympic visitors. While I was
there, I
> had European journalists interupting my research to do interviews and
> participate in photographs. Europeans were also welcome to do research and
they
> had people who were fluent in every European language to assist them. And
this
> just wasn't for the Olympics. It is a day-in and day-out situation. That
> everyone is welcome also applies to the world-wide system.
>
> > I'm delighted to
> > meet American scholars who work on France, know it very well, made very
> > valuable research and editions and have sometime a very original point
of
> > view on its history. But they can do that because they made real
researches,
> > came to the Archive, spend some time here. I maintain that somebody who
> > reproduced an Archive for his own use (or primarily for his own use),
> > because he refuses to take the pain to consider it in its context and
wants
> > only to appropriate the documents, is a pillar and not a scholar.
>
> Again bigotted bullroar.
Again words outside my vocabulary.
> If you are so concerned about original research, why
> don't you remove yourself from the Internet. You are undoubtedly
contaminating
> yourself by associating with us.
Why ? I like discussion on genealogical subject : archivical work is a
fundamental part of the research, but it is not all the research. One can
also discuss about non-original material.
> I have done original research both in archives and by using microfilms of
> original materials. Does that make my research any less valid?
That is not the question. And anyway it depends of the research.
> I think not. And
> I have made original discoveries using these materials. Sir, perchance
are you
> a member of the French Academy?
Perchance I'm not. But why do you hate them like that I don't understand.
> If so, it would explain you chauvinistic,
> insular attitude.
Why "insular" ?
I'm not particularly concerned by the Genealogical research or the Library
of Salt Lake City : the question I ask is more general. And, sorry, but I
don't want to see all the Cabinet des titres accessible on CD-ROM or
microfilm which would be sell (for a good price I'm sure) by some American
Institution, how respectable this institution can be.
> Or are you also an academic elitist that would deny common people from
access
> to these materials?
Whose "common people" ? What is "common people" ?
> Should only Academics have access to these materials?
And what is "Academic" ? Anybody who does research properly is a researcher,
anybody who doesn't is not, that's all.
> These same allegedly disadvantaged European scholars can go to a Family
History
> Center branch and have access. Therefore, they are not at a disadvantage.
I
> also notice that you do not accord non-European scholars the same concern.
No, because I was speaking of European archive, as I think everybody as now
understand. My problem is to see European scholars who can not face the
concurrence of American scholars only by lack of money.
Pierre Aronax
Rafal T. Prinke <raf...@amu.edu.pl> a écrit dans le message :
3C83E573...@amu.edu.pl...
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
> > > All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
> >
> > Compete for what? They can also order the films from Salt Lake
> > for nothing more than the additional postage, which is still
> > cheaper than them taking a trip to the archives in many cases.
>
> Not that I am against filming/digitizing of records (I see it
> indeed as protecting them for the future) - but the above statement
> is grossly exaggerated. The films can only be ordered from
> those countries where there are FHL branches. As there is
> none in Poland - I, for one, cannot order a film from SLC.
> When I enquired, they said there are too few Mormons in Poland
> to establish a branch library - which shows the policy of
> allowing access to be religiously biased.
And more generally the problem of such reproduction being allowed for a
private (religious or not) institution which has other purpose than only
public service.
> Quite an amount of Polish records and archival documents were
> taken to Germany in 1944/1945 - and now they are microfilmed
> and available to Americans, Germans, etc. - but not to Poles.
It is rather strange that they have not been resituated in 1945. Why was it
not done ?
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Kay Allen AG <all...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message :
3C90F17D...@pacbell.net...
> Cher Pierre,
>
> Comments interspersed.
>
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> > I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which
will be
> > reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a
desappropriation
> > of national patrimony. You can disagree, of course. I am of course for
the
> > diffusion of data, but not under the form of a mechanical reproduction.
One
> > more intelligent thing would be to finance a collection for the
publication
> > of the Cabinet des Titres, but a real publication, a scientific edition.
>
> Is that supposed to be filthy or wealthy Americans?
It is supposed to be wealthy and is called a typo in English.
> Again your ignorance
If you allude to my ignorance in English, I confess it tranquilly : we can
continue in French and we will see who is the ignorant.
> and
> chauvinism,
Try an other word.
> which I find very characteristic of so-called French intellectuals or
really,
> pseudo-intellectuals, is showing and it really is rather tiresome. People
who
> are not wealthy
> use these facilities, it is the only way they could access many of the
foreign
> records which are necessary for their successful research.
People who are not wealthy can not order the reproduction of all an
archivistic found. Of course, I don't imply American students who do that
are necessarily personally wealthy : there university are, and that is quite
the same thing.
> Or would you deny
> them access because they are not wealthy Americans, and who can't afford
> European travel or cannot afford overpriced problematically qualified
European
> researchers?
>
> >
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > > >Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> > > >microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of
library is
>
> Bull. And it is not the people of Utah. It is the Family History Library,
which
> is located in Salt Lake City, but is supported by moneys from world-wide
> sources.
Of a religious community through the world more precisely. But that was not
my point.
> >
> > >
> > > Can you explain me why, if the preservation is so important, French
> > > archives begun only recently to microfilm their records ?
> >
> > Yes of course : they don't have the money and they were too understaffed
to
> > do that earlier.
>
> Then perhaps they don't deserve to have stewardship of these materials if
they
> are too parsinonious to adequately care for the treasures in their care.
Yes, that's a good idea : when a people has not enough money to take care of
its inheritance, an other one more wealthy can take the treasures. That is
called colonialism, and that is also what I called intelletcual spoiling
system.
> > Snip.
> >
> >
> > > So, they
> > > have money, but they don't want to spend it for genealogists.
>
> Again bull.
Except I did'nt wrote this one... Read again.
<Off topic consideration about genealogists qualification sniped >
> >
> >
> > When a new modern building is made for the conservation of the archives,
it
> > is made ALSO for the benefit of genealogists. I think genealogists are
> > sometime very egocentric, very critical and think genealogy is the only
> > purpose of the conservation of documents. So I correct you : "they don't
> > want to spend their money ONLY for genealogists". I agree with them.
> >
> > > >than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first
of
> > all
> > > >in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah
Library
> > has
> > > >not to deal with. In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > > >particularly French government has permitted such extensive microfilm
> > > >despoil.
>
> Again bull.
Matter of opinion I will say : that's mine.
> > > >Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree
with
> > this
> > > >imperialist spoil system.
> > >
> > > Actually, much more Europeans use it.
>
> There may be many more Europeans who use it than you think. They,
obviously,
> don't share your elitist sentiments and are grateful for accessibility.
>
> Kay Allen AG Accredited Genealoigist. I can prove I know what I'm doing
:-)
Pierre, non-accredited non-genealogist. I can prove it also.
Rafal T. Prinke
Kay Allen AG wrote:
> Yes, the primary purpose is to provide the LDS membership first.
> However, I think that your saying that allowing access is religiously
> based is a tad strong.
I said "biased" - which it is (but this is just an observation,
quite objective, even quantitative).
> It is Church money that finances them. Since LDS
> Church money is finite, why shouldn't they chose to put them where there
> are sufficient Church members who will support the facility and staff
> it.
I was not saying they should - just commenting that TAF's statement
that "[All European scholars] can also order the films from Salt Lake"
is *exaggerated* (which is quite a polite word to use, isn't it?).
> They cannot expect non-members to do the work. Maybe instead of feeling
> that the LDS Church is slighting you, you should pray that more people
> become members and then your wish will be granted :-) But in no case,
> is anybody denied entrance because of their religious faith or lack of
> it.
That's not what I was saying. (and no comments about praying)
> Have you considered asking someone to order the films and make copies,
> reimbursing the person for the costs of the film and the copying?
Of course, I have. Not only considered, but done that. But you
certainly know, as an AG, that it is not the same as going through
the films/records yourself - especially when you do not know
exactly what you are looking for and whether the person doing
it for you has the same or better qualifications.
> The Library offers a copying plan for people who can't get access.
> Have you tried that?
It is not a matter of copying a page - but doing research.
> That is not the fault of the LDS. Perhaps you could find an American or
> a German to get the material for you, if you are truly interested in it
> and not just carping.
So what would I be doing here, had I not been interested?! And
*carping* looks like a nasty word to me... Why are you attacking *me*?
> Some RC bishops are more tolerant than others. Some English
> Anglican dioceses are more cooperative than others, also.
Ergo - it was not on "religious grounds", which was my only point.
Best regards,
Rafal
Pierre Aronax
>
> Yes, there are currently too few LDS in Poland to justify the outlay of
> funds. Yes, the primary purpose is to provide the LDS membership first.
> However, I think that your saying that allowing access is religiously
> based is a tad strong. It is Church money that finances them. Since LDS
> Church money is finite, why shouldn't they chose to put them where there
> are sufficient Church members who will support the facility and staff
> it.
And why can French authorities have permitted the reproduction of their
archives on a so extensive scale by an institution who make confessional
choices of that kind, I wonder.
> They cannot expect non-members to do the work. Maybe instead of feeling
> that the LDS Church is slighting you, you should pray that more people
> become members and then your wish will be granted :-)
So, it seems that finally there is some kind of apologetic purpose beyond
the pure love of genealogy.
>But in no case,
> is anybody denied entrance because of their religious faith or lack of
> it.
That's the same at the Vatican Archives, and that is nevertheless a
confessional archive.
<...>
Pierre
Pierre Aronax
Rafal T. Prinke <raf...@amu.edu.pl> a écrit dans le message :
3C83FCA2...@amu.edu.pl...
<...>
> It is not a matter of copying a page - but doing research.
<...>
I think the understanding or misunderstanding of this subtle distinction is
the key point of the question debated here.
Pierre
Rafal T. Prinke
"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com>
> > Quite an amount of Polish records and archival documents were
> > taken to Germany in 1944/1945
> It is rather strange that they have not been resituated in 1945.
> Why was it not done ?
Some were from the areas with mixed Polish/German population
and the German church (in the archives of which the records
are housed) did not want to give them back. I am told the problem
is now being discussed again by both episcopates and some
agreement might be reached.
Best regards,
Rafal
Renia
> Comments interspersed.
>
> "Rafal T. Prinke" wrote:
>
> > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
> > >
> > > Compete for what? They can also order the films from Salt Lake
> > > for nothing more than the additional postage, which is still
> > > cheaper than them taking a trip to the archives in many cases.
> >
> > Not that I am against filming/digitizing of records (I see it
> > indeed as protecting them for the future) - but the above statement
> > is grossly exaggerated. The films can only be ordered from
> > those countries where there are FHL branches. As there is
> > none in Poland - I, for one, cannot order a film from SLC.
> > When I enquired, they said there are too few Mormons in Poland
> > to establish a branch library - which shows the policy of
> > allowing access to be religiously biased.
>
> Yes, there are currently too few LDS in Poland to justify the outlay of
> funds. Yes, the primary purpose is to provide the LDS membership first.
> However, I think that your saying that allowing access is religiously
> based is a tad strong. It is Church money that finances them.
Therefore access is religiously-based. Don't forget the Mormons have a
religious agenda for microfilming all these records. They could easily start
up non-Mormon libraries for a fee, in all sorts of places where the religion
is unlikely to develop, and raise funds that way.
Renia
John P. DuLong
this is hardly the result of religious bias, just logistics. The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), as the Mormon church prefers to be
called, can not afford to establish centers in countries without sufficient
numbers of LDS members. These centers are run by church members.
I know that the Family History Library has made arrangements for the Allen
County Public Library in Fort Wayne, Indiana, to borrow films. This is the
second largest genealogical library in the USA. Perhaps they would be
willing to make a similar arrangement with a large library in Poland?
Also, I think I recently read that the LDS is the fastest growing churches
in the world. Be patient and they will eventually open a Family History
Center in Poland.
I should have been clearer about the Catholic church and allowing the Family
History Library to microfilm records. It varies from country to country and
diocese to diocese. It is not like the Pope has made an official statement
against the practice. Here in the USA, most Catholic diocese have opposed
letting the Family History Library microfilm records because the LDS uses
genealogical research as part of their religious beliefs. However, in
countries where there is a tradition that the parish register is also
considered the civil register the Catholic records are more likely to be
microfilmed by the Family History Library.
JP
John P. DuLong, Ph.D.
Acadian and French Canadian Genealogy
959 Oxford Road
Berkley, MI 48072-2011
USA
(248) 541-2894
http://habitant.org
norenxaq
Hello:
Are there descendants of Inca royalty among Europe's nobility? And if so, how
do they specifically descend from the Inca royal family?
Thank-you
John P. DuLong
document in a whole collection. Obviously, the best way to do that is to
visit the library or archives and personally examine the whole collection.
But let us be realistic here, most genealogists can not afford to travel to
Europe and stay for a month to absorb the whole collection. Although some
history students get scholarships or fellowships to study in Europe, this is
clearly not the case for genealogists. So why not have it microfilmed so it
can be conveniently studied at home. You can still put it in context by
learning more about the collection: Who donated it? When? Why? What
biases are there in the collection? Etc.
In the case of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF), this is
particularly easy to do because of the many rich guides and inventories
published for the manuscript collection. Before going to the BNF I learned
absolutely every thing I could about the Cabinet des titres, how it was
organized, indexed, and its history. But I was still limited to five
documents a day. It was just much more convenient to have them microfilm
the documents I needed. This was especially true in my case because I was
working with a team of researchers and wanted to share the dossiers with all
of them. We analyzed these microfilms and used the material to produce two
articles and a book.
As for the reader's card issue that Mrs. Allen reported on, because I did my
homework, I was well prepared with letters of recommendation and a letter
from the embassy. In my fractured French I told them I would be able to
read the documents. In a few minutes I had my card. Although I found this
process unusual, it did not bother me because I was prepared for it. Also,
I do not want this exchange to sound like I am picking on the BNF. My
experience there was wonderful, the staff was helpful, and I learned a lot.
I could say the same about the Archives nationales de France (ANF) and
various departmental archives (by the way Denis, I had no trouble locating
them, but I only visited three of them). Nevertheless, I only had a short
time to spend in the library and archives and I would have failed in my
research goals without microfilm copies and photocopies.
I simply do not understand M. Aronax's resistance to microfilming his
patrimony. Why not share the justifiable proud heritage of France with the
world? And besides, I think I and my Franco-American cousins on this side
of the Atlantic Ocean also have some claim to this patrimony. We French
Canadians, Acadians, Huguenots, Métis, and Créoles would like to be able to
trace our ancestry back to France, but we are not all wealthy Americans (or
Canadians) and can not afford to travel there to research.
M. Aronax's assertion that a scholar must look at the records in place to be
a real scholar is rather absurd. Once again, I find myself using the
example of Québec and to a lesser extent Canada. Several decades ago there
was a program to microfilm, with permission, all foreign government
documents of importance relating to the history of New France. Copies were
made at the BNF, the ANF, the military archives at Vincennes, the colonial
archives, several departmental archives, etc. These documents are now
easily accessible through the Archives nationales du Québec and the National
Archives of Canada. They published excellent guides to them and it is very
easy to find the relevant collection, order the microfilm, and then hunt for
the documents of interest. Many serious American and Canadian scholars use
these documents on microfilm and they would be sorely missed if they did not
exist.
Using large collections on microfilm is far superior than publishing the
original documents, which have editor's mistakes in them. By the way,
publishing the Cabinet des titres, worthy as this may be, is impossible. It
is huge. Even microfilming it would be a major project. Even if a scholar
or a team of them were able to transcribe these documents and comment on
them intelligently, I would ultimately still insist on seeing copies of the
originals for key documents need to prove a point. Genealogist always
prefer to see the original document or an exact copy of the document over a
transcription no matter how well edited it might be.
To reject microfilm technology and insist on personal visits in all cases is
absurd. I could argue that hand copying a document makes a scholar more
aware of a the nuances in that document and is the only scholarly approach,
thus rejecting photocopying. But most people would see this as a strange
rejection of technology.
M. Aronax keeps referring to wealthy Americans purchasing large collections.
First of all, the BNF prices for microfilming are not unreasonable or beyond
the budget I am sure of most European scholars. [Certainly, I have found
the BNF to be cheaper than the British Library.] However, they take an
incredibly long time to respond. Having the collection microfilmed
beforehand would probably make the order process faster. Also, this
non-wealthy American split the cost of the microfilm purchase with four
other genealogists (two other Americans and two Canadians) interested in the
same families, so it was very reasonable for us.
M Aronax's statements about wealthy Americans has also damaged his
arguments. This is not an America vs. Europe issue. There are archivist
on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean that argue for more rigid control of
access to documents to protect them and preserve the institution's
investment in them. I disagree with their position, but M. Aronax's refusal
to keep this a neutral issue by painting us nasty rich Americans as cultural
pillagers is only hurting his own position. This idea is nonsense.
So as an American Pragmatist, I would say I win the argument on practical
grounds. Microfilming collections, by the Family History Library or any
other institution, to make the documents more accessible is simply a better
way to share information for everyone. But what about moral grounds? Is
the making of microfilms cultural pillaging. Surely it is if it is done
without the permission of the library or archives. But this is not what I
am arguing for. M. Aronax's analogy of the Elgin Marbles is a false
analogy. The Elgin Marbles are the originals and where taken from the Greek
people when they could not defend their interests in them. However, a
microfilm copy of a document, done with the permission of an institution,
leaves the original in place and provides a backup of it. To me it seems
absurd to oppose such a plan.
What this boils down to is who controls the use of intellectual property. I
am for the widest possible access to materials outside of copyright
protection. Of course, the library and archives holding these materials
have a right to protect them and to even profit from them, but not to
withhold them from the public or place too many restrictions on them.
By the way, I wonder how many European scholars have benefited from the
Family History Library's microfilm collection to view materials in their own
country. After all, I use the Family History Center to look up materials
about Michigan rather than drive to Lansing (our state capital) or some
remote courthouse in Northern Michigan. I would think that a French
research living in Normandie would prefer to read a manuscript on microfilm
at Caen than drive all the way to an archives in Languedoc to read the
original (assuming of course that it is a clear copy). Also, many documents
relating to American history, including diplomatic history, have been
microfilmed and are used by European scholars. The exchange of documents on
microfilm is not one way. I would not accuse a French scholar using
Louisiana records on microfilm as committing cultural pillaging.
Again, I do not care who makes microfilm copies of the Cabinet des titres as
long as they are made accessible to the world. If the BNF does it, great, I
will be thrilled. If they want to do it in cooperation with the Family
History Library, great, I am even happier. I do not care who does the
microfilming, it would just help Franco-American and French researchers if
the collection was microfilmed.
M. Aronax wants to object to the Family History Library because it is a
religious institution, fine. I can certainly understand why some
organizations would not want to cooperate with a church run institution.
However, the Mormons have built a reputation of sharing the data they
collect with the world. It would be foolish to dismiss them without
considering their assistance.
One last point, I am having an honest intellectual disagreement with M.
Aronax. Though I find some of his comments about Americans as off base, I
still think he is entitled to his opinion, no matter how wrong he clearly
is. And of course, I welcome others jumping in, especially on my side of
the argument. But I can do without the Francophobia. My ancestors are
French,
my wife is of French ancestry, my friends are of French ancestry, and one of
my favorite places to visit is France, where I have enjoyed myself
immensely. When in France I have always been amazed at how well the French
handle all the bizarre American tourists. I cringe at some of the things I
hear my compatriots say when I am travelling. Some of the comments
I have read in this thread also make me uncomfortable. M. Aronax may or may
not be arrogant, but please do not apply his alleged faults to a hole
nation. I am sure my good cousin Denis and my other cousins on this
newsgroup agree with me.
Now I think I will let this drop and get back to Medieval genealogy and the
wonder of the documents held in the Cabinet des titres.
John P. DuLong
<snip>
> Some scholars have worked for years to eventory the funds of the city
where
> they lives or where they have chosen to work, sometimes with great
> difficulties. They had fund the documents because they have a familiarity
> with the funds. That's something very different from ordering a microfilm.
> And who will make a research with only one microfilm I wonder : do you
> really know what is a research in archive ? For my part, it is certain I
> don't know all the details of the system I'm arguing against, but I'm
> arguing against its principle : I don't care for the details.
<snip>
I will help M. Aronax here. He is using "funds" but the word in French
would be fonds and has a very specific meaning. It means a collection of
documents with a common theme. This theme could be a common author, a
location, a business, a government office, etc. A quick translation of
fonds would be funds in English, but it would be confusing to many of the
readers of this newsgroup.
And I am always grateful when I find a fonds with a well written guide and
inventory done with care. The French have done a particularly good job
publishing analytical guides and inventories to various fonds. But I still
need to see the documents so I can analyze them. Seeing the original is
always preferable, but a microfilm copy, a CD-ROM copy, or a photocopy, if
clear enough, is just as good for analysis. Of course, I miss the smell of
the rag paper and the feel of its texture.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Kay Allen AG wrote:
>
> > It is Church money that finances them. Since LDS
> > Church money is finite, why shouldn't they chose to put them where there
> > are sufficient Church members who will support the facility and staff
> > it.
>
> I was not saying they should - just commenting that TAF's statement
> that "[All European scholars] can also order the films from Salt Lake"
> is *exaggerated* (which is quite a polite word to use, isn't it?).
You _can_ order it, and probably would not have to travel as far
to a LDS FHC to do so as you would to go to see the originals in
Paris.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I think some uses of images of works of art (not Notre Dame or Mont
> Saint-Michel which as part of the landscape of course),
You say "of course", but this was not a hypothetical - a US
institution trademarked their building as a symbol of the
institution, and then tried to enforce this trademark legally by
taking a photographer to court. Fortunately, they lost
(soundly).
> If the Bibliothèque nationale
> wants to scanne the Cabinet des Titres and put it on the Internet, well,
> perfect, it is its right. It is not the right of an American institution,
> public or private, to do so.
Right? Who said anything about it being their right? We are
talking about the archive doing it voluntarily to preserve a copy
of the material and promote it's distribution. It is clear that
the problem is that the institution in question is American
(gasp).
> > That terrible price apparently being that others (and
> > specifically Americans) also have easy access?
>
> No, that is that American scholars which have absolutely no historical right
> on his material can have a better acces to it than European scholars only
> because they have more money.
Historical right? What does that mean. My ancestors are in
those documents too. My uncle (several times removed) died for
the Glory of France under the command of the short guy with the
complex named for him. I do not accept that I have no historical
right based solely on where my parents happened to be living at
the time of birth. I don't even think I have a greater
'historical right' to access them than a Zulu from Natal.
Likewise, the specific institution in question, the LDS FHC
system, does not grant better access to rich Americans over any
other type of Americans, nor Europeans, rich or poor.
> > Tragic isn't it - accomplishing their research without the
> > expense of travelling half-way around the world. Just imagine
> > how deplorably egalitarian scholarship would be if this could be
> > done for other archives, and if those films were made accessible
> > to anyone
>
> Anyone ? Anybody doesn't live in Salt-Lake City.
I have used these LDS such films in Portsmouth (England),
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Wyoming, and Colorado, as well as Salt
Lake. Do please make an attempt to understand what you are
talking about before you make such erroneous statements.
> > by the LDS, not just to a few rich Americans. We can't
> > have that - scholarship must be protected from the great
> > unwashed, and limited to the elite.
>
> That was not my point : my point was the financial inegality between
> European and American scholars. Your "elite" doesn't exist : anybody can be
> a scholar, he has only to work.
Yes, that is exactly the point - there is no such elite, these
"rich Americans" with all of the advantages over the
"impoverished Europeans". The LDS take it out of the sole hands
of the elite (on both sides of the pond) and place it in the
hands of the common man, and thus allow anybody to be a scholar,
not just those who are rich enough to travel, or lucky enough to
be local, and that applies to records from all over the world.
> Some scholars have worked for years to eventory the funds of the city where
> they lives or where they have chosen to work, sometimes with great
> difficulties. They had fund the documents because they have a familiarity
> with the funds. That's something very different from ordering a microfilm.
> And who will make a research with only one microfilm I wonder : do you
> really know what is a research in archive ?
Yes, I know what research in an archive is. I have conducted
such research in seven different countries, and too many states
to count with all of my fingers and toes. I also know that
frequently you don't need to know the entire content of an
archive to find the single bit of information you seek. (I
certainly didn't have to know the entire content of the Public
Records Office in Kew to know I wanted to look at the RN Lt.
Certificates in the 1780s-1820s, and I would have wasted an
enormous amount of time familiarizing myself with the entire
collection just to find the detail I needed.)
> For my part, it is certain I
> don't know all the details of the system I'm arguing against, but I'm
> arguing against its principle : I don't care for the details.
Yes, but the principle you are arguing against is a strawman that
only exists in your own head.
> > You have argued elsewhere in favor of publishing authoratative
> > editions. That's great, in a perfect world, but, for example,
> > the English PRO has been working for the better part of a century
> > on such editions of inquisitiones post mortem, and they still
> > aren't even half-way through, and that is just the tip of the
> > iceberg.
>
> We have the time : a good edition, even if its publication is slow, is
> always better than a bad photocopy.
A bad photocopy is better than no photocopy and no published
edition within the lifetime of the researcher, and that is the
fate of all too much material in archives across the world.
> > I still don't get how it is cultural spoiling because more people
> > are able to be exposed to the culture.
>
> Because that gives an unequal privilege of excess for people born on your
> side of Atlantic.
But it doesn't. People have the same access to it no matter
where they were born, or where they now live - better access than
anyone currently has to much of it.
> > > I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which
> will be
> > > reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a
> desappropriation
> > > of national patrimony.
> > And what's with this "national patrimony" crap? For example,
> > just because you live in France, and the town of Cocheren is in
> > France, does not make the records of that town any more your
> > patrimony than they are mine
>
> In a sense no, because this is part of the patrimony of all humans, so from
> the intellectual point of view, it is no more mine patrimony than yours (and
> no more yours than mine). But, from an other point of view, yes, it is more
> my patrimony than yours, because this is France who have inherited the
> custody of this part of the collective patrimony, and because I'm French and
> I live in this country, even if my ancestors were not, and you are not and
> you don't, even if yours were and did.
And the problem is that the 'custody' (not absolute ownership)
and 'collective' (not nationalistic) parts are all too rapidly
ignored by people out to protect the status quo at the expense of
would-be researchers.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> > Bull. And it is not the people of Utah. It is the Family History Library,
> which
> > is located in Salt Lake City, but is supported by moneys from world-wide
> > sources.
>
> Of a religious community through the world more precisely. But that was not
> my point.
Yes, it is supported by a religious community, which due to some
unique beliefs feel that it is in their own best interest to
encourage genealogical research among members and non-members
alike. The majority of those who use the system (at least where
I have become acquainted with the statistics) are non-members.
You could be a muslim, jew, buddhist, druid or died in the wool
atheist, and still walk into a FHC and order a copy of any film
that may help you in your research, for the grand sum of $3.25
(more or less).
> > Then perhaps they don't deserve to have stewardship of these materials if
> they
> > are too parsinonious to adequately care for the treasures in their care.
>
> Yes, that's a good idea : when a people has not enough money to take care of
> its inheritance, an other one more wealthy can take the treasures. That is
> called colonialism, and that is also what I called intelletcual spoiling
> system.
Except that no one is taking the treasures - the treasures stay
right where they are.
(And all this apparently because a few spoiled American brats
imposed on the generousity of some undisclosed European archive.)
While I am at it, I should clarify something I said earlier -
that records at Kew were not all that accessible. They are not,
but Kew is better by a long-shot than any other archive of
equivalent size I have been to. Unlike the British Library, I
did not have to demonstrate a need to use the collection, and
unlike the Library of Congress and the National Archives, I
actially got what I requested, the first time, and faster than I
would have thought possible. It is the cataloging and indexing
of record groups which is difficult, to say the least.
taf
William Addams Reitwiesner
See, for instance, *Europaeische Stammtafeln*, ed. Schwennicke, Band IX
[1987], Tafel 16.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Denis Beauregard
<dul...@habitant.org> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>"Pierre Aronax" <pierre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Some scholars have worked for years to eventory the funds of the city
>where
>> they lives or where they have chosen to work, sometimes with great
>> difficulties. They had fund the documents because they have a familiarity
>> with the funds. That's something very different from ordering a microfilm.
>> And who will make a research with only one microfilm I wonder : do you
>> really know what is a research in archive ? For my part, it is certain I
>> don't know all the details of the system I'm arguing against, but I'm
>> arguing against its principle : I don't care for the details.
><snip>
>
>I will help M. Aronax here. He is using "funds" but the word in French
>would be fonds and has a very specific meaning. It means a collection of
>documents with a common theme. This theme could be a common author, a
>location, a business, a government office, etc. A quick translation of
>fonds would be funds in English, but it would be confusing to many of the
>readers of this newsgroup.
It seems he mixed 3 funds !
funds - fonds, some kind of subsides
found - trouvé, past of find
collection - fond, a set of document
Even for a French speaker, it is not easy to catch what he means.
I guess he should try to make his point in French first of all
and this in the French speaking newsgroup where one participant
organizes visits in the Bibliotheque nationale de France and
most readers have to use LDS microfilms to view records in
other departements.
Denis
--
0 Denis Beauregard
/\/ Web de généalogie: http://www.genealogie.com (français)
|\ Genealogy Web site: http://www.francogene.com (English)
/ | >>Adresse modifiée souvent/email changed frequently<<
oo oo Ancestors in Quebec ? What about vacations in your homeland!
Denis Beauregard
<farm...@interfold.com> écrivait dans soc.genealogy.medieval:
>Pierre Aronax wrote:
>>
>> I think some uses of images of works of art (not Notre Dame or Mont
>> Saint-Michel which as part of the landscape of course),
>
>You say "of course", but this was not a hypothetical - a US
>institution trademarked their building as a symbol of the
>institution, and then tried to enforce this trademark legally by
>taking a photographer to court. Fortunately, they lost
>(soundly).
The law is different in France. For example, the Puy de Dome
and other volcanos in the center of France. You can't use
them for a postcard without paying royalties to the owner
of the land where the volcanos are located.
Todd A. Farmerie
> As for the reader's card issue that Mrs. Allen reported on, because I did my
> homework, I was well prepared with letters of recommendation and a letter
> from the embassy.
Letters of recommendation from people not known to the library,
and a note from your mommy saying that you will play nice (as if
anybody in the embassy knows or cares about someone's research
qualifications). In general, I find all such requirements (other
than legal identification) to be nothing more than an outdated
perpetuation of the good-old-boy network, where true scholars
could be recognized by their University (in the British sense)
affiliation, and their social status - we must, after all, keep
the uppity riff-raff from soiling the collection in their attempt
to reach above their proper place.
taf
Henry Soszynski
Here's one line...
Huayana Capac 1450-1525 father of
Manco Capac 1500-1545 father of
Sayri Tupac 1535-1560 father of
Beatrice Clara Coya 1558-1600 married Martin Garcia Onaz de Loyola
1549-1598 and parents of..
Anna Maria de Loyola 1596-1630, 1st Marquesa de Oropesa de Santiago,
she married Juan Enrique de Borja +1634 with descendants, though I
don't know how long they lasted.
Cheers,
Henry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genealogical Gleanings - Information on non-European Royalty
Cambodia,India,Thailand,Swaziland,Nigeria,and Malaysia,Brunei..
http://www.crosswinds.net/~zzhsoszy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
that they probably have no idea of how wealthy they are, compared
to the rest of the world, & how little care they generally show for those
not living in the states or with that particular standard of living, & should
probably put a lid on it...
I might also point out that if I did a little research stint here in Normandy, it's because
it's nearby; I live here... I can camp out in the car much of the time, & generally, it's
more accessible than England, Germany, Ukraine & other countries to search...
to me, a big luxury would be visiting the archives in Ohio,
where my "friends" & cousins do NOT share material concerning my lines, nor
make research trips to share data with me, although they could easily do so...
Many get all in huff if I go to Paris for something, as if I'd flown over; it's an hour's
drive or less... going to Paris is only expensive if you dont live there...
Comments about the apparent generous access to french records are absurd,
on the other hand... of the dozen or so repositories visited on this trip, NOT ONE
allowed access to any original documents, although generally, it is allowed...
& that is not even Rouen, who had specifically asked me to come to do so,
months in advance, & promising a warm welcome...
Access to orignals, to unindexed data, or to known but untranslated documents,
was NOT forthcoming in ANY of the repositories small or large, in Normandy,
nor generally in the rest of France-- where they now seem to reserve the right
to pick & choose who will find out the real story, & so, whom they'll show what...
They have a heavy sense of favoritism & biased opportunities, that will bide no
dalliance, based on personal prejudices & tastes; As in most countries these days,
it helps to be: physically pretty blonde male aged 20-35 Native-born & raised, Catholic --
(they really do seem to control things to a degree alarming to anyone of another
persuasion) with manifestly lots of money to spend on making the archivist feel
important, as they make you wait for days to test your determination (while doing
their nails, or nothing at all) &/or be on a certified mission & salaried job (so they
can identify with you; they would never be caught dead doing volonteer work
or free research, nor a personal project, not even a free-lance article for
online or other publishing -- & think you're a fool if that's what you're doing, so
will not cooperate with what they consider to be a waste of your time, as well
as theirs!) & credentialled from an official government archive, to be considered
"worthy" of normal service... Repositories that at first were forthcoming with
original documents, now wonder if there's some way to make a buck; photocopies
have skyrocketed, multiplying up to ten times the previous rate, since the Euro-dollars
went into effect...
The point seems to be that this is the last bastion of feeling the personal power to
thumb their noses at superpowers as personified by you & I when we go in looking
for traces of OUR ancestors... they seem to invent regulations as fast as you can
comply with the previous batch... They may not be able to build a project near as
interesting as one's own, but they're pretty good at roadblocking those who can...
To each their form of creativity & satisfaction, I guess...
There is no reason to think that travelling to Paris would assure your seeing any originals;
they have no qualms about refusing access on little or no pretext, & plaints about the cost
of travel are of no concern... Even if they dont outright refuse you, they may well just send
you around in circles in the huge library,where even the seats are paid-for (used to be only
in the parks, now it's in the libraries!) If you're old or cardiac, this usually works without
having to even say no, but if you actually get to the right place before you drop, they may
well say no... your chances are best online, believe me...
This all comes from a sort of system they really seem to believe in; those whom they wish to
see succeed, will, as things will be arranged for them; those they dont wish to see succeed,
wont, as they're pretty good at that too... The problem is their overwhelming desire to control
your life & functioning -- whether they decide to make the old aristocracy triumph, or in the case
you can prove belonging to that, then things will seem to suddenly flip over, and the only valid
folks will be whoever they think you're not -- if searching royals & nobles, then you'll be treated
to the most self-satisfied & abusive of the proletarian or lumpen, even the terrorist thugs -- the
only common denominator seems to be that "they", the thought-controlers of todays fashion &
propriety, impose their rule -- fair-play, personal freedoms and equal rights seem to have little
or no meaning here anymore...
But anyway, Paris is still a great town to visit... just dont count on getting anything done there... same
goes for visits to the other repositories...Rouen is lovely; great churches; they burn even saints there, so
why should you feel bad?... but ya know, France is great; ya gotta love it... or else...
Annie
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com>
Ą : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : mardi 5 mars 2002 03:54
Objet : Re: Index to the Cabinet des titres on CD-ROM
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
& a male! & a frenchy! GREAT! but I'll probably end up feeling sorry for him & defending
him, while he was only too delighted to jump on the bandwagon & hassle me, so maybe
I should help Kay instead? Gender loyalty... nah... they're both all wet!
> > I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which
> > will be reserved to fealthy American genealogists ...
but to clean ones it's ok?
(hey buddy, wanna see some fealthy pictures?)
"If you allude to my ignorance in English, I confess it tranquilly : we can
continue in French and we will see who is the ignorant."
HEY THATS MY LINE.... PLAGERIST!
I wouldnt argue with a frenchman in either language; if you win, they get
upset & dont like you anymore... tho they probably didnt to begin with...
only really like themselves... (never better served than by oneself, hein cheri?)
Kay: > chauvinism,
Pierre: "Try an other word"
Annie: Why? I think that's a pretty good word for what I come up against all the time...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : mardi 5 mars 2002 00:54
Objet : Re: Index to the Cabinet des titres on CD-ROM
Kay Allen AG <all...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message :
3C90F17D...@pacbell.net...
> Cher Pierre,
>
> Comments interspersed.
>
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
<...>
> > I'm not promoting worse conditions, I refuse better conditions which
will be
> > reserved to fealthy American genealogists and will imply a
desappropriation
> Bull. And it is not the people of Utah. It is the Family History Library,
which
> is located in Salt Lake City, but is supported by moneys from world-wide
> sources.
Of a religious community through the world more precisely. But that was not
my point.
> >
> > >
> > > Can you explain me why, if the preservation is so important, French
> > > archives begun only recently to microfilm their records ?
> >
> > Yes of course : they don't have the money and they were too understaffed
to
> > do that earlier.
>
> Then perhaps they don't deserve to have stewardship of these materials if
they
> are too parsinonious to adequately care for the treasures in their care.
Yes, that's a good idea : when a people has not enough money to take care of
its inheritance, an other one more wealthy can take the treasures. That is
called colonialism, and that is also what I called intelletcual spoiling
system.
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
quite correctly here, indicating folks who only credit those of
similar & generally, local, origins... after a fellow named
Chauvin, who pushed it to extremes...
unless of course she was referring to Pierre's presumable
(it's a national characteristic) "male Chauvanism", to
which term is generally preferred the politically correct term of "sexism"
or "male bias" or for the frenchies, "phallocratie"... rule by the male crotch...
I'm sure he indulges liberally in both, like much of the list... & most of France...
but we must try to leave the misguided ample room to take consciousness of
their errors & correct them, avoiding alienating them with treatment similar to
their own, in reverse...to such a degree they can't improve for the scars...
&, LDS surely does think they deserve some sort of leverage for having put all
that data at our disposition, & while we refuse the idea for a number of good
reasons, it is to be noted that they aint so bad, as they DO provide local
gen centers all over the world at reasonable rates... & although one may run into
the same sort of Chauvin problems in there (preference to one group or another)
that one also encounters in Paris' National Library & others, they do go to a lot
of trouble to make it easier, fairer, & more available to most... tho they dont always
succeed in bringing it off, they are surely the least at fault of the batch, on that
count, since they didnt just sit at home and say I got mine, tough for you, but went
out and set up outposts as often as possible; they owe it to no one to do so... say
thank you but dont sell your soul...
----Message d'origine-----
De : Pierre Aronax <pierre...@hotmail.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : lundi 4 mars 2002 23:54
Objet : Re: Index to the Cabinet des titres on CD-ROM
Kay Allen AG <all...@pacbell.net> a écrit dans le message :
> > that kind of purpose that microfim was permitted in the Archives. But if
you
> > have to go through a huge important fund to collect data, and if you
live in
> > Europe (some people do) to make a microfilm would be far more expensive
than
> > to go to the Archive. In fact, it would be so expansive that it made the
> > thing totally impossible : again, I have seen that done only by American
> > students.
>
> Humbug. Intellectual dishonesty again rears its ugly head.
Well, what do you imply : that I didn't see all a fund of an Archive
microfilmed for the use of American students ?
> >
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Perhaps, but that's only because the people of Utah have only had to
> > > > microfilm what others had taken care to preserve. This kind of
library
> > is
> > > > only a parasitical organism : it products or protect nothing, it
only
> > > steal.
> > > > If acces to documents is sometimes difficult in Europe, it is by
default
> > > of
> > > > financial support, partly because European institutions have far
less
> > > funds
> > > > than American, and partly because this funds must be emploied first
of
> > all
> > > > in the preservation of the archives, a preoccupation your Utah
Library
> > has
> > > > not to deal with.
>
> This is again idiotic, ignorant humbug. You don't have a clue as to what
the
> LDS Church has invested for the preservation of these materials. They have
even
> held several world-wide conferences on the preservation of records which
were
> attended by internationally-known and internationally-based
> archivists.archivists. As an archives, the Library in Salt lake has an
> Internationally-favorable reputation. Even now, they are dumping much
cash and
> equipment into archives of the former Soviet Union to ensure the continued
> existence of these archives and their treasures
Again, you don't need to convince me the Library of Salt Lake City has a
better equipment than the archives of the former Societ Union : that's a
pity but that's certainly true.
> > In my opinion, it is a pity that Europeans and
> > > > particularly French government has permitted such extensive
microfilm
> > > > despoil.
>
> > > > Dream as you like, but you must know that many in Europe desagree
with
> > > this
> > > > imperialist spoil system.
> > >
> >
> > All European scholars who have not the financial means to compet.
>
Janet Ariciu
research.
They have books on film, their Medieval facts must go through a lot of
researchers before it is post as fact. They have Medieval department who do
just that. I am not a member of the church but they help me just the same.
For $ 3.25 a film you can not go wrong. On the film that you get is more
then just the one you want. I order a film and found more on another family
on it. So got two for one. Not bad.
Janet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Index to the Cabinet des titres on CD-ROM
> Pierre Aronax wrote:
> >
>
> > > Bull. And it is not the people of Utah. It is the Family History
Library,
> > which
> > > is located in Salt Lake City, but is supported by moneys from
world-wide
> > > sources.
> >
> > Of a religious community through the world more precisely. But that was
not
> > my point.
>
> Yes, it is supported by a religious community, which due to some
> unique beliefs feel that it is in their own best interest to
> encourage genealogical research among members and non-members
> alike. The majority of those who use the system (at least where
> I have become acquainted with the statistics) are non-members.
> You could be a muslim, jew, buddhist, druid or died in the wool
> atheist, and still walk into a FHC and order a copy of any film
> that may help you in your research, for the grand sum of $3.25
> (more or less).
>
> > > Then perhaps they don't deserve to have stewardship of these materials
if
> > they
> > > are too parsinonious to adequately care for the treasures in their
care.
> >
> > Yes, that's a good idea : when a people has not enough money to take
care of
> > its inheritance, an other one more wealthy can take the treasures. That
is
> > called colonialism, and that is also what I called intelletcual spoiling
> > system.
>
> Except that no one is taking the treasures - the treasures stay
> right where they are.
>
>
> (And all this apparently because a few spoiled American brats
> imposed on the generousity of some undisclosed European archive.)
>
>
KHF...@aol.com
In a message dated 3/4/02 9:56:36 PM, reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org writes:
<< >Are there descendants of Inca royalty among Europe's nobility? And if so,
how
>do they specifically descend from the Inca royal family?
See, for instance, *Europaeische Stammtafeln*, ed. Schwennicke, Band IX
[1987], Tafel 16. >>
This is not truly helpful to one who is not near these sources or to a person
who does not read German. Surely that Tafel 16 says something to answer the
question. Why would one look up the Tafel and not give a sense of the
information included?
Nathaniel Taylor
(Janet Ariciu) wrote:
>My local LDS Church has been wonderful in helping me with my family
>research. ... [T]heir medieval facts must go through a lot of
>researchers before it is post as fact. They have Medieval department who do
>just that. ...
By 'their medieval facts' do you mean to refer to data on medieval persons
included in LDS databases such as the 'Ancestral File'? As with all their
data, there is a great deal of false stuff there, either contributed by
individual researchers with no understanding of good genealogy or of
medieval people, or extracted by well-meaning trained people from sources
which simply contain errors. As for the 'medieval department', didn't
Paul Reed post, some time ago, a brief summary of the history of the
'medieval unit' at the LDS FHL? I remember him narrating how at one point
such a unit existed and sought to serve as a 'fact filter' for early data
in the ancestral file, but it essentially gave up the task as hopeless.
Nat Taylor
William Addams Reitwiesner
Okay, here's a sense of the information:
The marriage in question (which introduced a line from the Inca royal
family into a European noble family) occurred around AD 1610, which is
outside the time period of this forum. All of the descendants of the
marriage (European nobles with Inca royal ancestry) lived outside of the
time period of this forum, and are thus inappropriate for discussion here.
Hope that helps.
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Janet Ariciu
why these records must be taken with grain of salt.
I am talking about the fact that the church has people who goes to Churches
in England/other countries. They read the Church records as back as they
can. They even read Tombstone too.
You can find on the webpage Christening records as far back as they can
copy. Some family records date from 700s and some only 1000s.
You must click on Europe sections to find all this information.
Stay away from Ancestral files some people like to post their families as
they think they are not as they really are. All this does is help get all
the information on your family. Then you must search to see they are right
or not.
I will tell this I was looking for my Green family, which I knew was in
Platte County, Missouri.
There was person who posted the family my Green with a 2nd wife and also
posted the 2nd wife family. I when digging to see if this person was right
in saying that my Green had 2nd wife and the facts on this 2nd wife were
right.
She was right but had left out one daughter. That daughter m'd before 1850
and so she did not know about her. That daughter was my ggreatgrandmother.
So some times 'Ancestral File' will help you but again I warn you, Please
double check it for you think it is the truth.
Janet
Nathaniel Taylor
(Janet Ariciu) wrote:
> Nat Taylor wrote:
>
>> In article <00ae01c1c442$3387ada0$48977a3f@monkey>, mon...@getgoin.net
>> (Janet Ariciu) wrote:
>>
>>> My local LDS Church has been wonderful in helping me with my family
>>> research. ... [T]heir medieval facts must go through a lot of
>>> researchers before it is post as fact. They have Medieval department
>>> who do just that. ...
>>
>> By 'their medieval facts' do you mean to refer to data on medieval persons
>> included in LDS databases such as the 'Ancestral File'? ... Didn't
>> Paul Reed post, some time ago, a brief summary of the history of the
>> 'medieval unit' at the LDS FHL? I remember him narrating how at one point
>> such a unit existed and sought to serve as a 'fact filter' for early data
>> in the ancestral file, but it essentially gave up the task as hopeless.
>'Ancestral File' NO! ...
>I am talking about the fact that the Church has people who go to churches
>in England/other countries. They read the church records as back as they
>can. They even read tombstone[s] too. You can find on the webpage christening
>records as far back as they can copy. Some family records date from
>700s and some only 1000s.
You are referring to 'extracted' records, copied en masse, by qualified
copyists, from sources such as parish registers. I doubt there is any
such material in the LDS databases from before the regular proliferation
of baptismal registers, etc., at the end of the Middle Ages (e.g., the
early 16th century in England). No European church has preserved compiled
'Christening records' from the '700s' or even the '1000s', except
individual data in isolated narrative contexts.
>Stay away from Ancestral files ... Please double check it ...
You needn't warn me, but I guess this can't be stated enough.
Nat Taylor
Janet Ariciu
related many Royals. Could this be the reason that Maria was give land in
America?
There was family story on my Ferree who came to America.
"Some time before this (1707) Queen Anne of England had issued a
proclamation inviting the suffering Huguenots to come to England. However,
the Ferrees had heard of Pennsylvania in America, and desiring to go there
began to make plans to cross the Atlantic. Consent for them to leave the
country was granted by the following paper:
"Whereas Marie, Daniel Ferree's widow, and her son Daniel Ferree with his
wife, and other single children, in view of improving their condition and in
furtherance of their prosperity, propose to emigrate from Steinweiler in the
Mayoralty of Bittingheim, High Bailiwick, Gersheim, via Holland and England,
to the island of Pennsylvania to reside there, they have requested an
accredited certificate that they left the town of Steinweiler with the
knowledge of the proper authorities and have deported themselves peaceably
and without cause for censure, and are indebted to no one, and not subject
to vassalage, being duly solicited, it has been thought proper to grant
their petition declaring that the above named persons are not moving away
clandestinely, that during the time their father, the widow and children
resided in this place, they behaved themselves piously and honestly, that it
would have been highly gratifying to us to see them remain among us, that
they are not subject to bodily bondage, they mayoralty not being subject to
vassalage -- they have also paid for their permission to emigrate; Mr.
Fischer, the Mayor of Steinweiler being expressly interrograted, it has been
ascertained that they are not liable for any debts.
In witness thereof, I have, in the absence of the counsellor of the
Palatinate, etc., signed these presents, gave the same to the persons who
intended to emigrate. Dated Bittingheim, March 10, 1708." (L.S.) J. P.
Dietrich, "Court Clerk."
Jean Fiere LA VERREE
(ca1624 - )
Son
Daniel FERREE
b. 10 Mar 1647, Normandy Province, FRANCE; 1650, France, Forchamps, Lower
Normandy
d. 1708, Lindau, BAVARIA
Occupation Huguenot and a silk weaver by trade
MARRIAGE: abt 1675
Wife
Mary WARENBUER (Madam Marie De La Warembur)
b. 1653, Picardy, FRANCE
d. 1716, Conestoga, Lancaster Co, PA
Children (all were born in France
Catherine Ferree c1679
Daniel Ferree c1677
Mary Ferree c1683
Jane Ferree c 1685
Philip Ferree c 1687
John Ferree c 1688
Janet
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> I have been looking Medieval Arhives. I have found that Ferrers/Ferree were
> related many Royals.
Hold it. Ferrers and Ferree are entirely unrelated, at least if
the information you gave below is accurate.
> Could this be the reason that Maria was give land in America?
The only one given land in Pennsylvania was William Penn.
Everyone else bought it or took it.
> There was family story on my Ferree who came to America.
>
> "Some time before this (1707) Queen Anne of England had issued a
> proclamation inviting the suffering Huguenots to come to England. However,
> the Ferrees had heard of Pennsylvania in America, and desiring to go there
> began to make plans to cross the Atlantic.
Forget the Queen Anne part - it has no relevance. Germans and
French protestants started to migrate to Pennsylvania at this
time due to the professions of religious freedom offered to them
by the Quakers of Pa.
> Consent for them to leave the
> country was granted by the following paper:
> "Whereas Marie, Daniel Ferree's widow, and her son Daniel Ferree with his
> wife, and other single children, in view of improving their condition and in
> furtherance of their prosperity, propose to emigrate from Steinweiler in the
> Mayoralty of Bittingheim, High Bailiwick, Gersheim, via Holland and England,
> to the island of Pennsylvania to reside there, . . .
[snip]
> In witness thereof, I have, in the absence of the counsellor of the
> Palatinate, etc., signed these presents, gave the same to the persons who
> intended to emigrate. Dated Bittingheim, March 10, 1708." (L.S.) J. P.
> Dietrich, "Court Clerk."
This is obviously a translation of an original document - you
should try to idedntify the original citation.
taf
Bryant Smith
allowing for later/earlier royalty when Sam Sloan was trying to
fit Jefferson into the scope and complaining that there was lots
of post-1600 stuff being posted with no objections. Unfortunately,
the FAQ, which gets posted every month on the 1st day, seems to
disappear quickly from the Google archive, so I'm not in a position
to quote from it.
Saludos
Bryant Smith
Playa Palo Seco
Costa Rica
Bryant Smith
> Janet Ariciu wrote:
> >
[SNIP]
>
> The only one given land in Pennsylvania was William Penn.
> Everyone else bought it or took it.
>
by the crown he was very scrupulous about paying the indigenes
for their interests in the same land.
Janet Ariciu
by the crown he was very scrupulous about paying the indigenes
for their interests in the same land
True but that didn't last long.
Janet
----- Original Message -----
Janet Ariciu
Everyone else bought it or took it.
Not True. My Heinrich Frey was in PA before William Penn and got his land
from the Indians. Here was there before 1685
I have been looking Medieval Archives. I have found that Ferrers/Ferree were
> > related many Royals.
>
> Hold it. Ferrers and Ferree are entirely unrelated, at least if
> the information you gave below is accurate.
This why I ask, for you all are best people I have found in getting things
right or near enough to it.
Thank you, Mr.Famerie This helped me a lot.
Janet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: Ferree
> Janet Ariciu wrote:
> >
> > I have been looking Medieval Arhives. I have found that Ferrers/Ferree
were
> > related many Royals.
>
> Hold it. Ferrers and Ferree are entirely unrelated, at least if
> the information you gave below is accurate.
>
>
> > Could this be the reason that Maria was give land in America?
>
> The only one given land in Pennsylvania was William Penn.
> Everyone else bought it or took it.
>
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote in message news:<3C8703C2...@interfold.com>...
> > Janet Ariciu wrote:
> > >
> [SNIP]
> >
> > The only one given land in Pennsylvania was William Penn.
> > Everyone else bought it or took it.
> >
> My info about Penn is that although he was "given" the land
> by the crown he was very scrupulous about paying the indigenes
> for their interests in the same land.
True, but it is somewhat unclear that the hunter-gatherer culture
understood the meaning of exclusing land ownership. Likewise,
while Penn was scrupulous, his successors have been accused of
acting in bad faith, such as their (shrewd/disengenuous)
manipulation of the terms of the Walking Purchase. However, this
is beyond the scope here.
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Not True. My Heinrich Frey was in PA before William Penn and got his land
> from the Indians. Here was there before 1685
I strongly suspect that this is a family tradition gone awry.
Assuming that your Frey is German and not Dutch or Swedish, it
would be extremely difficult to account for his presence in
Pennsylvania prior to the establishment of the Quaker colony - it
was the Quakers who initiated the German immigration through
active promotion in the Palatanate. In fact, I can't think of a
single German in the colonies prior to this point. What is your
source for his early arrival and deal with the Delawares (it was
the Delawares, right? Lenape?).
taf
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> reitw...@stop.mail-abuse.org (William Addams Reitwiesner) wrote in message news:<3c868a6b...@news.erols.com>...
>
> > family into a European noble family) occurred around AD 1610, which is
> > outside the time period of this forum. All of the descendants of the
> > marriage (European nobles with Inca royal ancestry) lived outside of the
> > time period of this forum, and are thus inappropriate for discussion here.
>
> allowing for later/earlier royalty
Royalty, perhaps, but not nobility. (To be blunt, this
"loophole" was primarlily included to allow the ancient
non-medieval-but-royal stuff, rather than the modern.)
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
ski...@racsa.co.cr (Bryant Smith) wrote:
>Unfortunately,
>the FAQ, which gets posted every month on the 1st day, seems to
>disappear quickly from the Google archive, so I'm not in a position
>to quote from it.
Anyone is in a position to quote from the FAQ, which is available every
day of the month at:
http://www.erols.com/wrei/faqs/medieval.html
Nat Taylor
Annie Natalelli-Waloszek
Date : jeudi 7 mars 2002 19:55
Objet : Re: Ferree
William Addams Reitwiesner
Which one is missing?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:soc.genealogy.medieval+insubject:
faq&hl=en&scoring=r&as_qdr=y&filter=0
(note: must cut and paste the above URL together into one line)
As you point out, the "loophole" allows for discussion of royal lines. All
of the descendants I've been able to trace of the marriage in question were
noble. None were royal, so they don't qualify for the "loophole".
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
Janet Ariciu
Heinrich Frey was there before he came.
Heinrich came in 1680 to PA area before William Penn came.
Heinrich came from Altheim, Province of Alsace Loraine, Germany/France.
THE LEVERING FAMILY BOOK, PENNSYLVANIA ARCHIVES, FRY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
RECORDS" DR. J.C. CULVER OF NORRISTOWN.
"And According to the historian Abraham M. Cassel, "Heinrich Frey and Joseph
Blatenbach were the first two German emigrants who came to Pennsylvania.
They emigrated in 1680 and settled in Philadelphia.
Heinrich Fry came to America from Altheim, Alsace-Lorraine, Germany/France,
on board the ship MARKUS, with the CAPTAIN SOUDER, MASTER. They arrived in
the South River of the Delaware, in about the year 1680. This was
Approximately 3 years before the Township of Germantown, Pennsylvania was
established."
"SHIP PASSENGER LISTS Pennsylvania and Delaware (1641-1825) by Carl Boyer,
3rd
"Einwanderer in Pennsylvania vor 1770" Jahfbuch Fue Ausland-deutsche
Sippenkunde, 1 (1936), 52-54 [Lancour No 116]
Frey, Heinrich, aus Altheim im Elsass, 1685
Levering, Gerhart and Wigart von Muhlheim, 1685
All the person what were list as being in PA in 1685
William Penn made two trips as far as I can fine.
"Naturalizations, Germantown, PA., 3/7/1691/92; Copia Naturalizations of
Frances Daniel Pastorius and of 61 persons. More of German Town from William
Penn, Esq., " National Genealogical Society Quarterly, 28(1940), 7-8[Lancour
no 129] "William Penn, Propretary of the Province of Pennsylvania etc. By
the King and Queen's authority, to all to whom these Presents shall come.
Sends Greetings, etc. Whereas : Wiggert Levering; Heinrich Frey and Gerhard
Levering; Johannes Bleickers.
"...land-owners, Citizens..1683, 1692 1698.. And Owners of land in
German-town and in the County of Philadelphia, being foreigners, and so not
freemen, according to the acceptation of the Law of England. Have requested
to be made freeman of the said Province, pursuant to the Powers granted by
King's Letters patent, and Act of Union and Naturalization, etc. made in
this Government. Now Know ye, that for the further encouragement of the
Industry and Sobriety of the said Inhabitants, And for the better and
further Security of their Estates real and personal, top them and their
heirs, They the said Inhabitants having Solemnly promised (upon record in
the County Court of Philadelphia aforesaid) faith and Allegiance to William
and Mary, King and Queen England, etc . and fidelity and lawful Obedience to
me, according to the King's letters, patents aforesaid, I doe declare and by
this Presents Confirm them the said Inhabitants before named to be Freeman
of this Government, And that they shall be accordingly held and reputed in
as full and ample manner as any person or persons residing therein, And that
they the said Freemen have liberty and freedom hereby to trade and traffick
in this Colony or in any of the King's Dominions and Plantations, as other
good Subjects do without any manner of Lett, Henderance or Molestation
whatsoever.
Witness Thomas Lloyd, Deputy Govern of Province of Pennsilvania, etc, Given
at Philadelphia aforesaid, with the assent of the Provincial Council, the
Seventh day of the Third month Anno Domi 1691, and in the third year of the
reign of King William and Queen Mary over England, etc..
Does this answer your question
Janet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Todd A. Farmerie
> What If I tell that William Penn agree with me in his documents that
> Heinrich Frey was there before he came.
I would ask to see the document (or at least their citations). I
would also point out that I took your "was in PA before WIlliam
Penn" to mean that he received his land their before Penn did.
If all you are talking about is his date of arrival vs. Penn,
that is a different matter, if only by one year. Still that sets
a date of 1681 (grant) or 1682 (arrival).
> Heinrich came in 1680 to PA area before William Penn came.
What is the source for this date? Oh, I see.
> Heinrich came from Altheim, Province of Alsace Loraine, Germany/France.
>
> THE LEVERING FAMILY BOOK, PENNSYLVANIA ARCHIVES, FRY FAMILY ASSOCIATION
> RECORDS" DR. J.C. CULVER OF NORRISTOWN.
That the Pennsylvania Archives happens to own this book should
not be taken as adding credence to its contents, nor the M.D. or
Ph.D. of its author. It is just another family history.
> "And According to the historian Abraham M. Cassel, "Heinrich Frey and Joseph
> Blatenbach were the first two German emigrants who came to Pennsylvania.
> They emigrated in 1680 and settled in Philadelphia.
And on what did the historian Cassal base this claim?
> Heinrich Fry came to America from Altheim, Alsace-Lorraine, Germany/France,
> on board the ship MARKUS, with the CAPTAIN SOUDER, MASTER. They arrived in
> the South River of the Delaware, in about the year 1680. This was
> Approximately 3 years before the Township of Germantown, Pennsylvania was
> established."
OK, now we have gone from 1680 (a precise date) to "about the
year 1680", and this in your best source.
> "SHIP PASSENGER LISTS Pennsylvania and Delaware (1641-1825) by Carl Boyer,
> 3rd
>
> "Einwanderer in Pennsylvania vor 1770" Jahfbuch Fue Ausland-deutsche
> Sippenkunde, 1 (1936), 52-54 [Lancour No 116]
>
> Frey, Heinrich, aus Altheim im Elsass, 1685
Placing him there only by 1685
> William Penn made two trips as far as I can fine.
>
> "Naturalizations, Germantown, PA., 3/7/1691/92; Copia Naturalizations of
> Frances Daniel Pastorius and of 61 persons. More of German Town from William
> Penn, Esq., " National Genealogical Society Quarterly, 28(1940), 7-8[Lancour
> no 129] "William Penn, Propretary of the Province of Pennsylvania etc. By
> the King and Queen's authority, to all to whom these Presents shall come.
> Sends Greetings, etc. Whereas : Wiggert Levering; Heinrich Frey and Gerhard
> Levering; Johannes Bleickers.
Which puts them there in 1691.
I don't see anything that convinves me that Frey was in PA in
1680, let alone that he received his grant from the Indians (what
is your cite for this) before William Penn got his from the King.
It must be kept in mind that Pennsylvania german family histories
are notorious for bumping back dates of arrival "before the
founding of Germantown" - I have one such tradition for a family
that actually arrived in the late 1720s. Likewise, the whole
"bought from the Indians before Penn" is highly suspect.
taf