Latin Surrender from 1416 - Help with a few words

[horselydown86]

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…

[horselydown86]

Images 4 - 6:

[Bookbox]

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?

[horselydown86]

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.

[horselydown86]

For the record (should other TRIST descendants find this thread) I must correct the year, which is actually 1416.

[Bookbox]

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!

[horselydown86]

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.

[Bookbox]

Excellent example. Thanks for posting it.

[horselydown86]

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?] v^l [us?tat?m] [ita?] q(uo)d [sct?] [stat(u)m?] suo [conveniens?] in [festo?] [Nat?is?] [d(omi)ni?] v^l 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...