Latin Transcription and Translation
Douglas Beahm
have fully transcribed and translated into English. I contacted two
companies in the UK that provide a Latin translation service, but both
companies responded that they only translate Latin records, they do not
"transcribe" Latin from manuscripts. I also checked with a couple of
professional genealogists in Salt Lake City, UT, but the only Latin
records that any of them transcribe are church records. I would greatly
appreciate it if someone could provide the name and contact information
for a company or an individual who can transcribe and translate Latin
from an early 17th century English will.
R. Battle
<snip>
> I would greatly
> appreciate it if someone could provide the name and contact information
> for a company or an individual who can transcribe and translate Latin
> from an early 17th century English will.
Unless you see something of particular interest in the probate clause,
there probably isn't much there other than when it was probated, who
brought it to probate (i.e. the executor/trix), and the name of the
probate judge(s). Maybe you could post a scan so we could see it.
-Robert Battle
Merilyn Pedrick
Hello Douglas
There is a RootsWeb list which can probably help you. Subscribe to
TRANSLA...@rootsweb.com and I'm sure one of the list members will be
keen to have a go at your Latin.
Merilyn Pedrick
Mylor, South Australia
-------Original Message-------
Scaly Lizard
wrote:
Hi Douglas,
I would be glad to do it.
I've been studying Latin for 25 years, and have been
fairly fluent in it for 20 years. I have tutored a few folks
in the tongue, and the materials produced during those
tutorials has grown to be a primer that is currently seeking
a publisher. For fun, i read 17th and 18th century English
literature.
I'm familiar with the idioms of jurists' Latin in France and
England, and how such usages differ from those of
ecclesiastical Latin and classical Latin. If you can post
a transliteration of the passage, or preferably a good
scan of the document, i can help you.
SL
Douglas Beahm
> Hi Douglas,
>
> I would be glad to do it.
>
> I've been studying Latin for 25 years, and have been
> fairly fluent in it for 20 years. I have tutored a few folks
> in the tongue, and the materials produced during those
> tutorials has grown to be a primer that is currently seeking
> a publisher. For fun, i read 17th and 18th century English
> literature.
>
> I'm familiar with the idioms of jurists' Latin in France and
> England, and how such usages differ from those of
> ecclesiastical Latin and classical Latin. If you can post
> a transliteration of the passage, or preferably a good
> scan of the document, i can help you.
>
> SL
Thank you for your kind offer. I have placed a scan of the probate of this
will at the following url:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dbeahm/Tmp/Probate.JPG
I will leave the record at this website for a couple of days before deleting
it.
I can decipher the date of probate and the name of the executor of this
will. My primary interest in this record is to determine "with certainty"
whether the executor personally submitted this will for probate. I have seen
other 17th century wills in which the executor was named in the probate, but
did not personally submit the will to the court for probate.
Scaly Lizard
wrote:
>Scaly Lizard wrote:
I missed the file. Checked at 1:45 AM EDT April 14th,
and the link did not work. Can you put it up again?
SL
Douglas Beahm
>
> I missed the file. Checked at 1:45 AM EDT April 14th,
> and the link did not work. Can you put it up again?
>
> SL
I reposted the probate scan at 7:00 AM EDT on 14 April. Sorry for the
incovenience.
Scaly Lizard
wrote:
>Scaly Lizard wrote:
Thanks, got it.
Ahh heck, it's cursive. I hate cursive. This'll take more
than ten minutes, because i'll have to decipher the scribble.
When i entered high school and they told me i could just
print instead of use cursive, so i did and have not used
cursive ever since. But i can read it, although i hate it.
I'm familiar with quite a few of the cursive forms here,
from my experience with old manuscripts in English,
but every scribe's hand is different, and more so in
cursive. Just be forewarned: i'm not an expert in 17th c.
cursive manuscripts! With that said, i do have some
resources that i can delve into to decipher those cursive
characters which i do not immediately recognize, and
i have the Latin experience to expand the contractions
used here.
