Would someone mind taking a look at the inscription at the bottom this brass effigy? https://archive.org/stream/manualofcostumea00drui_0#page/n435/mode/2up I think it reads "Hic jacet Willelmus Echyngham miles dominus de Echingham qui obiit xx die mensis Martii Anno Domini millesimo cccc xij, et Domina Johanna consors sua que obiit primo die mensis Septembris Anno Domini millesimo cccc quarto, ac Thomas Echyngham miles dominus eciam de Echingham filius eorum qui obiit xv die octobris anno domini m cccc xliiii quorum animabus propitietur Deus." The bit I particularly want to check is the "filius eorum" in the middle of the last line (the first word is damaged and the second abbreviated), and that there's no peculiar mediaeval usage could cause this to mean anything other than that Sir Thomas's mother is the Joan who died in 1404. Richard

On 5/13/2016 1:56 PM, Richard Smith via wrote: > Would someone mind taking a look at the inscription at the bottom this > brass effigy? > > https://archive.org/stream/manualofcostumea00drui_0#page/n435/mode/2up > > I think it reads "Hic jacet Willelmus Echyngham miles dominus de > Echingham qui obiit xx die mensis Martii Anno Domini millesimo cccc xij, > et Domina Johanna consors sua que obiit primo die mensis Septembris Anno > Domini millesimo cccc quarto, ac Thomas Echyngham miles dominus eciam de > Echingham filius eorum qui obiit xv die octobris anno domini m cccc > xliiii quorum animabus propitietur Deus." > > The bit I particularly want to check is the "filius eorum" in the middle > of the last line (the first word is damaged and the second abbreviated), > and that there's no peculiar mediaeval usage could cause this to mean > anything other than that Sir Thomas's mother is the Joan who died in 1404. It certainly looks like the symbol following "eo" is the usual abbreviation mark that would stand for "rum" in this context. Are there other copies of the book that can be easily checked to see if the damage is due to printing? Stewart Baldwin

On 14/05/2016 4:56 AM, Richard Smith via wrote: > Would someone mind taking a look at the inscription at the bottom this > brass effigy? > > https://archive.org/stream/manualofcostumea00drui_0#page/n435/mode/2up > > I think it reads "Hic jacet Willelmus Echyngham miles dominus de > Echingham qui obiit xx die mensis Martii Anno Domini millesimo cccc xij, > et Domina Johanna consors sua que obiit primo die mensis Septembris Anno > Domini millesimo cccc quarto, ac Thomas Echyngham miles dominus eciam de > Echingham filius eorum qui obiit xv die octobris anno domini m cccc > xliiii quorum animabus propitietur Deus." > > The bit I particularly want to check is the "filius eorum" in the middle > of the last line (the first word is damaged and the second abbreviated), > and that there's no peculiar mediaeval usage could cause this to mean > anything other than that Sir Thomas's mother is the Joan who died in 1404. > Your reading seems correct, except that at the start it says "Hic jacent" (plural) and the last word at the end is "Amen". In most written contexts "filius eorum" after naming a husband and wife would be good evidence that they were the son's parents, here indicating that Thomas was the son of both William and Joan. However, in a brass made for a common tomb after the last of several people had died the literal accuracy of the inscription may not be absolute. Brasses such as this were often not made locally but ordered in writing from London - if they were received with a small error (or even a large one, such as a wrong name) from misinterpreting instructions that might be couched in less than perfectly intelligible contractions, I doubt that the maker would invariably be asked to provide a new one. In this case, for instance, the order might have stated (with contraction marks) "fil ei" for filius eius, meaning that Thomas was the son of William, which was logically understood as "fil eor" meaning filius eorum because he came after both William and Joan. But for most purposes, without independent evidence, there is little value in splitting hypothetical hairs. Peter Stewart