di in Sixteenth Century Documents

[horselydown86]

Twice in the last few days I have encountered an abbreviation di in a sixteenth century document.  Both times di was associated with an amount of something.

In the attached image, for example:  ...his iiij^or hundredes & di of Chilton...

Am I right to think that this di = di(midius) (perhaps with a different ending), so the phrase is to be read as ...his four hundredes and a half of Chilton...?

This reference confirms that the king did have four and a half hundreds of Chiltern: 

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/berks/vol3/pp517-531

Thank you for your help.

[arthurk]

I've never come across this myself, but what you're suggesting seems reasonable, particularly since there is other evidence to support your interpretation.

However, I think it might be di^m with the 'm' represented by a line above, as is common in contractions, rather than just di.

C.T. Martin's The Record Interpreter lists 'di^m' as an abbreviation for 'dimidius' etc, but not 'di'. It was looking at the image again in that light which made me think there probably was a contraction mark.

[horselydown86]

Many thanks, Arthur, for your thoughts.

The Martin reference goes a good way to proving the hypothesis.  However, while I agree there is a general contraction mark I'm not sure whether it can be seen as specifically signifying an m?

I have attached the second example.  It takes the same form.

I should add that both documents are in English.  The first one has a few nods to Latin such as iiij^or, which I take to be quattuor.

[arthurk]

The Martin reference goes a good way to proving the hypothesis.  However, while I agree there is a general contraction mark I'm not sure whether it can be seen as specifically signifying an m?

Palaeography for Family and Local Historians, by Hilary Marshall, has a section on contractions (p18ff). In the section on the general contraction mark (the horizontal line above a word) she also notes that "a line above a vowel often indicates the omission of the letters n or m".

So I'd have no problem reading this as 'dim'. In the second extract especially, there is clearly more than just 'di', and the way the line curls up and back is typical of the m or n contraction, and more or less identical to the examples Hilary Marshall gives.

[horselydown86]

Thanks Arthur.  I shall have to acquire a copy of Hilary Marshall's book.