RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: pkincaid on Sunday 10 January 16 22:49 GMT (UK)

Title: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: pkincaid on Sunday 10 January 16 22:49 GMT (UK)

I am transcribing a 1736 Irish indenture which includes a latin 'jurat clause.'  Probably a standard thing but I don't deal with them much and it is full of contracted words.  Hope someone can help.  It reads something like:

Jur[at] cor[am] me apud Strabane in Com[itatu] Tyrone virtu[?] Comico? & caption[?] affid[?] 4^o die Nobris 1736 & Cognos[?] Deponent[?].

I suspect some expert here has this one down pat.  Many thanks in advance!

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: Bookbox on Sunday 10 January 16 23:23 GMT (UK)

The Latin contractions can't be extended correctly without seeing the image, but the meaning is ...

Sworn at Strabane in Co. Tyrone on 4 November 1736 before me, a commissioner with power for taking affidavits, and I know the deponent.

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: pkincaid on Sunday 10 January 16 23:28 GMT (UK)

Thanks Bookbox.  Your English translation is likely bang on.

In looking at it again I see at least one of my & was likely an abbreviation for pro.  So a better read so far is:

Jur[at] cor[am] me apud Strabane in Com[itatu] Tyrone virtu[?] Comi[?] [pro] caption[em] affid[avits] 4^o die No[vem]bris 1736 [& or pro] Cognos[?] Deponent[?].

Just need the proper syntax.

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: Bookbox on Monday 11 January 16 00:58 GMT (UK)

Quote from: pkincaid on Sunday 10 January 16 23:28 GMT (UK)

Just need the proper syntax.

As stated above, to extend the contractions correctly it would help to see the image.

For example, the brevigraph that you first transcribed above as & you are now saying might be p(ro). But are you sure it isn't p(er), which would have a similar meaning but takes a different case? That would affect the ending of the next word, which is governed by it.

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: pkincaid on Monday 11 January 16 21:03 GMT (UK)

Your right Bookbox.  Just thought it might have been a standard jargon, so did not think I needed to get a scan.  Below is a jpg of the part in question.

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: Bookbox on Monday 11 January 16 23:21 GMT (UK)

Jurat' cor(am) me apud Strabane in Com(itatu)
Tyrone Virtut(e) Com(missionis)* p(ro) caption(e) affid(avits) 4^o die No(vem)bris 1736 & cognos(co) deponent(em)

     * the contraction is unclear, but commissionis would be the usual extended form ('by virtue of a commission for taking affidavits ...')

Title: Re: Jurat clause circa 1736
Post by: pkincaid on Tuesday 12 January 16 02:39 GMT (UK)

Thanks Bookbox!  Time keeps one from being an expert in more than a few things.  It is always great to tap into the experience of people like you.  Much appreciated.  Great forum this is!