The Challenges of Colonial New England Genealogy

Me standing next to the memorial stone for my 9 gr. grandfather
Thomas Hooker, first pastor of the First Church of Christ in Hartford,
CT and the co-founder of Connecticut and Hartford. He's not actually
buried with the stone. He is buried somewhere in the cemetery but
nobody knows exactly where.

I've been doing genealogy all my life. My parents were interested in it, and my mother became a crackerjack researcher with her job as a reference librarian. I grew up in an area where my family has been for centuries, central Connecticut. I have large clusters of ancestors all around Connecticut, in the Connecticut River valley in Massachusetts, and all of eastern Massachusetts. New England genealogy has its own characteristics. With New England genealogy, the thing you need to keep in mind is this. If you have ancestry going back to the 17th century (1600's) in New England, there is a relatively small pool of people from whom you are going to be descended. The growth of each generation is exponential. In many small farming communities it was common for first cousins to marry. As a result, it is possible to be descended from the same family multiple times. For instance, I am descended from a Nathaniel Merrimam in Wallingford, CT who was one of the original settlers of Wallingford in 1670. I go back to him seven different times. I am descended from three of his children. This is in separate lines back. How could this happen? People tended to say in one place. It wasn't unusual for the most eligible young woman to find that her only prospects were her nearby cousins, or vice versa. 

Published genealogies covering the period before 1900 are common for a number of early settlers who had a lot of descendants. How many descendants can one couple have? Consider this. Generations grow exponentially. Imagine immigrant settlers John and Mary Smith, both born around 1610, come to New England in the 1630's and settle in Massachusetts. They have ten children, three of whom die in childhood. Out of the remaining seven, one does not marry, but the other six do. Each of those six children has ten children. Voila. John and Mary Smith have sixty grandchildren. Sound implausible? Not at all. Now imagine forty of those sixty grandchildren each having eight children. John and Mary Smith, by now dead, have 320 great grandchildren. Out of those 320, 250 have six children each. Now John and Mary Smith, whose gravestones by now are growing lichen, have 3,000 descendants. Keep doing the math and you will see how it grows. I'm generally 9 or 10 generations from my immigrant ancestors. Someone with better math skills can spin out the possibilities.

Another factor that will boost the number of descendants of one family is if the father was married more than once. Childbearing was a very risky enterprise for a woman in the colonial period. Death from complications after childbirth were common, from causes such as hemorrhaging or puerperal sepsis, when the placenta does not come out completely. It was common for a man to be married two or three times during his lifetime. If the second and subsequent wives were younger and of the age to have children, a man could be fathering children into his sixties. That creates another odd scenario, of shortening or lengthening generations. If someone is the youngest child of the second wife, the generation is longer. Compound this several times and a large gap, multigenerational in fact, will occur. I am in different generations descended from the same person. On the other hand, if a person is an early child, and that compounds itself, the generation is shorter.

Prime examples of couples with a huge number of descendants are some of the Mayflower settlers. John and Priscilla Alden are good examples. They have many tens of thousand descendants. So do John and Priscilla Howland, William Bradford, and William Brewster. Mayflower ancestry isn't an exclusive club, it's one in which a lot of people haven't realized yet that they are members.

So far I have found two Mayflower ancestors, Thomas Rogers, who died during the first winter, and Peter Browne. Through their mother my children are descended from four Mayflower passengers--one entire family. My wife is related to John Alden through his sister. I'm descended from the uncle of William Brewster. Undoubtedly some more will pop up. Right now I think my wife may have a Mayflower passenger but I'm still working on that.

My ancestry from all these English nobility, royalty, and such is just luck of the draw. Since the pool of people who came over from England is small, their own ancestry is magnified many times over. And, by then, they probably had no clue that they were descended from nobility, and probably couldn't care less.

Common pitfalls in researching New England genealogy include a general repetition of names, especially in any given family. I've seen lines in which the oldest son was named after his father, who in turn was named after his father. Finding a line in a family that has three or four Samuel Smiths in a row is common. Then there is the issue of children dying young, an unfortunate occurrence that was all too common. It was fairly common for the name of a child who died to be repeated the next time a child of the same sex was born. Having two children named John Brown, for instance, would not be common.

