On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:59:17 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 7/06/2017 12:23 AM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > > >>> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal > >>> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the > >>> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases > >>> rather than sentences). > >>> > > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > > Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 > > > Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you > > say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily > > interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned > > into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these > > anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to > > standardise name forms. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > This is an abstract or calendar, not a verbatim transcript or word-for-word translation. Preserving idiosyncratic 13th-century punctuation and capitalisation has no place in such publications, where it is normal to punctuate and capitalise the abstract according to modern principles in order to ensure clarity. > > Of course I was making a general observation, not a criticism of > Elrington's practice in a specific book - medial stops have no place in > contemporary English, where the full modern range of punctuation is > available. > > Words do, however, so that reducing Walter and his heirs to just Walter > is not good practice on Elrington's part in this specific instance. > > The same applies in general to capitalisations, that for much of the > medieval period were used more for emphasis than as a rule for proper > nouns or starting sentences. Italian editors have tended to observe this > over the past century or so, while elsewhere medieval orthography has > more usually been modernised, or anyway standardised. Luckily this too > is changing now - an editor is doing a more faithful job by reproducing > the text as exactly as possible in print, or by reproducing one > preferred manuscript if there are several and giving the variants from > other codices, rather than making a new version full of invisible > variants. Adding editorial commas as a silent gloss on the text can > change the meaning even of Shakespeare, much more so in medieval Latin. > T.E. Lawrence's objection applies - this is mainly a help to people who > don't (or shouldn't) need it in the first place. > > Peter Stewart > > Peter Stewart On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:59:17 PM UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 7/06/2017 12:23 AM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > On 6/06/2017 10:35 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote: > > > >>> As was the custom, it is written as one long sentence with minimal > >>> punctuation (the dots are more in the nature of commas, and the > >>> occasional initial capital letters introduce sense blocks or phrases > >>> rather than sentences). > >>> > > From: Peter Stewart <[email protected]> > > Sent: 06 June 2017 14:35 > > > Punctuation added by editors can be misleading - medial stops (as you > > say, more in the nature of commas, though not necessarily > > interchangeable with them) should be left as written rather than turned > > into commas, especially when the editor is going to add more of these > > anyway. That seems to me a more useful principle than trying to > > standardise name forms. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > This is an abstract or calendar, not a verbatim transcript or word-for-word translation. Preserving idiosyncratic 13th-century punctuation and capitalisation has no place in such publications, where it is normal to punctuate and capitalise the abstract according to modern principles in order to ensure clarity. > > Of course I was making a general observation, not a criticism of > Elrington's practice in a specific book - medial stops have no place in > contemporary English, where the full modern range of punctuation is > available. > > Words do, however, so that reducing Walter and his heirs to just Walter > is not good practice on Elrington's part in this specific instance. > > The same applies in general to capitalisations, that for much of the > medieval period were used more for emphasis than as a rule for proper > nouns or starting sentences. Italian editors have tended to observe this > over the past century or so, while elsewhere medieval orthography has > more usually been modernised, or anyway standardised. Luckily this too > is changing now - an editor is doing a more faithful job by reproducing > the text as exactly as possible in print, or by reproducing one > preferred manuscript if there are several and giving the variants from > other codices, rather than making a new version full of invisible > variants. Adding editorial commas as a silent gloss on the text can > change the meaning even of Shakespeare, much more so in medieval Latin. > T.E. Lawrence's objection applies - this is mainly a help to people who > don't (or shouldn't) need it in the first place. > > Peter Stewart > > Peter Stewart Well - this was a good find! I knew the 1227 fine was not in the Glos Fines book but I did not know about this 1221 fine. I can't believe it has not been discussed before! A few points. At first reading I hit a problem with the "avus suus". The grant was to Walter "ut liberum maritagium". I.e. as a free marriage portion. To me this indicates that it came with his wife not through his mother. So I looked carefully at the AALT document and have to say I don't read the "avus" there. The .."us" is clear, but ahead of that is too much for "av". You can just see the stroke of an initial "s" at the beginning of the line. I read it then as "socerus", father-in-law, which fits the sense more readlily. It is referring to William de Breus, Reynold's and Berta's father who by virtue of the marriage between Berta and Walter was his father-in-law. The Sele Priory fine, and this fine are in agreement. Now, since the grant was originally by William de Breus, the marriage must have taken place before his death in 1211 and Berta must have been Walter's first wife, before Joan Mortimer. It appears that Berta must have died before 1212. Is this a reasonable working hypothesis then? Doug Thompson