At a first glance, i can tell that Latin was not the strong
suit of the scribe. Hey, that's OK, not all lawyers of the
mid-1600s were at the top of their class! In fact, Latin as
the language "of record" in England was abolished just
a few years later, in 1653. It was reinstated in 1660 (as
were many other things, heh!) but finally abolished
sometime in the 1730s. This scribe uses "ets" to
contract the phrase "et cetera", equating the soft-c
sound of "cetera" with an "s". Although i've run across
this in manuscripts before, i still consider it sloppy. This
is probably because i was trained on classical Latin, so
indulge me in just one bit of snootiness, lol.
From a quick glance, i can make out: "probatum fuit
hu__i Testamenti_" and "septimo qi_ Aprili_ Ao. qui_
1646", which tells me that probate was executed and
testified to, and it was done on 7th April 1646. As for
the proper names of those involved, i'll have to work
this like a cryptogram to transliterate this scribe's hand.
Do you know the names of anyone referred to here?
It would help very much to know the name of an
individual referred to, as that would allow me to extend
the number of cursive characters (in this hand) that can
be replaced with 'modern' letters in a transliteration.
Lawyers of this time were as bad as doctors are today,
as far as handwriting goes. The naming of the executor
is expressed by "juram ." with "to" in superscript above the
contraction mark (the "."). I assume that it's an "m", for
the scribe uses three minims in the character. One would
expect that the contraction would be "jur.us" or "jur.s",
to mean "juratus" or "executor", but here we have
a contraction for "juramento", or an "oath sayer".
In light of your question as to whether the executor was
present: a previous contraction, "surr.to" (with the "to"
again in superscript) is used to contract the word
"surrogato". The root is "surrogo", which is a verb "to
put in another's place". The suffix "gatus" indicates
that the word has been reformed to a noun, "one who
stands in another's place". Just as in the above paragraph,
one would expect that the contraction would read "surr.us"
or "surr.s" if the scribe was using the nominative case to
express himself as the subject the noun as "surrogatus".
So we can infer that the scribe was not the executor.
That a two-character expression of "to" is used to complete
the contraction in BOTH cases suggests to me that the
scribe was intentionally using the dative case of the nouns
involved (juramento and surrogato). Since this is a record
of the probate, and not the will itself, and we know that
the hand is not that of the executor, we might expect the
scribe to have used "juramentum" and "surrogatum",
contracted as "juram.um" or "surr.um" (respectively) as
nouns in the accusative case, to refer to the object as the
direct object of the sentences. Instead, the dative case is
used, which refers to the *indirect* object.
The dative case is appendical in English, but is expressed
by our predilection for 'little extra words', like "to" or "for".
For example, "John gave me the book" and "John gave
the book to me" are equals in English. In the latter example,
the word "to" expresses the dative case, and in both, "me"
is a noun in the dative case. (John is the subject, in the
nominative case, and the book is the object, in the accusative
case). "John read the book for me" also illustrates the sense
of a dative noun in Latin. "John" is still the subject of the
sentence, "book" is the object, and "for me" expresses
the indirect object, with "for" being one of those 'little extra
words' in English. Latin does not use extra words, but uses
suffixes instead. The "to" suffix on a noun indicates that
it is used in the dative case, and in the context of your
document, it seems to indicate that someone was the
the executor "for" someone else, and a surrogate "for"
someone else. Then again, this is preliminary conjecture
before having a full transliteration!
All of this does suggest that the executor was not present
at the writing of this record. BUT beware about extending
this suggestion! The executor may have been present
at the proceedings, but not when the probate was
actually physically recorded on the document you have
a scan of, depending on the style of the scribe. The use
of the word "surrogato" certainly suggests that someone
'stood in' for the executor, but we won't know for certain
until the entire cursive script is transliterated and
thus translated.
....
Now that i look closer, the word i list as "qi_" above
may be " qie' ", which may be a shorthand for "quies",
or repose. This would suggest that 7th April was the
date of death, not the date of probate. "septimo dies
aprilio" would make more sense, but words 3-5 on the
last line looks like "de bene ets", which would rule
out "dies" as word 2 in line 3. Judging from the hand,
i think it may be "quies", where the scribe assumes
the "u" and uses an apostrophe to indicate a trailing
"s". Of course, this is preliminary conjecture, but
if the word is "dies", or day, it would be curious that
no downstroke was used on the "D". The first letter
most closely resembles forms of "Q" that i have seen,
and is repeated two words later, just after "Ao." or
"anno", or year. This suggests to me that the phrase
is "anno qui 1646", or "the year that is (which is)
1646". If the middle word started with a capital "D",
i can't think of any word which would fit the context.
