Additions and Corrections

Additions and Corrections COMMODORE THOMAS TRUXTUN, U. S. NAVY. PGM, XVII (1949), 9. In this account, Theodore F. Talbot, second husband of Elizabeth Truxtun, daughter of Commodore Thomas Truxtun, is described as "an attorney in New York City, resided at Morrisania ... and later in Kentucky, until his death 6 December 1836 in Rochester, N.Y." Omitted was the residence of the Talbot family in Michigan, where other members of the family also moved. Theodore was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Michigan, 8 Jan 1834 (see its Transactions), having previously practiced before the Circuit Court of Washington Co. He had an office in Detroit in October 1835. He and his wife were received in the First Presbyterian Church, Detroit, 3 Mar 1836 (Detroit Society for Genealogical Research Magazine, Vol. 26, p. 69) from the Presbyterian Church, Pontiac, Michigan. According to an undated communication from the DSGR, Theodore died or was dismissed in November 1836, and his wife was dismissed 11 Jan 1837, moving to Rochester, N.Y., transferring her records to the Presbyterian Church there. The DAR Cemetery Records of Oakland Co. confirm the date and place of Elizabeth's death as given in the PGM article, but state that Theodore died in Moscow (not Rochester), N.Y. 6 Dec 1836. Their third child is described as: "v. Bertrand Talbot of vicinity Pontiac, mar and had issue." Actually, his name was Bernard H. Talbot, as given in the will of his mother (Abstracts of Probate Files of Oakland Co., Mich. (1852-1868), 1959, p. 31). On the basis of a record written by Oliver Smith (see below) and now in the possession of his greatgranddaughter, Mrs. L. B. MacArthur of New York, and as substantiated by documents, Bernard was born in Kentucky 2 Jun 1807, later moved to Palmyra, N.Y., then to Orchard Lake and to Bloomfield Center (now Bloomfield Hills), Michigan, where he died 15 Nov 1875. He married Susan Allen, born 11 Jul 1808, and they had six sons (Thomas, Theodore and four others, of whom five served in the Civil War) and three daughters (Emma, Mary Tucker and Julia B.). Julia B. Talbot was born in Bloomfield Center 16 Oct 1849 and died 5 May 1924. She was named after her aunt, Julia Phoenix Talbot, who had married Edward Chester Smith 26 Nov 1845 in Moscow, N.Y. (where Theodore Talbot had died nine years earlier); like her aunt, Julia B. Talbot also married a Smith, Oliver by name, son of Mortimore and grandson of Aaron, 1 Jan 1868, in Bloomfield Center (Book 1, p. 6, County of Oakland records). They had eleven children, of whom five died at birth or shortly thereafter. The other six were: i. Harriet Smith (18 Feb 1869-28 Mar 1940) m. Albert Lea. Issue. ii. Cornelia Smith (21 Sep 1871-11 Oct 1916). No issue. Bernard T. Smith (5 Sep 1874-5 Jan 1944). Issue. Vandenberg. Issue. iv. Susan Smith (11 Jul 1878- ? ) m. v. Edward M. Smith (9 Dec 1879-13 Apr 1954) m. Eleanor Stillwell Clarkson. Issue. vi. Laurett Smith (11 Jun 1886-1918). No issue. ALBERT TRUXTON SMITH 151 152 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine Early New England Gravestone Rubbings and Gravestone Designs. Rubbings & Photographs from Early New York & New Jersey. PGM, XXIX (1975), 85. Some additional references are: Memorials for Children of Change. The Art of Early New England Stonecarving. By Dickran and Ann Tashjian. (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1974. 309 p. Illustrations. $20.00.) Glenn R. Atwell, "Transcribing Tombstone Inscriptions," Western New York Genealogical Journal, I (1974), 31-38. James A. Slater and Ernest Caulfield, "The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of Obadiah Wheeler," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society ... , Vol. 84 (1974), 73-103. Peter Benes, "Additional Light on Wooden Grave Markers," Essex Institute Historical Collections, III (1975), 53-64. Norah Smaridge, "Tombstones, Manhole Covers and The Ancient Art of Rubbing," The New York Times, Arts and Leisure, 27 Jul 1975, 23, 28. RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT AN &summit.. PGM, XXV (1967), 45-50. There are two errors in the listing on p. 50 of the numbers per volume: XVII had two numbers rather than one, and XXI had four numbers rather than three. Boost REVIEWS. PGM, XXIX (1975), 82. Following publication of the review by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., of Wills and Their Whereabouts, by Anthony J. Camp, and Wills and Where To Find Them, by J. S. W. Gibson, the Editor invited the authors to comment. Mr. Gibson replied, and his letter is printed below, followed by Mr. Sheppard's response. Sir, I am most grateful to you for your courtesy in sending me a copy of the review by Walter Lee Sheppard, Jr., of the 4th edition of Wills and Their Whereabouts, by Anthony J. Camp, and my own new guide to probate records, Wills and Where to Find Them, and inviting me to reply. My pleasure at having so distinguished a reviewer is marred by the disturbing superficiality and inaccuracy of the review itself. Misled perhaps by the similarity in titles, Mr. Sheppard seems to imply my book claims to be a new edition of Wills and Their Whereabouts—the "same ancestry" to which he refers was merely my acknowledgment of the value of the Bouwens (1939) and Camp (1963) editions, with which I was of course very familiar and would have been