The problem of names being used a lot gets even more complicated. Suppose you have two cousins both named Samuel Heath. Each of them names their first son Samuel Heath. These cousins are six months apart in age. Which Samuel Heath do you go back to?

Common names for men included John, Samuel, Nathaniel, Jonathan, Israel, Josiah, Benjamin, and others. Common names for women included Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, Deborah, Margaret, Hannah, and others. Occasionally women will have names such as Silence, Patience, Prudence, or some other virtue.

Occasionally you will come across someone who seems to have dropped out of the sky. One of my great great grandmothers is such a case. I can't find a trace of her family of origin. Nothing. All I know about her is that she was born around 1820 in New York state, and that she married my great great grandfather and raised a family. Another is an earlier ancestor, Samuel Sturdevant, who appeared in Plymouth, Massachusetts around 1645. His wife's name is uncertain, and nothing can be found about him--where he came from in England, whether he was born in Plymouth or in England. Those are dead ends, either permanent or temporary. I just discovered Sturdevant this week. I doubt anything will ever turn up on him. As for my great great grandmother, I've been on her trail for 30 years. I haven't given up yet.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com, which has made research much easier. Remember, though, that not everything you need is going to be online, and when you are looking at someone else's research do so with a critical eye, and don't take everything they put out as accurate. I have found much good research on Ancestry.com but I have also seen a lot of wishful thinking on the part of someone who wants to be descended from a famous person in history.

New England genealogy is an acquired taste, although it is very addictive. It is a great way to learn about history and the lives that people lived in various times in the past.

The Passage of Time

My great great grandfather, George H. Lewis

In a few months we’ll be entering another year. Another year into this century. I was born in the previous century, just past halfway, at the peak of the Baby Boom. As we chew our way through the twenty first century I reflect back on previous centuries.

Trained as a historian, I don’t see time the way many do. Obviously, time passes in my personal life as it does for everyone else, but historical time is different. For me, the American Civil War is relatively recent. The American Revolution? Further back. Hallowed antiquity starts with the Tudor era in England. In-between? The modern world.

Historians have this view of history. There’s a famous story about Chou En Lai (1898-1976) who was the President of China for a number of years. Chou was steeped in the study of history. At a diplomatic reception he was asked what he thought the implications of the French Revolution were. He replied that it was too early to tell. That’s a good historian.

I have always had a long view of my family history. Genealogy was an indoor sport for us, and for me it still is. You always have to be ready for bombshells and surprises, such as my mother’s discovery that she was descended from Anne Boleyn’s sister Mary, or my recent discovery that my wife and I are both descended from Sir John Hawkins, who was a leader in the English Navy under Elizabeth I and who started the transatlantic slave trade from Africa. You can choose your friends but you're stuck with your relatives.

Getting back to centuries, as the nineteenth century and earlier recede into the past I remember that growing up the 1800’s were not that long ago and were still in living memory. My grandparents were all born in that century. My maternal grandfather was born in 1876. He would be 143 today. Not likely to still be around, which of course he isn’t. With the passing of the twentieth century he has receded into the past. So have great aunts and uncles, and some aunts and uncles as well. My parents, both of whom survived into this century, were born in the 1920's. They met and were married when they were both around thirty so they were a decade or so older than the parents of many of my friends. It didn't matter to me. It was normal. I grew up hearing about my father's experiences in World War II, not in tones of glory, but rather with regret that war was so destructive. He entered that war in 1943--seventy six years ago. At least for the more recent generations in my family the generations have stretched out longer. My mother's father, born in 1876, was fifty when she was born. He was already old enough to be an grandfather.

With the nineteenth century no longer the last century I’ve also left behind significant ancestors. My great great grandfather George H. Lewis, who died of dysentery in 1863 in the Civil War. My Great great great great great grandfather Jared Lewis, who served in the American Revolution. Also Robert Monroe, who died on Lexington Green.

I have left behind many whose names I don’t know yet.

I’m left by these reflections with a feeling of mortality. Hm.

Origins of American Racism Toward Latinos: Elizabethan England Part II "Who Stinketh The Most?"

A 1588 engraving by Theodore DeBry depicting a Spaniard feeding native babies to his dogs.