Then again, the writing is a scribble of sloppy Latin,
so it would not surprise me if the scribe made a
typograhical error by writing "qie" instead of "die".
In that case, the translation would be a mundane
"seventh day of April of the year 1646", instead of
"reposed (died) on 7th April in the year 1646".
Don't mind the ramblings, i'm just using this reply
as a notepad to jot down notes and musings...
Anyway, if you know any proper names, it'd help
very much. You mentioned that you can decipher
the name of the executor, probably because you knew
that name beforehand and it jumped right out at you.
But anything further you can relate about the source of
the scanned document will help in decoding it. A
location or a date, names of principals, the provenance
or current location of the document... these can all
provide great clues to translating the handwriting on the
document by placing a context on the letter forms used.
SL
Douglas Beahm
Scaly Lizard wrote:
>
> ... Anyway, if you know any proper names, it'd help
> very much. You mentioned that you can decipher
> the name of the executor, probably because you knew
> that name beforehand and it jumped right out at you.
> But anything further you can relate about the source of
> the scanned document will help in decoding it. A
> location or a date, names of principals, the provenance
> or current location of the document... these can all
> provide great clues to translating the handwriting on the
> document by placing a context on the letter forms used.
>
> SL
Thanks for all of the interesting feedback. The name of the executor of
this will was Anthony Hoskins, rendered here as Anthonÿ Hoskin. The
executor was the son (filii) of the decedent. I read the date as 6 April
1646 (Sextimo not Septimo). The will was submitted for probate at the
Consistory Court, Archdeaconry of Chichester. As I mentioned in a previous
post, I am working on a timeline for the executor of this will and it is
critical to determine if he personally submitted the will of his father
for probate in April 1646. I have several examples (in English) from this
period where the executor was named in the probate, but did not personally
submit the will for probate.
Doug Thompson
scaly...@nospampleaseyho.com wrote on 15/4/04 10:59 am:
> Then again, the writing is a scribble of sloppy Latin,
> so it would not surprise me if the scribe made a
> typograhical error by writing "qie" instead of "die".
> In that case, the translation would be a mundane
> "seventh day of April of the year 1646", instead of
> "reposed (died) on 7th April in the year 1646".
It is "die". No sloppy Latin here!
Your supposed q's are clearly d's to me. The word between Anno and 1646 is
"Dni". (Domini)
"On the seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord 1646"
Doug
Chris Dickinson
<snip>
>I have several examples (in English) from this
>period where the executor was named in the probate, but did not personally
>submit the will for probate.
<snip>
I'm not at all sure what you mean here. Can you post an example?
The executor(s) named in the will and the administrator appointed in probate
aren't necessarily the same person; but this doesn't require a translation
of the standard Latin text. But maybe I'm about to learn something :-)
Chris
Reedpcgen
through, and not checked for tenses in translation.
Probatum fuit huioi' testamentu' coram
m[^]r[^] Aquila Cruso sacre theologie Bcclio' Surr[^]to[^]. & cs. [etc.]
septimo die Aprilis A[^]o[^] dni' 1646, Juram[^]to[^]. Anthonij
Hoskin filij .n[']ralis et l'timi dci' deft' ac Ex[^]ris[^]. & cs.
Cui & c* de bene & c*, iurato salvo & s*.
This will was proved before master Aquila Cruso Bachelor of Theology surrogate,
etc. the 7th day of April the year of the lord 1646, by the oath of Anthony
Hoskin, natural and legitimate son of the said deceased and execuror, etc. To
whom, etc., of good, etc. swore oath, etc. [i.e., to whom administration was
granted and who swore to trudly administer the goods of the deceased, etc.]
