RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: horselydown86 on Thursday 01 March 18 13:51 GMT (UK)
-
I would like to ask for help please in completing these opening lines of Latin text from a land surrender in 1416
1417.
The questions are:
Image 1:
What is the first word? What is the ending for testat?
Images 2 & 4:
I have the last word of Image 2 as p(ro)p(ar)tem (because the catalogue entry for the document referred to a share). Is that correct? The same word appears in Image 4.
Image 3:
I have this as salvis, but references say that salvis is an adjective.
Should it not be a participle of the verb - either present or past?
Images 5 & 6:
These run consecutively, making:
...et [tam?] [d(omi)no?] Regi [qui?] Alijs [cap?] [d(omi)nis?]...
What are the missing words? What is the translation?
Finally, filio et heredi is in the dative case. Should it not be genitive?
If it is dative, how should that phrase be translated?
My transcript and tentative translation are below.
Thank you very much for your help.
***************************************************************************
[h?dicta?] [testat?] q(uo)d Joh(a)nes Trist de Maideford t(ra)didit et ad fir(ma)m dimisit Will(iel)mo Trist filio et heredi suo [p(ro)p(ar)tem?]
Suam Manerij de Maideford Salvis sibi t(er)ris p(ra)tis et om(n)ib(us) Alijs eid(e)m [p(ro)p(ar)ti?] p(er)tinentib(us) tenend(um) eid(e)m
Will(iel)mo Et her(edes) suis ad to(ta)m vitam d(ict)i Joh(an)is Redd(ens) inde annuatim p(re)fat(i)s Joh(an)i ad to(ta)m vitam suam
quinque solid(us) bone monete ad festa pasch(e) et Mich(ael)is Arch(angel)i p(ro) equales [porcion?] et [tam?] d(omi)no Regi
[qui?] Alijs [cap?] [d(omi)nis?] et Alijs quib(us)cumq(ue) s(er)vicia inde debita et de iur(e) consueta...
…that John Trist of Maidford surrendered and to farm released to William Trist (his?) son and heir (his?) share of
his manor of Maidford [saving?] to himself lands meadows and all other things to the same share pertaining to hold to the same
William and his heirs for the entire life of the said John rendering thenceforth yearly payment to the said John for his entire life
five shillings of good money at the feasts of Easter and Michael the Archangel by way of equal payments and…
…and whatever other the services thence due and of right accustomed…
-
Images 4 - 6:
-
Image 1:
What is the first word? What is the ending for testat?
H(ac) indent(ur)a testat(ur) q(uo)d ...
By this indenture/document it is evidenced that ...
(Both words have the same -ur suspension; when at the end of a word, as with testat(ur), it indicates a passive verb.)
Images 2 & 4:
I have the last word of Image 2 as p(ro)p(ar)tem (because the catalogue entry for the document referred to a share). Is that correct?
Yes. It could be p(er)p(ar)tem rather than pro- (as in p(er) equales in image 5). Both are found, but the sense is the same. Purpart = share or part of an inheritance.
Image 3:
I have this as salvis, but references say that salvis is an adjective.
Should it not be a participle of the verb - either present or past?
Strictly, it’s an adjective formed from a participle. It agrees with terris pratis etc. Literally, ‘lands meadows ... being saved for himself’.
Images 5 & 6:
These run consecutively, making:
...et [tam?] [d(omi)no?] Regi [qui?] Alijs [cap?] [d(omi)nis?]...
What are the missing words? What is the translation?
... p(er) equales porcion(es) et tam d(omi)no Regi
q(ua)m Alijs cap(italibus) d(omi)nis et Alijs quib(us)cumq(ue) ...
... in equal portions, and as much to the lord King as to other chief lords and to whomsoever else ...
(It’s a tam ... quam construction, meaning ‘as much one as the other', or simply ‘both ... and’)
ADDED - quib(us)cumq(ue) goes with Alijs, not with s(er)vicia, which slightly affects your translation here.
Finally, filio et heredi is in the dative case. Should it not be genitive?
