Re: Peck Pedigree: 1400-1600: Ancestors of Robert Peck of Beccles

In article <mailman.663.1193617398.19317.gen-medieval@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bill Arnold <billarnoldfla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Will Johnson wrote:

Bill Arnold wrote:

Ira B. Peck published his *A Genealogical History of the Descendants
of Joseph Peck* in Boston in 1868. In Jan 1870 W.H.W. offered a
mini-critique in *Book-Notices* of NEHGSR, page 96...

Ira. B. Peck responded in April 1870, pages 187-88, and said, in part:

"In relation to the pedigree, I stated that it could be found in the
British Museum...[dated] 20th Nov. 1620." . . . "It is in
the library of the British Museum...and was evidently prepared at much
expense for Nicholas Peck, the elder brother of Robert and Joseph,
who possessed, after his mother's decease, the most of his father's and
uncle's estates."

Thus: the PLOT thickens! If Ira. B. Peck TOLD THE WORLD in 1870 that
his distant relative Nicholas, b.1576, had commissioned the Peck Pedigree
in the British Museum Library, then IF THAT IS TRUE AND CERTAIN then
the British Museum Library scholars ought to know the true provenance
of the plates (there are four). No one can make CALCULATED STATEMENTS
ABOUT THE PECK PEDIGREE and its TRUTH and CERTAINTY until the
PROVENANCE issue is decided. I can speculate, but as a descendant
I am entitled :)

Bill I think you can see that that is a bit of silly argument.

Ira Peck in the 19th century could have no idea of the truth of when the
older pedigree was prepared. So what he said on that topic isn't germane.

Au Contraire.

Unless, now, we are maligning Ira Peck, as well?

Mr. Peck was not in a position to judge the authenticity of the Peck
pedigree communicated to him by Somerby. Ira Peck is only 'maligned' to
the point that (as Will notes above) he cannot vouch to us for the
pedigree. He may have been duped. He took Somerby at his word--and
needed to defend it because even to contemporaries in 1870 (especially
someone as sound as William H. Whitmore [WHW], who wrote the notice in
NEHGR) it looked a tad suspicious.

The irony is that, suspicious as Whitmore was, he declared he would be
satisfied if Somerby vouched for it--and of course Somerby had!

I made a pdf of the 1870 exchange between Whitmore and Peck, available
at:

http://www.nltaylor.net/temp/Peck_NEHGR_1870.pdf

For what it's worth, Ira Peck's _Peck Genealogy_ is available at
ancestry.com. It gives a typeset version of the pedigree published in
photographs by Shirley Allyn Peck, but nothing else of value for the
question at hand.

Understand, according to his commentary, he wrote to thousands of
recipients all over the world: he was a Peck: if there was a family
tradition,
or something for him to hang his hat on to make that *outrageous statement*
then I can take it with a grain of salt: it still must be dealt with in terms
of
PROVENANCE. I have dealt with primary documents in research for decades,
and provenance is a big issue which decides many questions. If the
provenance
question cannot be resolved, we have a very interesting house of cards, which
must be dealt with differently. Anyone got an inside track to the provenance
issue?

Bill

YOU already do. What did you learn from the British Library about Add.
MS 5524?

Nat Taylor
http://www.nltaylor.net
.

Relevant Pages