As I've shown already this legend is well documented in Israel's line as recounted by his decendant and quoted in both Mather's and Baker's books. What is interesting is source in print for my own line in the History of the Western Reserve.
"The first Reeves came from Dijon, France. They were Huguenots, and, seeking religious freedom, the most fled to England, though a few settled in Ireland and Holland."
Huguenots were French Protestants who were persecuted in France for their beliefs. Many fled to other countries including the American Colonies where they founded New Paltz and New Rochelle in New York. There was a small settlement on the south shore of Staten Island as well. There are currently a large number of sites on line that list surnames of Huguenot families that immigrated to America. None of these sites list the name Reeve, Reeves, or even Revee. The closest names listed are Rives that became Rivers in America or Revere. While there does appear to be a surname "Revee", it seems to be an alternate spelling of perhaps Reve or Rive and may be related to Reeve.
I think this story is a confusion, perhaps exageration of the true story, or poor research of the surname Reeve. As anyone researching the surname Reeve should know, a Reeve in England was a minor official. They were a sort of tax collector and enforcer of the laws for the Lord in feudal times. Chaucer's "The Reeve's Tale" is a classic example of the Reeve, if a bit unflattering. It shows that Reeve's were well established in England by the time Chaucer was writing his tales in the late 1300's. The modern word Sheriff was dervived from the Shire Reeve. There are may assertions that Reeves and their many spellings came from France. This is true, the first Reeves crossed the English Channel with William to Conqueror in 1066. There were Reeves in France, and Reeves crossing to England throughout this time period. Some may have been Huguenots, but like any Profession based name like Cooper, Tanner or Smith, there were loads of Reeves. The following is a quote from "Reliques of the Rives":
"That the Ryves or Rives family is of French derivation is susceptible of proof from the pronunciation of the name: even after a separation of four or more centuries from France, the "i" in "Rives," as also the "y" in "Ryves," is pronounced as the French "i": that is to say, like the English double "e" in "Reeves." As a general rule, with but insignificant exceptions, the final "s" in French is not pronounced; and, it might be expected, therefore, that the early generations in England would have pronounced the name, "Reve.""
Currently, it is universally accepted that all variations of spelling of the name originate from Norman feudalism in France. That does not mean however that there was one Reeve ancestor, nor that all Reeves are somehow related any more than would it be true that all individuals bearing the surname Smith are related.
One of the first most complete studies of the Reeve surname was the Reliques of the Rives by J. Rives Childs, published in 1929. This particular work deals with the decendants of Robert Ryves (1490-1551) of Dorsetshire, England. This work also details the immigration of William Rives to Colonial Virginia in the mid to late 1600's. William is the founder of a long line of Rives of various spellings throughout Virginia, Tennesee and the Carolinas. Childs states in his book:
"Although the descent of the emigrant, William Rives, unfortunately is not susceptible of record proof - despite the fact that no pains have been spared in the effort to establish the fact beyond cavil - inferential evidence thereof is by no means lacking.
Comparison of the baprismal names used by the first and later generations of the family in Virginia with those of the Oxfordshire branch of the Dorsetshire family reveals a striking similarity and gives strong support to the assumption that the emigrant ancestor of the Virginia family was the youngest son of Timothy Ryves. As a renealogist has remarked: "In old families, baptismal names were religiously adhered to, and it is almost a certainty that any line of descendants may be placed upon the main stem by attention to the baptismal names""
I find it interesting that a work as cited as Reliques of the Rives is as dependant on "inferential evidence" as my line is to make the leap back to England.
I think over time, research from different Reeve lines has been muddled together and confused by poor research. I think that the migration of Reeves from France to England in general has been mixed up with the flight of Huguenots from France, and suddenly Reeves were Huguenots. The fact is that the Reeve surname was well established in England long before the rise of the Huguenots and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in the late 1500's. I think this confusion is where the Huguenot notion originates and the four brothers from France.
Consider the children's game "Telephone", there is a long line of people and the first person whispers a message in the next person's ear. The last person in the line speaks the message they received out loud. The fun is to see how the message changed at the end of the line. This is the trouble with oral traditions, each teller changes the story a little bit until it's hardly recognizable. In Genesis, god made the world in seven days, this is hardly likely, more likely this is a representation of a longer period of time, simplified for convenience and limited understanding. In a the barely literate world of Colonial America, ancestors who crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror, are compressed in time to generations that are closer and easier to imagine.
In the absence of availible evidence, people often turn to conjecture which they repeat as though it were proven. Eager genealogists see several Reeves living in the same area and assume they are related. Searching google for the origins of the surname Reeve brings up a business were you can buy a copy of your coat of arms with a very general outline of it's origins. The information is generally correct, but over simplified and copied from multiple sources. Reeves in general, were not nobility to begin with. Now certain ancestors of lines like Robert Ryves may have been awarded lands or titles or purchased them. Certainly, Robert Ryves coat of arms is valid for that line of Reeves. Everyone wants to have noble blood though, the idea of being related to nobility is very seductive. I have one family line that has been claiming relationship to a English Countess for a century even though no one can prove it. Robert Ryves might have had some land and minor titles, this makes it very desirable to somehow tie to that line. Many Reeves probably rang true to Chaucer's charicterizations, being hungry for greater position and power; to be the Lord and not his agent.
It would be quite attractive to weave a tale of four brothers of noble blood, persecuted in France, who came to America and founded four branches of Reeves one brother who used the name Rives and went south. Simply borrowing bit's and pieces of the truth and of other Reeve's tales and melding them into one large family story.
The facts are, that when you try to find any substantiating evidence, the whole fairy tale falls apart. The true tale should sound more like four brothers who's ancestors originated in France and crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror. Perhaps there were four brothers, but the immigrants seem to be more distant than Israel and Bethuel's generation. Maybe "came from France" referred to the earlier history and was interpreted as more recent history by young ears.
No comments:
Post a Comment