If it is dative, how should that phrase be translated?
It’s all dative because he released it to or for William (‘and to farm released to/for William Trist ...')
A few other very minor points in the transcription ...
... dimisit Will(el)mo Trist
... Et her(edibus) suis ... Joh(ann)is ... Joh(ann)i ...
... quinque solid(os)
I hope I haven't missed anything, and that it makes sense?
-
Thank you very much, Bookbox, for your comprehensive explanation of all my questions.
I can see the readings in the original now I have your transcripts.
It's most helpful to have things like the tam ... quam pointed out. I'll recognize it when I see it again.
I did think it should have been p(er) equales, but was convinced to go with p(ro) by the diagram on page xiii of Court Hand Restored.
Unfortunately I will have to trouble you again in a few days, as I can't get any foothold into the next three lines.
Thanks again.
-
For the record (should other TRIST descendants find this thread) I must correct the year, which is actually 1416.
-
I did think it should have been p(er) equales, but was convinced to go with p(ro) by the diagram on page xiii of Court Hand Restored.
Looking again, I agree it is probably written, ungrammatically, as p(ro) equales porcion(es), rather than p(er) which would be the standard wording. If it is p(ro), it should have been followed by equalibus porcionibus, which is hardly ever found in this context. But I guess they weren’t over-concerned about such niceties. It’s a good case for a footnote!
-
Thanks Bookbox. I took a look though the rest of the document and found this - p(ro)x(im)o and semp(er); both using the same form of contraction.
So our writer clearly wasn't aware of the diktats of Court Hand Restored when he took up his pen back in 1416.
-
Excellent example. Thanks for posting it.
-
If I may trouble you again please, these three lines are the most difficult in the document. I'm struggling to understand enough of the key words to grasp the meaning.
The difficulty begins following consueta in the previous transcript and runs to the point where he refills his inkpot.
Here is my best transcript. I suspect the first festo must be the Nativity of the Lord, but the apparent l is bothering me.
Thank you for your help.
******************************************************************************
...et [vesturam?] [?]
[scil(i)c(et)?] [?ar?mentu(m)?] [no?] vl [us?tat?m] [ita?] q(uo)d [sct?] [stat(u)m?] suo [conveniens?] in [festo?] [Nat?is?] [d(omi)ni?] vl in
festo Nat(ivitatis) s(an)c(t)i Joh(ann)is p(ro)x(im)o et [sic?] ex tunc [quo?] [alt?] anno [h?(que)?] [vesturam?] ad [?] dictor(um) festor(um) [d?]
[t?io?] p(re)d(i)c(t)o Ita semp(er) q(uo)d si d(i)c(t)is Will(el)m(u)s [obieru(n)t?] [v?ecte?] p(re)fato Joh(a)nne...
-
I agree with most of what you've got, and have tried to fill the gaps.
My translation is somewhat stilted, sorry - but I think the sense is clear.
=====
... et vesturari t(er)ram
scil(ice)t garnimentu(m) novu(m) v(e)l usitatum ita q(uo)d sit statui suo conveniens in festo Nat(ivita)tis d(omi)ni v(e)l in
festo Nat(ivitatis) S(an)c(t)i Joh(ann)is p(ro)x(im)o et sic extunc quoli(be)t alt(er)o anno hui(usmod)i vesturari ad unu(m) d(i)c(t)o(rum) festo(rum) durante
t(erm)i(n)o p(re)d(i)c(t)o Ita semp(er) quod si d(i)c(t)us Will(el)mus obierit vivente p(re)fato Johanne q(uo)d tunc heredes ip(s)ius Will(el)mi ...
... and to be invested with possession of the land, namely as a novel ornament or for habitual use, provided that it is appropriate for his estate, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Lord or on the Feast of the Nativity of St John next, and thus from then onwards, in any other year whatsoever, to be invested with this possession on one of the said feasts during the aforesaid term, provided always that if the said William should die whilst the aforesaid John is still living, then the heirs of that same William ...
=====
vesturari = to be invested with, to be put in possession of (passive infinitive).
