Family history and academic presses have had a checkered relationship over the past century. Academics' stereotypical view is expressed in the publisher's "Product Description": Transcribing the narrow genealogical antiquarianism and filial pietism of traditional family history, the authors carefully set Demarest and his descendants in the context of their times." The irony is that both publisher and authors proceed to display that very decried "filial pietism." The family founder is an "astute patriarch" and his offspring "a prosperous family that for nearly three centuries retained local influence and high status."
Reviewers who rarely cover genealogical works have lauded the authors' mission. In the Journal of American History, a leading Huguenot scholar praises the authors for demonstrating their family's connections to life events. The reviewer then informs readers that the study is "a well-researched . . . book that meets the canons of the genealogical genre."
Every book should be judged by those qualities and by how well it meets the needs of potential users. The authors have set the immigrant and his descendants "in the context of their times." Of some 218 cited bibliographical sources, 183 are primarily contextual - from studies of merchant sailing vessels, chair factories, the coffee trade, money substitutes, and historic dress, to Dutch dialects, French etymology, genetics, and religious history. Many passages offer a model for today's genealogists.
On another issue the authors disappoint. Huguenot on the Hackensack recycles the antiquated practices of generations past, suggesting unfamiliarity with current genealogical scholarship. Demarest descendants have labored since 1889 to reassemble the branches of their sprawling tree. Using an 1889 paper and its 1928 embellishment, offspring expanded genealogies in 1938 and 1964. While images of transcripts of a few documents provide "interest" in those works, the authors rarely tried to prove their asserted "begats." The modern family Web site notes a continued struggle to trace the family beyond the immigrant's father - one Jean, whose given name was the most common in his society.
Despite unauthenticated past claims and assumptions and the authors' commendable observation that "the great defect of both editions is a lack of scholarly references," Huguenot on the Hackensack repeatedly cites the 1938 and 1964 genealogies as the "authorities" for its unquestioned "facts." Their only significant quibble is an appropriate dismissal of a long-claimed coat-of-arms. But a full-page display of the spurious crest follows. The bibliography cites only two original sources - the letters and memoir of that 1889 writer. With rare exception, citations to seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources are drawn from derivative works - despite the book's acknowledgments citing two dozen archives and libraries in France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States, in addition to "the collections of various churches and other institutions" (pg. 13).
The objectives stated for Huguenot on the Hackensack - objective research and analysis, and placing ancestors into historical context in a family history - are established genealogical practice. Writing as a historian and a genealogist, Joseph Amato has pointed out that modern genealogy is the antithesis of filiopietism.
Huguenot on the Hackensack adds to this literature. Regional historians will appreciate how well this study illuminates the area's history. Descendents already appreciate the author's insights; the one customer review on Amazon.com reports "It was a pleasure to read about my heritage from this beautifully written & illustrated book." However, the authors' views on genealogy vis-a-vis scholarly studies would have been more persuasive had the work reflected current genealogical standards.
|