irresponsible not to consult. What he does not mention, although it is stated in the same Preface, is that I personally visited and corresponded with virtually all the probate record-holding offices, and it is this research that constitutes the basis of what is a completely new book. There is no reference to Camp's 4th edition for the simple reason that it was published three months after mine. To avoid future confusion I have agreed to change the title of mine in any new version—the present title was chosen at a time that (lamp's book had been out-of-print for eight years and no new edition had been announced. Whilst inevitably the books cover the same ground, the probate records of the British Isles, their arrangement is significantly different, as is their level of presentation. Mr. Camp, in the tradition of his earlier edition, aims to include everything in each repository that is any form of testamentary record, and has given an admirable archival guide, while his 42-page long introduction will remain Additions and Corrections 153 the authoritative paper on testamentary procedure for many years. But I query Mr. Sheppard's claim that it is "must reading for the student"—if by "student" he means the average amateur genealogist. My premise is that at least for beginners the intricacies of testamentary procedure are irrelevant and confusing. For this reason I condense the essential genealogical information into three simplywritten pages, plus an easily consulted five-page glossary, which I hope will be less likely to intimidate the non-expert who is after all only using the book as a reference too. The searcher for wills does not need to know what is in each repository, but where the records for his particular area are to be found—hence my arrangement with all records relating to a specific county gathered together, even if they are not located in that county. Dr. Felix Hull, the Kent county archivist, reviewing the two books in the Genealogists' Magazine, commends this arrangement as "the easier to use" and remarks that it is "a book for the amateur providing all the essential information in a pleasing and approachable fashion" prepared "with the aim of helping the user to the maximum extent." This is indeed the rationale of my book—it is not written for the expert, of whom Mr. Sheppard is a notable example, to whom the complexities of testamentary jurisdiction are familiar, but for the beginner, who is easily bemused and discouraged. For this reason too I concentrate on the records that really matter, wills, admons. and inventories, and the indexes, printed and otherwise, to them—this is the information the beginner wants, whilst fuller archival detail of originals and registered copies, act books, caveats, tuitions, etc., are all too likely to confuse. Mr. Sheppard appears to equate length with merit. Mr. Camp's 33-page index consists mainly of places in peculiar jurisdictions throughout the country. These are also listed by me, but I hope more conveniently, in each county section, so that neighboring parishes can easily be noted—taken all in all there must be much the same total space devoted to indexes. He claims that Camp has 20 pages on London and Middlesex, against my six of text and a map. This is simply misleading, as Camp's 20 pages include at least 12 on national records, of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury and associated courts, the Estate Duty Office, and non-London material, such as the Surrey courts and the Deaneries of Croydon and Shoreham, which just happen to be in London record offices. These I include in a separate section on courts of general jurisdiction or under the relevant ,ounties— my London and Middlesex section is what it claims to be, the records of the city and county only. He specifically states I have "forgotten" the Archiepiscopal Registers at Lambeth Palace. Did he think these were "local" records relating to Lambeth, London or Canterbury, and look for them under London, Surrey or Kent? In fact they appear with other records of national relevance, such as the Courts of Arches and of Delegates, in the appropriate national section—whilst if he had consulted my despised three-page index he would have found the reference under "Caterbury, archiepiscopal registers"—the actual entry is if anything more detailed, for once, than Mr. Camp's. One mundane but important advantage of my book I feel is insufficiently emphasized—a reference book should last, so should have hard covers, should be properly sewn-bound, so that it can be opened flat and remain open, and should be orthodoxly printed, so that it is not trying on the eye—I submit that my book at least meets these criteria. Otherwise I deplore the recommendation of one book against the other, as both are of value to their respective users—Mr. Camp's, 154 The Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine with its great detail, to experts such as Mr. Sheppard, but, I suggest, mine, with its simple approach, to the average person interested in tracing British ancestry. Yours faithfully, J. S. W. GIBSON Part of Mr. Gibson's distress results from the brevity dictated by space requirements, and our editorial policies on reviews. The review which I prepared for the National Genealogical Society Quarterly, and which was not used due to a new policy of not printing reviews of books not