-
Thank you very much, Bookbox; and there's no need whatsoever to apologize for the translation.
The import of the passage is quite exotic to me - I haven't encountered anything like novel ornament or for habitual use, provided that it is appropriate for his estate in the conveyances I've read so far.
I should be able to handle most of remainder, barring a few words and perhaps one or two short phrases.
As always, I greatly appreciate your help and generosity with your time.
-
The import of the passage is quite exotic to me - I haven't encountered anything like novel ornament or for habitual use, provided that it is appropriate for his estate in the conveyances I've read so far.
Your three lines greatly extended my Latin vocabulary too. The passage beginning garnimentu(m) novu(m) v(e)l usitatum is problematic. Some further thoughts are below.
Garnimentum, which I haven't seen before, can also mean 'livery', which might be better here. I think the sense may be that the property can serve either as an 'added extra' (novum) or as premises for regular occupation (usitatum), as William chooses.
I think statui suo conveniens refers to the timing clause that follows. He can take possession on one of those two feast-days in the coming year, or in any other year that 'suits his circumstances', the reference being to his person rather than to his (landed) estates.
Is that any clearer?
-
Yes it is clearer, thank you.
I shall have to try to find out what William TRIST was doing which gave him the luxury of such choice in when and how he possessed his share in the manor. As far as I know, the family are conventional minor gentry from the shires, but this sounds like he may have had an alternate profession.
-
If I may impose one final time, I need help to complete these final lines of my land surrender.
The questions are:
Image 10:
The word between ad and (what I think must be) pasch? looks to be a t(er) word rather than a f(estos) word. What is it?
Also the fo/ word in the interlined text - is it as simple as for(ma)? Next the vesta? word and the last word of the line.
I believe that some of these words also appear in Images 12 and 13 below.
Image 11:
I believe this is tunc extincta (despite looking more like extintca). I have included it because it completes the phrase in Image 10.
Image 12:
Basically, the words bewteen Et and d(i)c(t)i. I believe these are v's (and possibly u's) although they have a different form to most others in the document.
Image 13:
What is the word after aliquem? Does it refer to the same t(er) as in Image 10?
Image 14:
I think I have this but would like to confirm the endings.
Image 15:
What are the words either side of siqua?
Image 16:
Does the mark before tunc have significance? Otherwise, just a check of the reading and endings.
Image 17:
What is the ending on tener?. Is cu(m) correct?
My transcript and tentative translation are below.
Thank you very much for your help.
*******************************************************************************
...reddent p(re)fato Joh(ann)i ad to(ta)m vitam suam annuatim sex solid(os) Et octo denar(ios) ad [t(er)?] pasch(e) & Mich(ael)is sup(ra)d(i)c(t)os ^in [fo?] [s(upra)d(i)c(t)a?]^ [vesta?] p(re)d(i)c(t)a [p?]
tunc [extincta?] Et si p(re)d(i)c(t)us redd quinque solid(os) Et [unam?] [vestur?] in [for?] p(re)d(i)c(t)a in vita d(i)c(t)i Will(elm)i Aut sex solid(os) Et octo d(ena)r(ios)
post vitam d(i)c(t)i Will(elm)i a retro f(uer)int post aliquem [t(er)m(inu)m?] [sup(ra)d(i)c(tu)m?] p(er) quad(ra)ginta dies q(uo)d tunc bene liceat p(re)d(i)c(t)o Joh(ann)i in
p(re)d(i)c(t)a p(er)p(ar)t(e)s manerij [distringere?] Et [districtiones?] penes se retinere quousque sibi de d(i)c(t)o redd Et [ass?] siqua [su?t] pleno
f(uer)int [satisf(accion)em?] et se p(ro) [dimid?] A(nnu)m a retro f(uer)int [et?] tunc bene liceat p(re)fato Joh(ann)i in p(re)d(i)c(t)am p(er)p(ar)tem man(er)ij p(re)d(i)c(t)i [reintrare?] et
eam [tenere?] [cu(m)?] in pristi(n)o statu suo p(re)sentib(us) no(n) obstantib(us) In cui(us) rei testi(m)o(niu)m presentib(us) indent(ur)is p(ar)tes p(re)d(i)c(t)e Alt(er)
natim sigilla sua Appos(uer)unt Dat apud Maideford p(re)d(i)c(t)am m(er)kurij p(ro)x(ima) post s(a)n(cti) Mich(aeli)s Arch(angel)i A(nn)o regni
Reg(is) henr(icus) quinti post conq(uestu)m quarto hiis testib(us)…etc
...to render to the said John for his entire life yearly payment of six shillings and eightpence at the [?] of Easter and Michaelmas abovesaid..................
