Translation of Elizabethan Latin Manuscript

[reaper]

Good Morning,

I would be grateful if you could assist me in completing the translation of this manuscript. I have gone as far as i can and have the "first pass" transcription.

My Latin is non-existent so it is likely the tenses are incorrect. I am particularly struggling with peoples names - so odd names and LOTS of variants.

I will post the image of the manuscript here as well as a link to a PDF which gives my line by line breakdown, transcription and any observations i have made. The words or letters i cannot transcribe show as red on the line by line breakdown in the PDF.

Cinefactus was kind enough to assist me considerably on a Henry 6th Latin Manuscript a year ago or so which i am extremely thankful for.

Manuscript:

PDF: http://www.mytinyworld.co.uk/latin-manuscripts/manu16-E1.pdf (file also uploaded)

Transcription to date:
Note: Anything in [ ] I have expanded in the course of transcription.

Hec est finalis concordia f[a]c[t]a in cur[ia] d[o]mne Regine apud Westm[onasterium] a die pasche in quindecim dies Anno regnor[um] Elizabeth dei gra[cia] Angli[e] ffranc[ie] & Hibine Regine fidei defens[oris] &c [etc]. A conqu[esto] vicesimo sexto coram Ed[mund]o Anderson Thoma Walmysley ffrancisco Beaumonti? & Thoma ? We?? justic[iarijs] et alijs d[o]mne Regine fidelib[us] tunc ibi p[re]sentib[us] int[er] Joh[an]n[e]s Verrofi & Abrahamus Verroffi quer[entes] & Nich[ola]us Lyndham? & Johannam vx[or]em eius deforc[iants] de vno mesuagis vno gardino vno pomari[j] quatuor acris ??e & tribr acris pratis cum p[er]tin[enis] in Lyndfeild vnde pl[ac]itm conuenco[n]is sum[monitum] fuit int[er] eos in eadem Cur[ia] Scil[ice]t q[uo]d p[re]d[ic]ti Nich[ola]us & Johanna recogn[ovrunt] p[re]dc[t]a cen[tum] cum p[er]tin[entijs] esse ius ipius Joh[ann]is vt illa que ijdem Joh[ann]es & Abrahamus hent de dono p[re]dc[t]or[um] Nich[olau]s et Johanne et illa remiser[unt] & quieteclam[averunt] de ipsis Nich[ola]us et Johanna & hered[ibus] suis p[re]dcto Joh[ann]is & abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipius Joh[ann]is imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[re]te[ri]a ijd[e]m Nich[ola]us & Johanna concesser[unt] p[ro] se & hered[ibus] ipius Johano q[uo]d ipi Warant[izabunt] p[re]dcto Joh[ann]is & Abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipius Joh[ann]is p[re]dc[t]a ten[ementa] cum p[er]tin[encijs] contra p[re]dctos Nich[ola]m & Johnannam & hered[ibus] ipius Johanne imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[ro] hac recogn[icione] remissione quietaclam[acione] Warant[o] fine & Concordia ijd[e]m Joh[ann]es & Abrahamus dede[runt] p[re]d[ic]tis Nich[ola]o & Johanno quadraginta & vuaui libras stirlingor[um]


Many Thanks,

Paul

 

[Matthaeus]

wow ... what's up with all these manuscripts lately? I wish I could be able to read that.

 

[Pacifica]

The hell so do I... seriously.

 

[Matthaeus]

Got any suggestions where to start?

 

[Pacifica]

What do you mean?

 

[Aurifex]

wow ... what's up with all these manuscripts lately? I wish I could be able to read that.

It has to be said though that Reaper has done a very good job of presentation with this MS, which makes things considerably more straightforward. It makes a nice change from the usual thing: you know, the crumpled, out-of-focus, sepia-tinted horror in a minuscule (both technical and general senses) script.
Just give us time, Reaper. We'll help you with your harvest.

 

[Matthaeus]

What do you mean?

I mean how to work with paleography; I guess that's what this "business" is called.

 

[reaper]

Evening Gentlemen,

Thank you for your replies. I think there are few possible places to start that would be productive.

Firstly, could someone read through the transcription i have made to see if it makes sense - this manuscript was full of contractions and some of the words i had to take an educated guess at. Some of the words might just stand out as being wrong and there are certainly incorrect usage of the tenses. Is there some reference that would help me understand how to apply the different endings or at least take educated guesses?