Part II

England and Roman Catholicism

As Catholic activity increased in England, with exiled priests making incursions in to England in the 1580’s Elizabeth’s government ramped up the persecution of Catholics. Possies roamed the countryside seeking out country houses that secretly kept priests safe, where they could celebrate Mass. A number of Tudor era country houses still have their “priest holes,” or hiding places for priests when the heat was on. The assumption was that if an English citizen were a Catholic, their allegiance was to the Pope, and the Pope had, without exaggeration, ordered the assassination of Elizabeth. To be Catholic was treasonous.

England had already had a taste of a return to Catholicism under Elizabeth’s half-sister Mary and many wanted nothing to do with it.

The other issue with Catholicism was the nature of the Mass. Anglicanism at the time did not hold to transubstantiation as such, and saw the Mass as little more than a pagan ritual.

The Cruelty of the Spanish

The Spanish government made it clear that part of the reason for colonization in the Americas was to convert the heathen. Of course, this involved eradicating their culture and turning them into European Christians. Today, decent people are abhorred by such a view but it was commonly held at the time.

In 1583 (note the date) a 1552 work by Bartholome de Las Casas (1484-1566) was published in English for the first time. de La Casas is still a controversial figure since as a colonist he favored the enslavement and subjugation of the native peoples“The Spanish Colonie” describes the program of genocide that the Spanish inflicted on the native peoples of the Caribbean and Central America. De Las Casa writes:

“Upon these lames so meek, so qualified & endowed of their maker and creator, as hath bin said, entree the Spanish incontinent as they knewe them, as wolves, as lions, & as tigers most cruel of long time famished: and have not done in those quarters these 40.yeres be past, neither yet doe at the present, ought else save tears them in peeses, kill them, martyre them, afflict them, torment them, & destroy them by straunge sorts of cruelties never neithere seene, nor read, nor hearde of the like . . .so Farr forth that of above three millions of souls that were in the Isle of Hispaniola, and that we have seene, there are not nowe two hundredth natives of the countrey.”  (f A2 obv.)

De Las Casa remains a controversial figure in the Roman Catholic Church, which beatified him in 2006. The Episcopal Church venerates him as a saint. He advocated, for one thing, that African slavery replace the slavery of native peoples.

 Map of the New World Martin Waldseemüller(1513) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tabula_Terre_Nove.jpg

This became known as the “Black Legend,” the narrative that the Spanish were cruel to the native peoples of the region. Today, scholars disagree over the causes of such a drop in population. Descendants of the Taino people still live in Puerto Rico. Some scholars favor slavery as a major cause of death. Others credit the introduction of European disease as the major cause of death. Clearly it is both. The conditions of slavery undoubtedly were a major factor. During the years of Columbus’ control of the island somewhere in the range of 100,000 committed mass suicide in protest of their conditions.

I’m not going to debate this issue because there simply isn’t space. It is clear that the Spanish saw the Taino as either pests to be eradicated or as slave labor. This aspect of the Spanish character stemmed from the Reconquista--the gradual reconquest of the Iberian peninsula (minus Portugal) from the Muslim kingdoms there. Get rid of the heathen then things will be good. God wills it.

So, the relationship with Latinos today? Peoples in the Latino world have a complicated ethnic background. Their ancestors include enslaved Africans, native peoples, and Spanish colonists, all in varying degrees. Native languages probably survived to an extent but Spanish became the universal colonial language. The same is true today. So here we have it. People of mixed descent in the region speak Spanish because it was the colonial language in Spanish colonies. The stereotype is that they are lazy, arrogant (because, supposedly, they don't learn English, which actually isn't true). So we have the worst of both worlds--a stubborn stereotype of native peoples as uncivilized, and their forced inheritance of a language that brings up residual images of cruelty and ignorance. For more on this see my previous post on the Origins of Racism: Colonialism. https://ccowing.blogspot.com/2018/07/origins-of-racism-colonialism.html

Here's an easy way to test this out. If some hear Spanish being spoken in a public place they might go ballistic. "Go back to where you came from!" is the refrain. But what if they were speaking German, or Russian, or French? Big difference. Then you would want to know where they were from. Spanish has with it the baggage of being the language that Elizabethan England connected with money-grubbing, cruel Catholics.

By the way--English publications from the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries also promoted the idea that God had given England the New World that they might spread the faith and, while they were at it, make a buttload of money:

"...that you seeing and knowing the continuance of the action by the view hereof you may generally know & learne what thecountrey is, & therupon consider how your dealing therein if it proceede, may returne you profit and gaine; bee it either by inhabitting & planting or otherwise in furthering thereof." Thomas Harriot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia (Frankfurt, 1590) p. 5.

And, of course, their motivations were clean, godly, and pure. In 1584 Richard Hakluyt wrote in the preface of his "Discourse of Western Planting" his outline for the rationale for colonizing what is now the East Coast of the United States:

1. That this westerne discoverie will be greately for thinlargement of the gospell of Christ whereunto the Princes of the refourmed relligion are chefely bound amongest whome her ma[jes]tie ys principall.

2. That all other englishe Trades are growen beggerly or daungerous, especially in all the king of Spayne his Domynions, where our men are dryven to flinge their Bibles and prayer Bokes into the sea, and to forsweare and renouwnce their relligion and conscience and consequently theyr obedience to her Ma[jes]tie.

3. That this westerne voyadge will yelde unto us all the commodities of Europe, Affrica, and Asia, as far as wee were wonte to travell, and supply the wantes of all our decayed trades.

4. That this enterprise will be for the manifolde imploymente of nombers of idle men, and for bredinge of many sufficient, and for utterance of the greate quantitie of the commodities of our Realme. (in The Original Writings & Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts, E.G.R. Taylor, ed. London: the Hakluyt Society, 1935, II:211)

In other words, the New World provided the opportunity for Christianizing the heathen, gaining access to trade in Asia and Africa and making lots of money, beating Spain at their own gaine, and providing employment for a burgeoning English population.

The record of genocide in the English treatment of native peoples in North America needs no repeating. As Edward Rutledge sings in the musical 1776 in the song "Molasses and Rum and Slaves," to misappropriate the last line of this song about the triangle slave trade:

"Who stinketh the most?"

Origins of American Racism Toward Latinos: Elizabethan England: Part I Historical Background

I believe that the origin of an American prejudice against Spanish speakers, racist in character, lies in Elizabethan England. During the Middle Ages England had a tense relationship with France, going back to the twelfth century, when the Angevin Empire, comprised of England and much of the western part of what is now modern France, kept a rump France at bay. As those French territories gradually became a part of France proper the English fought to keep the lands in English possession. The port of Calais remained the only English toehold on the continent until it too was lost under Mary I (r. 1553-1558), never again to return to English possession.  The so-called “Hundred Years War," fought intermittently between England and France from 1337 to 1453, was largely an effort to regain those English territories in France, to no avail.

Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603.                          Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547)

The tension with France meant that England leaned toward Spain, diplomatically, although relations with France were maintained. The first wife of Edward I (r. 1272-1307) was French while his second wife was Spanish.

As the Middle Ages morphed into the Renaissance things changed. Henry VII (r. 1483-1509) leaned more toward Spain, negotiating a Spanish marriage for his eldest son, Arthur. Catherine of Aragon was married to Arthur for less than a year when he died of what some scholars think was the sweating sickness. After languishing in England for years, Henry’s second son, who became Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547) married Catherine after he ascended to the throne. Catherine had a number of pregnancies but only one child, Mary, survived. Henry famously broke from Rome, divorced Catherine and married Anne Boleyn, with only one daughter, Elizabeth, surviving. Four wives later Henry had two daughters and a son, Edward, all of whom reigned over England, Elizabeth’s reign lasting the longest (1558-1603).

During Henry’s reign his court bounced between relations with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by the Hapsburg Charles V, and France, ruled by two monarchs during Henry’s reign. Henry would favor one or the other based on what he thought he could get out of either. It was never out of friendship.

Philip II (r. 1556-1598 Spain)

By the time Elizabeth I took the throne the relationship with Spain had soured considerably. Spain had built up an international empire in the New World and Asia under Charles’ son, Philip II, and England was jealous. During Elizabeth’s reign the first British Empire began to form. The major focus was on the New World. In the century since Columbus’ disastrous encounter with the peoples of South America and the Caribbean, Spain had dominated this region. Expeditions to this region under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh and others attempted to get a toehold on the American continents. Raleigh’s attempt to establish a colony on the Virginia (now North Carolina) coast at Roanoke in 1585 and again in 1587 failed. The tensions between Spain, partly over state-sanctioned piracy and partly over the execution of Mary Queen of Scots resulted in the massive attempt by Spain to conquer England. The Spanish Armada of 1588 failed miserably, and the English sat on the edge of their collective seats for the next decade expecting that the Spanish might try again. There were small incursions but nothing on the scale of the Spanish Armada.

One of the factors in the English animosity toward Philip and Spain was that he had been co-regent with his wife, Mary I of England, who briefly returned England to Catholicism. Many in England did not like the idea of a Spanish king.

The English case against the Spanish revolved around several issues. First, they were Catholic, and wanted to overthrow Elizabeth, a Protestant. Second, they were cruel, in English estimation, as I will discuss in my next post.

The Real Traffic Laws of Connecticut

These are the real rules of the road for driving in Connecticut. Forget what’s written in state law. This is the real deal.If you have any suggested additions I'd be happy to hear them!

Drivers may run red lights if the light was green when the driver first saw it. It used to be green.

The first driver in line when a light turns green may sit at the light texting.

For yellow lights, speed up so as to make it through while the light is still yellow.

Pedestrians never have the right of way.

Speed limits are optional, although the driver may consider slowing down in the presence of a police cruiser.

In no passing zones, drivers may pass without a turn signal when theywish to. Crossing yellow lines or solid white lines is not only allowed but encouraged.

The "right turn on red" law equates the red light to a green arrow; no need to slow, or stop and look prior to the turn.

The "No Turn on Red" or "Right Turn on Red from Right Lane Only" (when there are 2 right turn lanes) signs only apply to people who are not in a hurry, or not self-important. All others should disregard these signs. 

Slow lanes on interstate highways are intended for passing on the right at high speed

Yield signs are there just for decoration.

At stop signs, rolling stops are acceptable. If the driver doesn’t feel like slowing down that’s ok too.

With the use of turn signals, they are totally optional. When a driver in the right lane signals that he/she wants to move over to the center lane, the closest driver to the left must speed up so that the driver to the right cannot move over. This move may be repeated as often as necessary.

Cell phone use and texting is only prohibited in the presence of a police officer. Otherwise it is permitted.

The Disease of Individualism and Gun Ownership

It’s happened again. Four times in the last week a shooter armed to the teeth invaded a public place where people were innocently enjoying food and music or shopping. Trump will send out tweets with “thoughts and prayers,” Republican congressional representatives will show their piety with their “thoughts and prayers,” and not a blasted thing will be done. People will still be able to buy military style rifles with large capacity cartridges so they will be able to get off the maximum amount of shots before being taken down by law enforcement. This time around, perhaps the Democratically led House will introduce legislation related to a ban on assault weapons but we’ll see. For myself, I plan to call my representative and two senators tomorrow.

Our nation is sick. Sick unto death. The illness that has crippled us is a complex wad of fear and hatred, not unlike a cancerous tumor with a variety of DNA in it and none of it is good. In the public arena people call for a “national conversation” on the issue of gun violence. There’s already plenty of conversation, or at times talking at one another, going on now. In my view there is only one place, in two rooms, where that conversation will happen in a meaningful way. It is the House of Representatives and the Senate. Add onto that public hearings scheduled by both houses of Congress and we’ve got the beginnings of a national conversation. Nothing short of that will have any effect. The amount of money that supports the fundamentalist interpretation of the Second Amendment is the elephant in the room.

So what do we do? I’m between jobs right now so I don’t have a pulpit, but I do have my blog so I am using it as my pulpit.

The nature of our sickness, that ball of malicious DNA, has one component, individualism, which seems to control the conversation. Allow me to illustrate. The day of the Sandy Hook shooting I went to a Christmas party at a friend’s house. It was one of those parties you don’t want to miss, as it took over the whole first floor of a Victorian home and included several dozen interesting people. One doctor came, and somehow we ended up in conversation. He was a gun collector, with a variety of modern weapons, and he was deeply torn over the issue of his ability to own an assault weapon, which he did, and the same right of the shooter’s mother at Sandy Hook. What held him back from agreeing that nobody should have access to such weapons was individualism. If he wouldn’t hurt anyone with an assault rifle shouldn’t he be able to buy one? I tried to help him understand the importance of a societal covenant that because of the deadly nature of such weapons nobody, including law abiding citizens, should be able to own them. It didn’t work.

Each of us has an awareness of being an individual. I make my own choices, you make your own choices, and hopefully we won’t make bad choices that hurt others. But that right of individual choice does not extend indefinitely. I cannot choose to take another person’s life, for instance, and expect that society would be ok with it. I cannot choose to drive my car recklessly, under the influence of alcohol, and take the risk of killing another person if not myself as well. Society would not be ok with that. There are legal limits on individual choice. I would argue that our society needs to extend the limitation on individualism to cover assault or military style weapons. Nobody needs them. My right to go out and buy one (which I have no intention of doing) does not trump another person’s right to live. Take a look at this good article from a recent issue of Psychology today:https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/values-matter/201612/is-radical-individualism-destroying-our-moral-compass

Realistically, what is going to happen? One British journalist commented after Sandy Hook that the debate over gun control in the US was over, because it had become acceptable to slaughter children. Connecticut enacted some very strict gun laws, and that is very good. I hope the rest of the country will do the same after this horrible week.

The Meaning of a Signature

Recently I was standing in line at the local pharmacy to pick up a prescription. A couple of elderly women were in line in front of me. One was younger than the other so I assumed it was a mother and daughter. The daughter was helping her mother get around. The prescription was for the older woman, and the pharmacy tech asked her to sign the screen. She held up her hand and it had a cast on it, and she said she was right handed. The tech said it didn’t matter what the signature looked like, he just needed to sign for it. “But it won’t look like my real signature,” the woman said. “It doesn’t matter,” the tech said. “You could have her sign for it if you want.” The woman said she would try. She commented that it didn’t look like her signature.

The tech, who was young enough to be at least her grandson if not her great grandson, may not have understood what underlay the woman’s concern. She grew up in a world in which a signature meant something. When you signed a document you made sure it was an accurate representation of your signature. The more important the document, the more care you took with your signature. You might even pause for a second or two and soak in the significance  of your signature. I often do when I am signing a marriage license after I have officiated at a wedding. My signature certifies that the two people were legally married by me. The legal implications of my signature on that license are tremendous.

Now, it doesn’t matter if your electronic signature resembles anything other than the scrawl of a two year old trying out a crayon for the first time before eating it. In this vignette I was reminded of the vast difference between the two worlds of these two people. One just wanted her to sign the screen so she could take the medication. The other was concerned about the accuracy of her signature.

It may seem a small thing, and in and of itself it is, but the difference is striking. This highlights the overlap we still have of people who lived and worked before the digital age, and those who grew up with it and take it for granted, and at times get impatient with geezers like me who sometimes are confused by it.

I think about my parents’ generation, growing up, getting an education and raising a family all before the current advent of digital technology. At that time a signature meant something. Both my parents had beautiful copperplate signatures. My signature, on the other hand, is a train wreck. I’m a perfect candidate to sign the screen. Nobody can read it on paper either so why would it matter on screen?I remember moving to another state and applying for a drivers license, and I signed the form. The clerk complained that she couldn't read it. I said it was my signature. She replied that it wasn't my signature unless it was legible. I took the form back, printed my name in large block letters and handed it back to her. She was satisfied.

Signatures are an individual thing. Some signatures are famous for the documents that they appear on. John Hancock’s signature is still barely visible on the original Declaration of Independence, which has suffered abuse after abuse since it was signed 243 years ago, and as a shadow of its former self now sits enshrined in inert gas at the National Archive. Many of the signatures have either totally disappeared or have only traces remaining. We all know that Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin (among others) signed the document so does it matter if their signatures have disappeared? Does it make the document less valid? It’s a question to ponder.

For many historical figures the reproduction of a signature is one way to indicate the individual character of a famous person, along with a photograph or portrait. It’s their own rendering of their own name. What can be more individual than that? My handwritten version of John Hancock’s name would not be his signature. His, written with the comment that he wrote it large enough so that King George III could read it without his spectacles, is most assuredly his own name.

This is all in the background of the vignette I witnessed and the window that it is, a window into a world that is vanishing one death at a time. Are we entering an age when nothing means anything anymore? I wonder.