VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jon Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:07:41 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (81 lines)
Henry is right.  I stumbled over the new name but didn't take time to figure
out why - Henry's diagnosis and cure seem right on the mark. . . .
   That said, from time to time VA-HIST gets announcements of progress in
the processing of the Chancery records and links to the finding aids.
   While I know in general that Chancery courts dealt in equity, and that
gave them some flexibility for fairness denied to other courts (Solomon and
the two mothers claiming the same child sounds like the very model of an
equity judge). And as a result I'm told that they often decided interesting
cases that result in rich documentary information, not to mention family
information of great value to geneaologists, that give the Chancery records
great potential for research . . .
and I've even looked up folks of interest to me and found citations that
might be worth following up . . . .
although, not yet, at least in my experience (and admitting that many of my
research interests fall chronologically before the range of these
collections), citations of interest that are also supported (as I understand
some of the Chancery records are) by direct access to digitized records . .
.
Sooooo, might we entice some of our VA-HIST colleagues who have used these
Chancery records to share some examples of the riches I'm told can be found
therein?
Many many thanks,


-- 
Jon Kukla
www.JonKukla.com

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Joe Chandler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I agree with Henry. The proposed (?already adopted)
> terms are awkward and NOT clarifying; they don't
> clearly convey the intentions stated for their use. I
> am in state government and they sound like titles
> adopted by a committee.
>
> jc
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Henry Wiencek <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > I would hate to see the phrase "Burned Counties" go
> > into the ash heap
> > because it is so evocative and, more to the point,
> > it is embedded in
> > the minds of many researchers. And I have a problem
> > with the new name
> > "Lost Records..." because it strongly implies that
> > it is a list of
> > things that are lost and therefore unavailable.
> > People who don't know
> > in advance what it means will think "why should I
> > bother with that?"
> >
> > How about something like:
> >
> > Recovered Records of Burned Counties and Other
> > Locales
> >
> > --
> >
> > Henry Wiencek
> >
> > ______________________________________
> > To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please
> > see the instructions at
> > http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
> >
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US