then extinguished And if the aforesaid payment of five shillings and................aforesaid in the life of the said William or six shillings and eightpence
after the life of the said William becomes in arrears after any of the [?] abovesaid by forty days that then it is well lawful for the aforesaid John in
the aforesaid share of the manor to distrain and [stringently?] detain in his hands until to himself concerning the said rent and [assurance?]............fully
satisfied and if by half a year becomes in arrears then it is well lawful for the aforesaid John in the aforesaid share of the aforesaid manor to reenter and
the same to hold [simultaneously?] in former estate to himself promptly and without hindrance In testimony whereof the parties to this present indenture have interchangeably
set their seals Given at Maidford aforesaid on the day of the Wednesday next after Saint Michael the Archangel in the fourth year of
the reign of King Henry the fifth after the Conquest These witnesses...etc
-
Remaining images:
-
Image 10:
The word between ad and (what I think must be) pasch? looks to be a t(er) word rather than a f(estos) word. What is it?
t(empora) = times. It’s heavily contracted, and the apparent -er hook is actually -or.
... at the times of Easter and St Michael
Also the fo/ word in the interlined text - is it as simple as for(ma)? Next the vesta? word and the last word of the line.
... ^in for(ma) s(upra)d(i)c(t)a^ vest(ur)a p(re)d(i)c(t)a pe(n)it(us)
tunc extincta
... in the abovesaid form, the aforesaid investiture then having been thoroughly discharged
Image 11:
I believe this is tunc extincta (despite looking more like extintca).
Agreed.
Image 12:
Basically, the words bewteen Et and d(i)c(t)i. I believe these are v's (and possibly u's) although they have a different form to most others in the document.
Et si p(re)d(i)c(t)us redd(itus) quinque solido(rum) et Uni(us) Vestur(e) in for(ma) p(re)d(i)c(t)a in vita d(i)c(t)i ...
... and if the aforesaid payment of five shillings and of one investiture in the aforesaid form in the life of the said William ...
(I'm very unsure about the sense of this – has the 5 shilling payment been referred to earlier?)
Image 13:
What is the word after aliquem?
post aliquem t(er)mi(num) = after another term
Image 14:
I think I have this but would like to confirm the endings.
... distring(er)e Et distric(i)o(n)em penes se retiner(e)
... to distrain, and to hold back for himself a distraint in his own hands
Image 15:
What are the words either side of siqua?
... redd(itu) et arr(eragia) si qua sint
... payment, and arrears if any there should be,
Image 16:
Does the mark before tunc have significance? Otherwise, just a check of the reading and endings.
I think it's just punctuation.
fu(er)it satisf(a)c(tu)m. Et si p(er) dimid(ium) a(nnu)m aretro fu(er)it – tunc b(e)n(e) liceat ...
... will have been satisfied. And if there will have been arrears for half a year, then it is well lawful ...
Image 17:
What is the ending on tener?. Is cu(m) correct?
tener(e) = to hold
I think it must be cu(m), although one might expect ut = as, or like ?
... presentibus non obstantibus = the present (indentures) notwithstanding
My transcript and tentative translation are below.
Without images for the beginning and end of every phrase, I can’t be sure about some of your word-endings and (consequently) about the exact syntax of the translation. But I'm sure you have the essence of it. If parts of the translation are still puzzling after you've added the above suggestions, I can take another look.