Secondly, If someone could look at the breakdown in the PDF and see if they could identify the words / missing words in red - i just simply cannot make progress on them.

Thirdly, If someone could confirm what i have transcribed, I have transcribed correctly (especially the names) I would be grateful. As i have gone along i have created a grid of identified letters that should help with identification.

Finally, the correct English translation of the Latin transcription. (Human variant as opposed to machine translation!)

One of the really, REALLY, irritating words i cannot get occurs in the last line when the manuscript is referring to the payment to be made - "quadraginta et XXXX libras strilingor[um]". Now i feel this should be a number but can find no numbers in latin which being vua or viu or vui. As far as i can transcribe the word (marked as xxxx above) it reads "vuaui", but as with a lot of these manuscripts the scribes very rarely crossed their minims resulting in lots of "III" which can be iu, ui, w, m, in, ni etc.

Another really irritating symbol which "feels" important is the first character of line 3 - it looks like a circle intersected with a long down-stroke. It is unlikely to relate to the next character as that is a capital W.

Many thanks,

Paul

 

[socratidion]

The picture is very clear, but I'm having to learn the handwriting as I go. I don't know how you get 'regnorum' out of the 'reg X X' in the first line, but maybe you know more than you let on...
Line 2 Hibine must surely be Hibernie.

Of course, it's the 'modern' names that a classicist like me would find most indecipherable too...
In line 2, the writer has indicated some sort of ending on Anderson -- maybe 'Andersono' to make it ablative.

In line 3 I can't get much further than you with the first word: ?wen-, which also has some kind of ending to make it ablative (like Thoma)
Not 'Johannes' but 'Jo[hann]em'; not 'Abrahamus' but 'Abrahamum'

I'll keep adding more as I work through it.

 

[reaper]

Hi Socratidion,

The part of the manuscript where renorum is written has been damaged obscuring part of the word. The written part reads "reg_x_r". The "_x_" should read "no" but only the right minim of the "n" and left part of the "o" are showing. The last character which looks a like a "4" with a tail is an "r" and contraction indication a missing "um". Put it all together you have "regno[um]". Admittedly, i had the advantage on that one as i have the original manuscript and you can make out the damaged letters with careful viewing.

I would agree in relation to your point about Hibine - however - i have transcribed the document as written and as no contraction was indicated i have simply transcribed to "Hibine" as written by the original scribe.

Paul

Hi Socratidion,

I have enlarged the section you are referring to in image 1 and in image 2 have transposed the left minim of another n and the right part of another o. A perfect match for the space, making the word "regnor"

Image 1

image 2

Paul

 

[cinefactus]

This section has been altered by scratching something out. It might be an error.
I would transcribe the initial ffs as F. Some people transcribe them as ff, but if you look at the copy books from the era F is written as ff, and you can see from the sense that it should be F. The usage is consistent, only when they mean F - you can see facta is clearly a single f. Furthermore there is no particular reason why people should suddenly have started misspelling initial f's in this era, and then just as suddenly stop afterwards.

I had an argument with one of my history professors about this once

 

[socratidion]

(Actually I see 'hibnie' with a line over the top indicating a contraction)
Thanks for explaining about regnorum.
Where you have 'Nicholaus Lyndham' I agree with the surname, but the first name looks more like "Rich[ard]um" (incidentally it's accusative, so even if Nicholaus, read Nicholaum).

Line 4, for 'deforc' I'll have to take your word for 'deforciants' -- but Latin would be deforciantes.
For mesuagis read mesuagio; if a letter is missing from pomari-, it would probably be pomario.

 

[cinefactus]

I agree that it looks like regnorum, but if we accept this we need to come up with an explanation for the plural...

 

[reaper]

Socratidion,

I take your point re hibnie - i had missed the line across the top!

Looking at the document, everywhere a "ff" appears, it would be the equivalent of a capital letter nowadays - is this just coincidence?

In regards to the use of Regnorum i have the H6 manuscript you helped me on last year that uses regnorum in the same context - is it meant to be a different spelling because this refers to a female?

Im not sure where i got Nicholaus from! Looking now i see Rich[ardu]m [line 3] as you have noted Socratidion.

Please do not take any of my expansions as in the case of line 4 "deforc" as fact. They are simply an educated guess / research led.

 

[cinefactus]

Looking at the document, everywhere a "ff" appears, it would be the equivalent of a capital letter nowadays - is this just coincidence?