Aquila Cruso went to Cambridge, admitted sizar (age 15) at Caius 15 Aug. 1610,
BD 1626, MA 1628, Prebend of Chichester 1637. See Venn 1:i:429 and Vis.
London, 1634.
Paul
Chris Dickinson
>I'm not at all sure what you mean here. Can you post an example?
Ignore that. I was being a bit slow!
Chris
Douglas Beahm
>
> This will was proved before master Aquila Cruso Bachelor of Theology surrogate,
> etc. the 7th day of April the year of the lord 1646, by the oath of Anthony
> Hoskin, natural and legitimate son of the said deceased and execuror, etc. To
> whom, etc., of good, etc. swore oath, etc. [i.e., to whom administration was
> granted and who swore to trudly administer the goods of the deceased, etc.]
>
>
This confirms what I expected, the executor personally submitted his father's will
for probate. Thank you.
Scaly Lizard
Ah, i had been suspicious about "Anno" not being followed
by "Domini". However, i see no sign of the downstroke
of the "D", as is evident on the last line in "De Bene".
Tsk, sloppy, sloppy, hee.
Thanks for the point-out.
SL
Scaly Lizard
wrote:
>
>
Further posts by others have hopefully answered
your questions. Thanks for letting me ponder it
too! The response from Reedpcgen contains a
better transliteration than i could do on this cursive,
and his translation is good too.
Cheers,
SL
Scaly Lizard
Excellent! Thanks for the transliteration and translation.
The "n" and "u" in the script vexed me, with both
characters having the usual two minims but traces
of the cross strokes too faint to see well. "Dni'" makes
much more sense than the "Qui'" i had seen, but i
wonder why the scribe omitted the downstroke on "d"s
on line 3, but not on line 5?
Do you think that "de bene" would mean "of good intent",
or "for the welfare of"?
SL
Reedpcgen
examples of probate and administration acts, with transliterations and
translations, but I have not scanned things in yet and they are down in storage
waiting to be retrieved in a few weeks. There will also be vocabulary lists,
photos of original documents, etc.
The following is a typical abstract from the Prerogative Court of Canterbury
udirng the Commonwealth, when they were written in English, rather than Latin,
which will provide a flavor.
This will was provaed at London on the fourth day of December in the yeare of
our Lord god one thousand six hundred fiftie six before the Judges for probate
of wills and grauntinge Administrations Lawfully authorized by the oath of Hugh
Gardner the brother and Sole Executor named in the said will. To whome was
Comitted Administration of all and singular the goodes, Chattells, and debts of
the said deceased, he beinge first sworne in due forme of Lawe truly to
Administer the same.
It is generally formulaic, but there are minor variations, of which I'll
provide just a few on hand (also, I see small errors I made [testamentum should
be in caps, etc.], so if a better rendering of everything is needed let us
know).
Probatum fuit Testamentum sup^a^script apud London coram dilecto Subdito mro'
Willmo' Sames' legum doctore Surrogato ...secundo die Mensis Maij Anno dni'
Millimo' sex'cemo quadragesimo quinto Juramento Johannis Santy filij n'ralis et
e'timi dci' defunct' singuler bonor' iur' [jur'] et Creditoru' dci' def' de
bene et fedel'r ad'na'strand' ead' Ad cancta dei Evangelia Jurat....
Sometimes it begins
Probatum fuit hoc testament' apud ....
Sometimes it begins with the date, sometimes it's
Probatum fuit huiusmodi Testamentum suprascriptum apud London
When you have the ending, something like:
Cui commissa fuit et est administracionem omnium et singulorum bonorum
[chattels, etc.] dicto defuncti et eius Testamentum
its more generally rendered "to whom was committed administration of all and
evry of the goods of the said deceased and his will
and the last part usually states that they swore path to truly, justly and well
administer the goods, etc.
One must take caution, however, in reading all of the probate, because sometime
it states the administration was granted to the executor (as above), in the
person of Mr. so-and-so, notary, etc.
I'm still not on the group, but this was brought to my attention, and I thought
it would be good if we worked in out to have in the archives to help people
with similar problems.