-
Thank you very much, Bookbox, for these excellent transcriptions and translations.
I will incorporate them in my texts and then recheck my translation.
The five shilling payment was referred to earlier - it was the base annual rent due from William to John during the lifetime of John. See my first post.
I greatly appreciate the close attention and time which you have expended on my questions.
Thanks again.
-
Bookbox, in working through this document I have formed a partial theory which may shed light on some of the puzzles posed by the translation.
The theory begins with the last word of the top line of the second image attached to my reply #8.
With the benefit of seeing the alternate form of v/u used lower down (eg Reply #13, third attachment), I think this is:
...et vesturam Un(a)m... (I don't think it begins t(er)-.)
Leaving aside the difference in case, this* has the same structure as this phrase in your Reply #17:
...quinque solido(rum) et Uni(us) Vestur(e)...
Poking around the word vesturam with the search engine, I found that there is a use in archaic law found (for example) in the right of vesturam terrae.
Essentially it means the crop of grass upon the land, from the notion of the vesture (clothing) of the land.
In practice, it seems to refer to the right of feeding or pasturing beasts upon the land.
So (the theory goes), what is demanded here is a right to one feeding on the land.
If you agree, does this alter the interpretation of (for example) the clause beginning scil(ice)t garnimentu(m)... in your Reply #9?
I would be most interested to hear your thoughts.
Thank you for your help.
*******************************************************************************
* The whole clause being:
Redd(ens) inde annuatim p(re)fat(i)s Joh(an)i ad to(ta)m vitam suam
quinque solid(us) bone monete ad festa pasch(e) et Mich(ael)is Arch(angel)i p(er) equales porcion(es) et tam d(omi)no Regi
qu(a)m Alijs cap(italibus) d(omi)nis et Alijs quib(us)cumq(ue) s(er)vicia inde debita et de iur(e) consueta et vesturam Un(a)m...
-
I’m sure you’re right about ...et vesturam Un(a)m... (reply #8, 2nd image, end of top line). The first letter of the last word (u/v) is clearly the same as the first letter of the word immediately below, which is definitely v(e)l (= 'or'). I should have picked that up before.
Essentially it means the crop of grass upon the land, from the notion of the vesture (clothing) of the land.
In practice, it seems to refer to the right of feeding or pasturing beasts upon the land.
So (the theory goes), what is demanded here is a right to one feeding on the land.
I’m convinced by this theory, and it’s supported by the 4th definition for vestura given by Logeion ...
http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#vestura
So, if I’ve understood correctly, during John’s lifetime William is to have the land for an annual sum of five shillings to be paid to John, whilst allowing John to graze his livestock there.
As for garnimentum, I haven’t come up with a better translation. There are hardly any occurrences, which is a bit worrying, but I’m pretty confident about the reading. The root meaning of garn- (from Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word-List, OUP, 1965) relates to clothing, which chimes with the root meaning of vestura that you suggested above.
The qualifying adjectives novum vel usitatum might translate as ‘unusual or habitual’, suggesting the right to graze was for either occasional or everyday usage.
I hope that helps. Thanks for posting again on this.
-
Thank you for posting your thoughts, Bookbox, and for the useful reference to Logeion.
So, if I’ve understood correctly, during John’s lifetime William is to have the land for an annual sum of five shillings to be paid to John, whilst allowing John to graze his livestock there.
That's how I read it too, with the possible elaboration that the unam means John has the right to graze one beast only.
The qualifying adjectives novum vel usitatum might translate as ‘unusual or habitual’, suggesting the right to graze was for either occasional or everyday usage.
Again, that's my understanding too. I believe it's saying that John is to have that right irrespective of whether or not, or how frequently, he chooses to exercise it.
-
Yes, one beast only is probably right – good thinking.
For more help with garnimentum you could try posting on the LatinD forum ...
http://latindiscussion.com/forum/
There are a handful of medieval (as opposed to classical) Latin scholars on there, and someone may have seen it before in this sort of context. Just a thought.
-
Thanks for the suggestion.