in their library . . . would have resolved most of Mr. Gibson's complaints. It is certainly true, and I agree, that Mr. Gibson's book is better for the beginner (a matter of importance to the British public) and Mr. Camp's for the seasoned worker. But what American is a beginner when he starts to research British probate? My review was written for the experienced and not for the beginner. While I saw that Mr. Gibson stated that he had visited and corresponded with most of the repository offices, I intentionally omitted this statement since I thought other data in these books more important. I did not presume that failure to mention this would prejudice the reader against the work, nor that mentioning it would favor the book. Does Mr. Gibson infer that Mr. Camp is not as welt informed? When the length of a review is so limited by space requirements, it is unfortunate that Mr. Gibson gets the impression of superficiality. Had he wanted specific comparisons between entries, I could have supplied a number, which in fact I did with lengthy quotes in the Quarterly (unpublished) review. I could also have cited a great deal of useful cross referencing in Mr. Camp's book, showing where records of one area are located in other areas, and in sufficient detail greatly to assist the reader—a distinct plus for Mr. Camp. Mr. Gibson's preface does indeed explain the differences in his listing from those of Mr. Bouwen and Mr. Camp. Whether he prefers one arrangement over another is, of course, a matter of personal preference. However, his disclaimer of common ancestry for the two books comes a surprise, since the similarity of the titles . . . plus the author's own remarks on page x would certainly lead one to that conclusion. In fact, there appears to be considerable speculation both in UK and US as to why Mr. Camp's new revised work was not brought out by Phillimore, which published his 3rd edition, but instead the publisher turned to a different author, when the reputation of Mr. Camp and his book were so well established. Mr. Gibson is certainly correct in his statement that Mr. Camp's book appeared three months after his, but I certainly doubt that either he or Phillimore was unaware that it was "in the works." I certainly differ from Mr. Gibson in his view that a brief summary of probate procedure rather than the full treatment given by Mr. Camp is adequate for the beginner. Having taught many "beginners" it has been my experience that unless a full and detailed "grounding" is given, the student falls into many errors, and fails to utilize all the information that he can obtain. He can also acquire bad habits that are hard to break. Since the probate laws in the United States vary widely from state to state, it is important for the beginner here to know the differences, and he learns them. How much more vital, then, when he starts to use British material, for him to know all the facts of British probate. I do indeed agree that it is an advantage to have a hard bound book that will open flat and stay open at the desired page, and that it will survive library Additions and Corrections 155 use better than paperback. In fact, my review specifically indicates this difference. My longer (unpublished) review also drew to the reader's attention the outline maps which Mr. Gibson furnished, and his glossary . . . as distinct plusses for Mr. Gibson. I also agree that length of entry is not equivalent to quality, and in fact in the longer review I quoted extensively to demonstrate differences in entries. I am sure that Mr. Gibson would not accuse Mr. Camp of needless verbosity. It would be apparent that both gentlemen share an urge for economy of words. As to Lambeth, I am sure that Mr. Gibson's suggestion that I may have thought of these as "local records" was jest. But why does he think that indexing them only under "Canterbury, archiepiscopal registers" is adequate indexing? And why does he not cross-index all these "national records" in the local geographical summaries, It is far easire for a visitor from overseas to use a volume that shows under a geographic heading (as against a local records and national records listing) all records in that area, so that the visitor may plan his research in an orderly manner with a minimum of lost time in travel. In one way Mr. Gibson is correct in saying that his entry for the archiepiscopal registers at Lambeth is more detailed. But Mr. Camp doer include with his entry the data on peculiars under this jurisdiction at the same archive—a very useful piece of information for the visitor from abroad. Comparisons are always invidious, and Mr. Gibson errs if he thinks I denigrated his efforts. I gave him credit for his knowledge and industry, together with some of his innovations, but I indicated that if a choice for American researchers had to be made between the two works, each excellent, I preferred Mr. Camp's. I have both volumes in my library, and I still have the same preference. WALTER Len SHEPPARD, Ja. ANNOUNCEMENT With the next issue, PGM will institute a section listing genealogical research now under way with a view to pubication. Readers are invited to advise the Editor of such research, giving the following information: family name(s), brief description of scope of work, with name, date(s) and location(s) of beginning person, and name and address of the researcher.