Paul
Scaly Lizard
Oooo, do you have a scan of this one? I'm interested in how
a 1645 scribe rendered the character "y" in "Santy". The
development of the English "y" has always fascinated me,
and one thing i was intrigued by in D. B.'s scan was the scribe's
style when writing "ij". I've always wondered when and how the
"ij" morphed into our "y".
Also, perhaps you might have a few minutes to relate the usage
of "surrogato" in probates of this time? The Latin documents
i have read from this period are mostly treaties and prose literature,
not wills. I'm curious about why D.B.'s script and the transliteration
above both refer to a professional person as a 'surrogate'?
>Sometimes it begins
>
>Probatum fuit hoc testament' apud ....
>
>Sometimes it begins with the date, sometimes it's
>
>Probatum fuit huiusmodi Testamentum suprascriptum apud London
>
>When you have the ending, something like:
>
>Cui commissa fuit et est administracionem omnium et singulorum bonorum
>[chattels, etc.] dicto defuncti et eius Testamentum
>
>its more generally rendered "to whom was committed administration of all and
>evry of the goods of the said deceased and his will
"Upon whom the duty was laid, and all powers to
whose sole good discretion, this is oathed and all other
applicable oaths are undertaken" might be a more
accurate translation in English, perhaps? The thing
i really love about Latin is how a Latin sentence can
be rendered into English 5 different ways, due to
English's flexibility.
I'm not sure that "defuncti" in the above passage refers
to the deceased. Instead of a variant of "defuncta", or
"deceased", "defuncti" as used above might be the
participle form of the verb "defungo", or "to complete
one's duty". The usage would then be expected to be
"defuncti est". You quote "defuncti et" above... might
the manuscript scan be available for the resolution of
this question?
>and the last part usually states that they swore path to truly, justly and well
>administer the goods, etc.
>
>One must take caution, however, in reading all of the probate, because sometime
>it states the administration was granted to the executor (as above), in the
>person of Mr. so-and-so, notary, etc.
>
>I'm still not on the group, but this was brought to my attention, and I thought
>it would be good if we worked in out to have in the archives to help people
>with similar problems.
>
>Paul
>
Oh, i'm not in the group either; i just lurk here for the
fascinating arguments. Your archives sound very
interesting too. When you get the web site set up,
please drop a link to it to me. I'm sure i could learn
a thing or two or four from you, heh.
My email address involves yahoo, and eliminating
a phrase about spam.
SL
Reedpcgen
>a 1645 scribe rendered the character "y" in "Santy". The
>development of the English "y" has always fascinated me,
>and one thing i was intrigued by in D. B.'s scan was the scribe's
>style when writing "ij".
I'm afraid I don't have it scanned, but there will be plenty of examles from
many different periods on the web site.
>I've always wondered when and how the
>"ij" morphed into our "y".
As far as I knew, the letter "y" was established centuries before (see, for
example, _English Vernacular Hands from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Centuries_
by C. E. Wright). Even at the period of the Commonwealth, "y" was frequently
interchanged with "i" (e.g., "ymmedyatelie"). But also remember, it was the
practice when writing the letter "i" to bring the last one in a series below
the line (such as iiij, or 4). Words we now end with "y" were frequently then
"ie" when written in English (not "ij").
>Also, perhaps you might have a few minutes to relate the usage
>of "surrogato" in probates of this time?
That was his position, as a representative of the probate authority. The
probate court often issued licenses to local clergymen (the surrogate) to
administer the appropriate oaths to executors, and they then returned the
documents to the probate court.
>I'm not sure that "defuncti" in the above passage refers
>to the deceased.
Yes, it does. I guess you have to be familiar with this specific practice, and
the English wording used at that period when the records were recorded in
English. It's like using the word "singular" to mean "each one" or "every" as
compared to "all."
I have _A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin_ by John F. Collins, but that seems
more concerned with Biblical usage, etc., so there is definitely a need for
specialized usage of words for probate material, etc.
When I took Latin at University some 15 years ago, I would bring in documents
to my professor for help(she received her Ph.D. at Princeton, which was
supposed to have a good Latin department), but when it comes to IPMs, etc., her
classical training was not a great deal of help. That is why I'm so convinced
that listed of frequently used words and phrases for particular record types
(such as IPMs, charters, probate records, etc.), will prove extremely useful to
the public.