No. The ff was used to mean F in this variety of English Secretary.
MS Ashmole 789 Folio 3 verso is an exemplar of capital letters in which you can see this usage.
For other evidence
BL Harley MS 2255 f6r. It starts Off god and kynde, where the ff is the capital following the illuminated initial. A few lines later he has Doubletys of glas, so he clearly knows how to spell of.
Likewise BL Additional MS 12043 f 10v, we have ffor al his... ffor he hath than... ffor when I... The ff is because it is the first line of the verse, and capitalised. In the middle, such as was noght for hir sake..., so for to speke of myn... It is always a single f.

Plenty more examples if you look through manuscripts of this era.

In regards to the use of Regnorum i have the H6 manuscript you helped me on last year that uses regnorum in the same context - is it meant to be a different spelling because this refers to a female?

I have since found another manuscript with similar wording. regnorum is plural. In the year of the reigns of Elizabeth.

Please do not take any of my expansions as in the case of line 4 "deforc" as fact. They are simply an educated guess / research led.

It will be deforcientes

 

[socratidion]

Possibly regnorum because she was queen of many kingdoms??
line 4 tribr should be tribus. The word before it which you have as ??e looks like it ends with -re: it would probably mean some other item of land property to go with mesuagio, pomario, gardino, but I can't guess what it is.

I'll leave most of the small spelling issues till later (e.g. predcta should be predicta; ipius for ipsius, even though it's what the scribe actually writes)

Nicholaus > Richardus

line 5: hent > habent
Nicholaus > Richardi

(quieteclam[averunt] de ipsis Nich[ola]us et Johanna & hered[ibus] suis p[re]dcto Joh[ann]is & abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipius Joh[ann]is imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[re]te[ri]a ijd[e]m Nich[ola]us & Johanna concesser[unt] p[ro] se & hered[ibus] ipius Johano)

quieteclam[averunt] de ipsis Richardo et Johanna & hered[ibus] suis p[re]dictis Joh[ann]i & abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipius Joh[ann]is imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[re]te[rit]a ijd[e]m Richardus & Johanna concesser[unt] p[ro] se & hered[ibus] ipius Johanne

(q[uo]d ipi Warant[izabunt] p[re]dcto Joh[ann]is & Abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipius Joh[ann]is p[re]dc[t]a ten[ementa] cum p[er]tin[encijs] contra p[re]dctos Nich[ola]m & Johnannam & hered[ibus] ipius Johanne imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[ro] hac)

q[uo]d ipi Warant[izabunt] p[re]dictis Joh[ann]i & Abrahamo

Sorry, bedtime!

 

[socratidion]

Apart from a few more Richards, what I see is consistent with what you transcribed. Except at the end, the 'vuavi' is 'unam'.

 

[reaper]

Brilliant! I will update the documents later to reflect the changes. 10/10 for working out 'unam' - now i see it written out its easy to see in the manuscript! It was the first character which was throwing me. I forgot the v's and u's were interchangeable. Any thoughts on what the odd first character of line 3 is - it only appears once in entire manuscript.

 

[socratidion]

I'm starting to work through the translation: here is the emended Latin as I currently have it. Of course, most of this is stuff you've done that I've had to take on trust; but it's beginning to make enough sense that I've changed some of your expansions.

Hec est finalis concordia f[a]c[t]a in cur[ia] d[o]mine Regine apud Westm[onasterium] a die pasche in quindecim dies anno regnor[um] Elizabeth dei gra[cia] Angli[e] ffranc[ie] & Hib[ern]ie Regine fidei defens[oris] &c a conqu[estu] vicesimo sexto coram Ed[mund]o Andersono Thoma Walmysley ffrancisco Beaumonti & Thoma Oweno justic[iarijs] et alijs d[o]mine Regine fidelib[us] tunc ibi p[re]sentib[us] int[er] Joh[an]n[e]m Verrofi & Abrahamum Verroffi quer[entes] & Richardum Lyndham & Johannam vx[or]em eius deforc[ientes] de vno mesuagio vno gardino vno pomari[o] quatuor acris ?re & tribus acris pratis cum p[er]tin[entibus] in Lyndfeild vnde pl[ac]itum conuencio[n]is sum[monitum] fuit int[er] eos in eadem cur[ia] scil[ice]t q[uo]d p[re]d[ic]ti Rich[ard]us & Johanna recogn[overunt] p[re]dic[t]a ten[amenta] cum p[er]tin[entibus] esse ius ipsius Joh[ann]is vt illa que ijdem Joh[ann]es & Abrahamus h[ab]ent de dono p[re]dic[t]or[um] Rich[ard]i et Johanne et illa remiser[unt] & quieteclam[averunt] de ipsis Rich[ard]o et Johanna & hered[ibus] suis p[re]dicto Joh[ann]i & Abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipsius Joh[ann]is imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[re]te[rit]a ijd[e]m Rich[ard]us & Johanna concesser[unt] p[ro] se & hered[ibus] ipsius Johanne q[uo]d ipsi Warant[izant] p[re]dicto Joh[ann]i & Abrahamo & hered[ibus] ipsius Joh[ann]is p[re]dic[t]a ten[ementa] cum p[er]tin[entibus] contra p[re]dictos Rich[ardu]m & Johannam & hered[es] ipsius Johanne imp[er]p[etuu]m et p[ro] hac recogn[icione] remissione quietaclam[acione] Warant[o] fine & Concordia ijd[e]m Joh[ann]es & Abrahamus dede[runt] p[re]d[ic]tis Rich[ard]o & Johanne quadraginta & unam libras stirlingor[um]


