Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2004 :: June ::
Representing Incest
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.1299  Thursday, 17 June 2004

[1]     From:   David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 10:13:15 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1285 Representing Incest

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 13:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 15.1285 Representing Incest[quoting a pro genealogist]


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Cohen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 10:13:15 -0500
Subject: 15.1285 Representing Incest
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1285 Representing Incest

 >David Cohen supplies the same solution as Arnold ("simply double the
 >father") and says it was suggested by his colleague John Loehlin. To be
 >clear: I don't doubt it's a solution, but want to become convinced it's
 >the 'established genealogical way' of doing things. All comments towards
 >that end gratefully
 >received.

Just saying something isn't kosher because it isn't established by
guides isn't convincing. Much of psychoanalytic theory was "established
(lots of agreement within the field that toilet training difficulties
are the key to OCD), then found wanting by evidence that OCD has nothing
to do with toilet training difficulties-lack of validity).  Why is it
established, and why is the double entry incorrect.  How does the
"establishment" say we illustrate incest?

David Cohen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 16 Jun 2004 13:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 15.1285 Representing Incest[quoting a pro genealogist]
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.1285 Representing Incest[quoting a pro genealogist]

Gabriel Egan writes, "While I appreciate Arnold's efforts on my behalf,
I remain in polite disagreement with his claim that this method is
'established'.   Indeed, such duplication is explicitly deprecated in
the guides to genealogy that I've consulted. I'd come up with Arnold's
method as a possible solution myself, and dismissed it because it
required doing what is deprecated by the specialists I'd consulted.
Would he care to convince me by pointing to a published example using
what he claims is this 'established' method? I'm eager to be convinced."

OK: I emailed my cousin who is a professional genealogist with the
National Genealogical Society, and here is his response:
------------------------------------------------------------------
in reference to this charting charting:

* First, a vertical line represents the descendants of two who mate.

* Second, it would appear as the following:

* George Shakesworth   -   Martha Wickerham
    b.11 Jan 1659         |   b. 10 December 1658
    London                |   London
                          |
                          |
                    George Shakesworth, Jr.   -   Martha Wickerham
                    b. 8 July 1679            |   b. 10 December 1658
                    London                    |   London
                                              |
                                    George Shakesworth, III
                                    b. 4 Feb 1699
                                    London
------------------------------------------------------------------
A professional genealogist speaks:

Seeing this helps me understand the situation. I would not enter the
mother's name twice. An equal sign should indicate the marriage between
George Shakesworth and Martha Wickerham and a solid line would connect
the equal sign to their legitimate issue. I then would use dashed lines
from Martha and George Jr. connecting them to the offspring of their
liaison. (This would be in the shape of a tuning fork with one prong
longer than the other; the longer prong would connect with Martha, who
is in the first generation, the shorter prong would connect to George
Jr., in the second generation, and the handle would connect to George
III, in the third generation.) You also could lengthen the distance
between the first and second generations and shorten the distance
between George Jr. and George III to indicate that George III is in the
second generation on his mother's side and the third generation on his
fathers's.

Bill Arnold
http://www.cwru.edu/affil/edis/scholars/arnold.htm

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.