When Lewis Became Dennis: A Real Genealogy Mystery

Sometimes a transcription error doesn't just affect one record. It enters published county histories, gets cited by other researchers, and becomes accepted as "fact" for generations. This is the story of how Zachariah Lewis Main became Dennis Main in the official historical record.

The Error That Made It Into Print

Zachariah Lewis Main, Sr., most commonly known as Lewis, was never called Dennis. Yet the 1878 Appanoose County history published a biography for his son, J.W. (John Washington) Main, that begins:

"MAIN, J. W., farmer, Sec. 2; P. 0. Iconium; of German descent; his grandfather, Daniel Main, born in Germany, was a very early settler of Virginia... J. W.'s father, Dennis Main, was born in the year 1800..."

The name should have been Lewis Main, not Dennis Main. This wasn't a one-time slip of the pen in a handwritten record. This was a published county history, printed and distributed, cited by researchers, and accepted as authoritative.

Why the Error Happened

The misnomer seems to have stemmed from a transcription error when someone read the handwritten source material. With the penmanship styles common in the 19th century, especially with all the flourishes typical of formal cursive, a cursive "L" with a highly curved last stroke could quite easily resemble a "D." The letters "ew" in Lewis could also look like "enn" in Dennis.

This wasn't the only transcription error in the county histories. Lewis Main, Sr.'s own biography, also published in 1878, contains a similar mistake:

"In 1867, his wife died, leaving ten children - John, Mary, Nancy, William, Lewis, Susannah, Jacob, Josephine, Sarah, and Charles."

The child listed as "Josephine" was actually Josephus, a male—my 2nd great-grandfather. Once again, the transcriber likely misread cursive handwriting, turning a masculine name into a feminine one.

The Ripple Effect of Published Errors

When errors appear in published county histories, they take on an authority that handwritten records don't carry. Researchers cite published histories as reliable sources. The error gets repeated, referenced, and propagated through genealogical research.

In this case, both the Dennis error and the Josephine error entered the permanent historical record. Future researchers encountering these biographies had to decide: trust the published source, or question it?

The Ongoing Debate

The transcription errors aren't the only complexity in Lewis Main's name. There's also ongoing debate among descendants about whether his name was actually Zachariah Lewis Main or simply Lewis Main.

Published records, census entries, and even photographs of headstones support "Lewis" as the name by which both he and his son, Lewis Main, Jr., were publicly known. Some descendants believe there was only one Zachariah Lewis Main: the grandson, son of Lewis Main, Jr. and Mary Elizabeth Broshar, who was named for his grandfathers, Zachariah Broshar and Lewis Main, Sr.

However, family oral tradition tells a different story. My grandfather, Weldon C. Main, relayed that his great-grandfather's name was Zachariah Lewis, as told to him by his father, Dwight. This wasn't information from family history research or genealogical documents. It was simply what the family knew.

The Pattern of Middle Names

Dwight's own naming story supports the family pattern. He was actually named John Dwight but was always called Dwight. Every census record, his World War I draft registration, and even the inscription on his headstone indicate that his name was simply Dwight Main. Only family knowledge preserved the fact that his first name was John. (His funeral card, later discovered, confirmed: "In Memory of John Dwight Main.")

This family had a pattern of being publicly known by middle names rather than first names. Understanding this pattern makes "Zachariah Lewis, called Lewis" entirely plausible.

The Research Challenge

According to Main descendant Lurene Bivin (Gladys Lurene Rose), the name has been disputed since Frieda Wilson wrote "Descendants of Abraham Funkhouser" and called him Zachariah Lewis Main, Sr. Lurene personally corresponded with Frieda Wilson and researcher Daniel W. Bly, learning there was no documentation as proof of his name being Zachariah.

My grandfather had no extensive documentation. The only written family history record he possessed was a 1935 document written by Charles E. Main and transcribed in 1952 by his daughter, Dorothy. That document called both father and son simply "Lewis Main," not Zachariah.

Yet my grandfather wasn't a family historian when he relayed the Zachariah Lewis story. He only became interested in his lineage when I began asking questions as a child. He had no genealogical agenda, no theory to prove. He simply told me what his father had told him.

Why I Continue Using "Zachariah Lewis Main"

I have no reason to doubt my grandfather's story or his father's account. They weren't trying to solve a genealogical puzzle or reconcile conflicting records. They were simply passing down what they knew.

Since I personally have several ancestors in many branches of my family who were more commonly known by their middle names or nicknames, even in burial records, the pattern fits. Since others in previous generations of the Main family also believed he was Zachariah Lewis, I have continued recording this full name for him and for his son, who was called "Jr."

What This Case Teaches Us

Published sources can contain errors. County histories, printed and bound, still relied on handwritten source material that had to be transcribed. The transcribers made mistakes.

Cursive handwriting patterns caused predictable errors. The L/D confusion and the ew/enn similarity weren't random mistakes. They stemmed from the way 19th-century cursive was written.

Once in print, errors persist. The "Dennis Main" error became part of the official historical record, cited and repeated by researchers who trusted the published source.

Family oral tradition has value. While not documentary proof, family knowledge can preserve details that don't appear in official records, especially regarding names people actually used versus names on documents.

Not everything is provable. Sometimes we have competing sources, family tradition versus published records, and no definitive way to resolve the conflict. That's the reality of genealogical research.

Conclusion

Was his name Zachariah Lewis Main or just Lewis Main? The debate continues among descendants. What we know for certain is that he was never Dennis Main, despite what the published county history says.

The transcription errors that turned Lewis into Dennis and Josephus into Josephine remind us to approach even printed sources with careful attention. The cursive handwriting patterns that caused these errors were systematic, not random. Understanding those patterns helps us recognize similar errors in our own research.

Most importantly, this case reminds us that genealogical truth is often complex. We work with incomplete records, conflicting sources, and family traditions that can't always be documented. Our job isn't to force certainty where uncertainty exists, but to present the evidence honestly and let others draw their own conclusions.