This is the final agreement made in the parliament of the Lady Queen at Westminster from the of Easter for fifteen days in the twenty sixth year from the conq- of the reigns of Elizabeth by god's grace queen of England, France and Scotland, defender of the faith etc.

(I can't figure out what 'conq-' is. If from 'conquestus', then the ablative is 'conquestu' as I have given in the transcription. But 'complaint' doesn't make sense for me in this place. I've assumed, as I think you do, that 'vicesimo sexto' attaches to 'anno'. Maybe it could attach to 'die' even earlier, but I'll have to chew it over)

… in the presence of Edward Anderson, Thomas Walmsysley, Francis Beaumont and Thomas Owen, justices, and other faithful <servants> of the Lady queen there present at that time, between Johannes Veroffi and Abraham Veroffi, plaintiffs, and Richard Lyndham and his wife Johanna, deforciants, concerning one mesuage, one garden, one orchard, a <bit of land??> of 4 acres and fields of three acres, with the things that belong…

(I suspect 'pertin-' is some standard legal term, but I'm not sure if it's neuter plural 'pertinentia', so here 'pertinentibus' as per my transcription, or a feminine singular 'pertinentia', which would give ablative plural 'pertinentiis', as you have it in your version. Meaning, I guess, stuff that naturally comes with the land, like buildings, fruit trees? But this is doubtless your area of expertise, so I won't speculate any further.

Owen is a total guess: I couldn't honestly say the first letter looks like an O, but it doesn't look like anything else either, except a phi)

More coming...

 

[socratidion]

maybe pertinentia is 'appurtenances'? I use that from now on.

Picking up again:
'unde' is hard to render. I take it as a signal that we've moved to the payoff part of the paragraph, after the problem, now the settlement.
... 'whence' the decree of the court has been advised between them
[bleah. Sorry, this is ugly, but it's technical speak and I don't know the terminology. Unless there's an 'and' missed out, I have to take 'placitum' (the 'pleasure') as subject of 'summonitum fuit'. In any case, this is announcing the judgement of the court)
... to wit that the aforesaid Richard and Johanna have recognised the aforesaid holdings with appurtenances to be the legal property of Johannes himself as being those things which the same Johannes and Abraham have from the gift of the aforesaid Richard and Johanna, and they return them

[more legal-speak. remitto, perhaps 'remit', if I knew what that was. 'quieteclamo' I shall render as 'claim', just guessing]

and claim them from Richard and Johanna themselves and from their heirs for Johannes and Abraham and the heirs of Johannes himself for ever ... [?]

[preterita puzzles me, meaning 'past'. I might check this later]

I think we need a new sentence now:
The same Richard and Johanna have conceded on their own behalf and on behalf of the heirs of Johanna herself that they themselves warrant [? does this mean 'assign the rights' or something] to the aforesaid Johannes and Abraham and the heirs of Johannes himself the aforesaid holdings with appurtenances against <any claim by?> the aforesaid Richard and Johanna and the heirs of Johanna herself for ever, and in return for this recognition, remission, claim, by warrant, end and agreement the same Johannes and Abraham have given to the aforesaid Richard and Johanna forty-one pounds of sterling.

[I'd be happier if 'fine' were 'finali' (so 'final agreement'), but I can't get that from the handwriting.]

A bit rough...