Bruce: << . . . the name is spelled "Carpenter" in the inventory, but then later rendered "Capendor", or such, by Pearson and then formalized as such in the final will copy? << Obviously "Capendor" was the manner in which "Carpenter" was pronounced and was the way Pearson usually heard it. Why would the individual who penned the inventory write the name in a careful and correct manner? One explaination would be "Carpenter" penned the inventory. >> Yes, that would be one explanation. But the one, solid piece of evidence we have concerning William1's literacy--his signing the glebe terrier by mark--militates against it. It should also be noted that at this time, spelling wasn't standardized. It was extremely common for the same word to be spelled in two or more ways in the same document. It was, in fact, not that uncommon for people to spell their own names in various ways. We must assume, moreover, that the bearer of a particular name wasn't the only one to spell it "correctly." << Another curious feature in the Wiseman inventory I hope you could comment on is the use of the letter "C" throughout the document. . . . It would seem to me that the writer of the inventory had developed a particular flourish when writing his own name which was different when writing ordinary words.>> I don't see a flourish in the formation of the _C_ in Carpenter. Quite the contrary, I see a hurried quality, resulting in an interruption in the flow of ink at the right side of the letter and in the cross-stroke (of which there is only the slightest evidence, to the left of the letter). << Another point I was hoping you could look at is the way the inventory calligrapher uses the letter ?t? in Carpenter. The writer of the document only uses an eyed ?t? in the name and seeming nowhere else. It seems a signature flourish. Correct me if you think I am mistaken. >> To me, the eye in the _t_ of Carpenter reflects haste and the sort of inconsistency one finds in all handwriting, even today. Variations in letter formation, incidentally, are as common in documents from this period as variations in spelling: _h_'s that go below the line in the same document as _h_'s that don't, for example, or the same word begun with an upper-case letter in some places and a lower-case letter in others.) The case for flourishes--and for William1's being the writer--is further weakened, it seems to me, by the abbreviation of the first name as "Will." It doesn't seem likely that the writer would abbreviate his own name. Gene ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour