Commentary: The Current State of Genealogical Publishing

Commentary: The Current State of Genealogical Publishing Craig W. Honk, Ph.D. IN 1992 the Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine celebrates the 100th ibirthday of the Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. From its earliest beginnings, the Genealogical Society ofPennsylvania has been committed to the preservation and publication of genealogical records. The centennial anniversary of the Society is thus an appropriate occasion to reflect on the present state of genealogical publishing. Over the past three decades, there has been an extraordinary explosion of interest in family as well as local history, with a resulting proliferation of societies catering to those interests and a strengthening of already existing societies. Since both local and family researchers utilize the same records, there has been a greater focus on the need to publish those materials: tax lists, censuses, deed books, court minutes and dockets, naturalizations, muster rolls, and church records, to name but a few. There has also been a growing awareness of the need to teach amateur researchers the value of a professional approach to archives and to the manuscripts and printed sources they hold. Consequently, workshops and conferences abound in which researchers learn the categories, usefulness, and locations of primary materials, the techniques of early handwriting, the differences in the Julian and Gregorian calendars, the need for accuracy in transcriptions, and, occasionally, the historical context of those materials. Increasingly, well-informed genealogists often have knowledge of primary sources that historians would envy. Yet, despite the burgeoning appreciation for a professional approach to genealogy, there persists a gulf between the growing professionalism of many genealogists and the continuing amateurishness of too many genealogical publishers and publishing houses. Over the last decade there has been an incredible outpouring of publications of original 217 218 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine records aimed at genealogists and also aimed at making a nice, quick, profit for small publishers, a development assisted by the rapid advances in computerized desktop publishing technology. While some of these publications reflect high standards, most do not, a disturbing trend that rankles historians, archivists, and professional genealogists alike. Historians and archivists are concerned about the publication of original manuscript sources, albeit for different reasons. Publishing is part of the historian's craft, while for archivists, publication of the records under their care, if done properly, can preclude the necessity of producing those manuscripts for researchers, thereby saving wear and tear on often fragile source materials. It is also important from the archivist's perspective that custodians of records retain some sense of control over publication of those records, even where such records are considered part of the public domain. An editor should ask for permission to publish the material, should acknowledge in the publication that permission has been received (naming the repository which has granted it), and should provide that repository with at least one copy of the published work. There should also be some introductory discussion about the history of the records being published. Moreover, all academic and some of the better commercial publishers insist upon a review process, that is, scrutiny of the proposed publication by outside reviewers who are experts in the field to determine whether the publication is really necessary, whether the editor's transcript is reliable, and whether the introduction is sound. Once a publishing firm accepts a work for publication, it should then have the work professionally copy edited, and should decide, in consultation with the editor, on the appropriate layout and on the other necessary preparations for publication (such as permissions, acknowledgements, coding of computerized text, and creation of indexes). While this process is lengthy and expensive, it usually results in reliable, quality editions. Regrettably, this process is not occurring with the bulk of genealogical record publications. Far too often, the reader is not told the qualifications of the transcriber, the repository of the original record, or the methodology used in the edition. Rarely do transcribers provide tips about dating of documents where appropriate, that is, whether the Julian or Gregorian calender was in use, nor do they indicate whether permission from repositories was granted, or whether the transcription was made from microfilm or from the original manuscript. Similarly, with reprints of older works, a new introduction should be added that discusses the work itself, particularly in cases such as William Wade Commentary: Genealogical Publishing 219 Hinshaw's Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy (6 vols.; orig. pub!. Ann Arbor, Mich., 1936-50), J. Thomas Scharf's History of Delaware, 1609-1888 (2 vols.; orig. pub!. Philadelphia, 1888), and C. H. B. Turner's Some Records of Sussex County, Delaware (orig. pull. Philadelphia, 1909), all of which have serious errors and flaws that have prompted professional reseachers rely instead on the manuscript sources utilized by those authors and compilers. Also, considering the often poor quality of the original indexes of works published in the nineteenth century, new indexes should be provided when those works are reprinted. Transcripts or abstracts that are riddled with errors do not serve the cause of genealogy or history well. Instead, they simply perpetuate errors in secondary publications unless the original manuscript is consulted by the researcher. Moreover, once records publications, no matter how poorly prepared, are purchased by libraries and researchers, the likelihood of a new and far more accurate edition being published diminishes sharply. Consequently, reliability and accuracy of published records, not a quick profit, should be the priority of genealogical publishers. Unfortunately, the great dilemma for conscientious publishers, and for genealogists and historians, is to find a via media between the need for transcripts and indexes and the need for professionalism at a reasonable cost. The quality publishing firms, and in particular university presses, are under increasing pressure themselves to turn a profit albeit while maintaining quality, and therefore they are often forced to seek subsidies to underwrite the publication costs of manuscripts they deem worthy but which are unlikely to sell in large quantities. Most genealogical publishing companies, however, appear to operate with little capital, and rather than seek subsidies to publish quality works, have decided on small press runs of hundreds of titles of indifferent quality for quick sale. Ideally, genealogists, librarians, archivists, and local historians should check such publications against the original records before purchasing or recommending such books and should demand greater reliability from the transcribers and a sound review process by the publishers. Moreover, there is a need for greater support by foundations, universities, genealogical societies, and lineage and patriotic societies, among others, to help underwrite worthwhile records publications projects. If the historical and genealogical communities insist on quality in records publications, they will receive it; otherwise, unreliable and amateurish publications will become the rule, not the exception, and all researchers will be the poorer for it.