Paul
PS When an executor was a minor, the probate should have included a specific
clause, stating that power was reserved to so and so, during their minority.
The Probate Act Book (which is a separate thing from the probate attatched to
the will), would record when the minor attained majority and was able to enter
their charge. Sometimes that sort of thing was also written in the margin of
the registered will, but not always.
Peter Stewart
disappeared into the cyber-ether over the past few days. I've no idea
why these haven't surfaced on Google or the Rootsweb archive - all
have come back to me normally through my USENET subscription.
Paul Reed wrote:
>> Cui commissa fuit et est administracionem omnium et singulorum
bonorum
>> [chattels, etc.] dicto defuncti et eius Testamentum
>> its more generally rendered "to whom was committed administration
of all and
>> evry of the goods of the said deceased and his will
Scaly Lizard replied:
> "Upon whom the duty was laid, and all powers to whose sole good discretion,
> this is oathed and all other applicable oaths are undertaken" might be a more
> accurate translation in English, perhaps?
Not even remotely - Paul gave the meaning quite literally, and this
sadly mistaken suggestion from Scaly Lizard simply messes up the sense
completely.
> The thing i really love about Latin is how a Latin sentence can be rendered
> into English 5 different ways, due to English's flexibility.
That is apparently something loved about English, since translation
doesn't touch the Latin in any appreciable way. However, the sentence
Paul translated doesn't need to be paraphrased and CANNOT be rendered
in the way proposed by Scaly Lizard.
> I'm not sure that "defuncti" in the above passage refers to the deceased.
> Instead of a variant of "defuncta", or "deceased", "defuncti" as used above
> might be the participle form of the verb "defungo", or "to complete one's
> duty".
The indicative first person singular of the verb is "defungor", not
"defungo"; the perfect participle "defunctus" (masculine, genitive
singular in this instance) means just what Paul wrote, "of the
deceased".
> The usage would then be expected to be "defuncti est". You quote "defuncti
> et" above... might the manuscript scan be available for the resolution of
> this question?
"Defuncti est [sic] eius Testamentum" as psoposed by Scaly Lizard
would be gibberish.
Peter Stewart
Reedpcgen
>disappeared into the cyber-ether over the past few days. I've no idea
>why these haven't surfaced on Google or the Rootsweb archive - all
>have come back to me normally through my USENET subscription.
I'm glad this one got through, and thank you Peter. I would have liked to see
your observations and corrections, as your Latin is certainly superior to mine,
and I could have learned something.
>Paul gave the meaning quite literally,
Yes, the same is true of documents like IPMs, and even writs for IPMs. You
have to become practiced in the usage in the English legal system, otherwise it
does quite become gibberish.
It is also very important to know what the formula of a record type is, in
order to expand abbreviations. Even terms like eques auratus (a knight with
gilt spurs) is not an easy thing to discern from standard Latin dictionaries.
I really like William Ellis's edition of Ainsworth's Latin Dictionary because
it has the student of English in mind, aside from the new expansive dictionary
of Latin usage in medieval English documents.
I'll post a followup of a writ for an IPM as an example of this.
Paul
Reedpcgen
hand is fairly standard, it helps a lot to know what the formula is to know
what one should expect of highly abbreviated words that the clerk wrote so
frequently they saw no need to take the time and ink to write them in full.
Edwardus dei gra[tia] Rex Ang[lie] & Franc[ie] & D[ominu]s Hib[er]n[ie]
Escaetori suo in Com' Soms' & Dors' sal[u]t[e]m
Quia d[omi]na Johanna Stradelyng qui de nob[is] tenuit in capite diem clausit
extremu[m]
ut accepim[us] tib[us?] p[re]cep[er]im[us] q[uo]d omn[es] t[er]ras &
ten[ementa] de quib[us] eadem Johanna fuit seisit[as] in d[omi]nico suo ut de
feodo in balliva tua[?]
