Re: Additional info Re: John/Jean-Baptiste Otis
-
In reply to:
Re: Additional info Re: John/Jean-Baptiste Otis
tom dunn 8/02/02
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the clarification.I guess my main problem was one of chronology.Quint's quote seems to prove that the English boy baptized "Jean-Baptiste" in 1700 is definitely not John Otis.The dates just don't jive although the origin ("Boston environs") does, as you point out.
Sorry about attributing the match of John-son-of-Stephen to you.I should have referred more explicitely to the contents of your message (posting 532).There is an often seen association by Canadian généalogists that John dit Jean-Baptiste was the brother of Françoise-Rose who has now been reasonably identified as the daughter of Stephen Otis and Mary Pitman (see posting 227 in this Forum)...I wonder if Stackpole is the source of that association...I have even read somewhere that John allegedly attended Françoise-Rose's wedding in Beauport (not that far from Ste-Anne-de-Beaupré).I don't know how that can be said unless his name figures in the mariage act or contract.I will likely check that out too, just to be sure.The two were certainly related but likely not as brother and sister.
On another front, while I have not yet received the microfilm of John's 1703 mariage contract, I have found a transcript.It identifies John's parents as "... défunt Richard Otis et Anna Otis vivant Angloise de nation..."which means "... deceased Richard Otis and Anna Otis living of English nationality..."The last part is actually, in my opinion, more nuanced than what transpires in the English translation."vivant" does not necessarily mean she is alive.It could be construed as meaning that she was English when she lived...Also, in those years, puctuation was rarely if ever utilized in writing --- so the "deceased" could apply to both just as the "living of English nationality" part could apply to both if commas are judiciously placed.In addition to this interpretation, I also consider the following circumstancial evidence.If Anna was indeed Shuah Starbuck Heard (based upon Shuah being a nickname / substitute for Anna or Susannah -- is this correct?), this means that John's mother died when he was perhaps 5 years old -- in 1685.Richard Otis, his father, remarried to Grizel Warren in 1686 (when John was 6).Which 5 year old would know the full name of his mother unless it was regularly reminded to him by adults?By the time John was 23 years old in Ste-Anne-de-Beaupré, he probably did not remember his mother much, if at all.He was probably able to say the woman who acted as his mother was not killed with his father...probably vaguely remembered her true mother's name was Anna but the last name...It has been only
about a year since my youngest kid of 8 years of age can remember without fault my wife's last name --- and that is largely because in this part of the world women keep their family names and he is being reminded of it all the time.
My other follow-up was to look up Malchelosse's sources, which I did (at the National Library in Ottawa).I found his book well researched and relatively well documented.He refers appropriately to the work of Alice Baker.His claim that John was left with an old indian woman sometimes after the Fall of 1689, and that he had been tortured, is based on oral tradition.He does not however state where he heard this from (indian bands, local folk stories, oral family stories, etc.).What is interesting though is that Jean-Baptiste ended up as a "donné" (literally
meaning a "given"): someone who gives his life to a religious community, basically doing employee work for the community for a salary and other benefits in health as in illness.Thus, John looked after the farm properties of the Quebec Seminar, first in St-Joachim (1702-1732) and later in Baie-St-Paul (1732-1750).In 1750 (at age 70), he signed a contract with the Seminar whereby he was released of his work as a "donné" with an annual pension for life of 30 bushels of wheat.The community did indeed look after their people well!It is tempting to speculate that he must have felt some debt to the community for having rescued him from the "savages"... but let us not jump to conclusions...
In closing, I fully agree that it looks highly improbable that John was the son of Richard jr.There are too many things that don't make sense.
More Replies:
-
Re: Additional info Re: John/Jean-Baptiste Otis
Denis Savard 3/27/08
-
Re: Additional info Re: John/Jean-Baptiste Otis
Denis Savard 3/28/08
-
Re: Additional info Re: John/Jean-Baptiste Otis