die quo obiit sine di[lat]ione capia[ti]s in man[um] n[ost]ram & ea salvo
custodi[atis] [-?-] donec aliud inde p[re]cep[er]im[us] et p[er]
sacr[a]m[entum] p[ro]bo[rum] & leg[alium] homi[num] de eadem balliva tua p[er]
quos rei v[er]itas melius sciri pot[er]it
diligent[er] inquira[ti]s quantu[m] t[err][um?] & ten[ementum?] p[re]d[i]c[ta']
Johanna tenuit de
nob[is] in capite [tam?] in d[o]m[ini]co qui[a?] in d[i]cti balliva tua [dto'?]
die quo obiit
& quantum de aliis
& p[er] quod s[er]vic[ium]
& quantum t[er]re & ten[ementa?] illa valeant p[er] annu[m] in om[n]ib[us]
exitib[us]
& quo die p[re]d[i]cta Johanna obiit,
& quis p[ro]pinquior heres eius sit
& cuius etatis
Et inquisi[ti]o[n]em inde distincte et ap[er]te f[act]am nob[is] in Cancellar'
manu[?] sub sigillo tuo & sigillis eor[um] p[er] quos f[ac]ta fu[er]it sine
dil[ati]one mitta[ti]s et hoc br[eve.]
T[este] me ip[s]o apud Westm[onasterium]
x die Decemr[is] Anno r[egni] n[ostri] decimo nono
Scaly Lizard
wrote:
Aww, shame that your posts did not arrive! I learn something
new every day, and today ilearned two new things. Thanks
for the kind elucidations.
SL
Scaly Lizard
Thanks again, for yet more fascinating info!
SL
kathyw....@googlemail.com
The original transcription runs thus:
Probatum fuit hu~~~~i Tes[tamen]tum primo Die February Anno D[omi]nj 1667 apud?Des depoid situet in Le Strand in Lond Midd[lse]x coram veuli viro Duo Will[ia]mo Mericke Milite Legum_ D[ ]coes Cririe phoget l[ ]ire Cant Mr[ ]o Custodi s/five Lond
Simon Rolleston Reg_stens
I have adjusted it slightly thus:
Probatum fuit hu[isusmod]i Tes[tamen]tum primo Die February Anno D[omi]nj 1667 apud Des depoid situet in Le Strand in Lond[on] Midd[lse]x coram veuli viro Duo Will[ia]mo Mericke Milite Legum_ D[ ]coes Cririe phoget l[ ]ire Cant[erbury] Mr[ ]o Custodi s/five Lond[on]
Simon Rolleston Reg_stens
Help would be greatly appreciated.
Richard Smith
> I found this old thread and have no knowledge of Latin myself. Sifting through some will transcriptions I found one in English with a probate statement in Latin where I have been able to fill in one gap, but would very much like to fill in some others and be able to understand all of what it says.
>
> The original transcription runs thus:
> Probatum fuit hu~~~~i Tes[tamen]tum primo Die February Anno D[omi]nj 1667 apud?Des depoid situet in Le Strand in Lond Midd[lse]x coram veuli viro Duo Will[ia]mo Mericke Milite Legum_ D[ ]coes Cririe phoget l[ ]ire Cant Mr[ ]o Custodi s/five Lond
> Simon Rolleston Reg_stens
but from the partial transcript given above, it looks pretty standard.
My guess is it actually reads something like the following:
Probatum fuit huiusmodi testamentum primo die Februarii Anno Domini 1667
apud aedes Exonienses* situat in Le Strand in London, Middlesex, coram
venerabilis domino Willimo Mericke milite, legume, doctore curiae,
praerogativae Cantuariensis magistro custodis sive commissarii* ...
It's been truncated just before "commissarii", evidently by someone who
didn't understand what they were reading. I'm also guessing it was at
Exeter House, as that's where many PCC wills were proved at this time,
and I can't immediately think where else in the Strand it might have
been. But it's hard to see how an abbreviated form of "Exonienses"
might have been read as "depoid", so it may well have been elsewhere.
Richard
Richard Smith
> legume, doctore curiae,
> praerogativae Cantuariensis magistro custodis sive commissarii
legume doctore, curiae praerogativae Cantuariensis magistro custodis
sive commissarii
Richard