Hi Matt Could you please tell me how meadow land fitted into the three field system? Was this enclosed in order to keep cattle and sheep out before hay was made and gathered into sheaves which would eventually be stored. As the great tithes generally consisted of sheaves of corn and and hay, presumably meadow land was managed in some way. An open unenclosed field would not have been practical. Do you think the nursery rhyme of "Little Boy Blue" would have been making reference to ways of dealing with the problem of keeping cattle in the "right" places in this system? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 1:02 PM Subject: RE: [OEL] Common vs Open > >Can anyone clear up for me the distinction between a 'common arable > >field' and 'an open arable field'? Were both divided into strips? It's >in connection with 17th and 18th century enclosure. > > > > There is no difference, Leigh. They both meant large unenclosed fields divided into many long, narrow strips (bundles of strips running parallel to each other being often grouped into furlongs). Each farmer would have a number of strips scattered all through the various furlongs and fields. The strips would have originally been about a pole wide (ie about 16.5 or 18 feet wide) and a furlong long, thus about a quarter of an acre in area, but over the centuries many of them would have been combined with adjacent strips to make wider strips of half an acre or an acre or even more. > > In the Midland zone of England (a broad belt which actually stretched from Northumberland south and then southwestwards across the Midlands to Dorset) all the arable land of a village would typically be divided into just two or three such open fields. In other regions open fields would also be found but they would usually be smaller and not comprise the entire arable land in the village, some of which would be divided into the small hedged/walled fields we now find everywhere. > > Open/common fields were associated with a communal form of farming, in which everyone owning strips in the same furlong, or even in the same field, had to plant the same crop, and when there was no crop growing everyone had the right to graze their livestock over the entire field. Every year a different part of the parish's arable land, usually a complete open/common field, would be left fallow (ie nothing would be planted) to give the soil a chance to recover its fertility and to provide year-round grazing. > > They were called open fields because there were no hedges or walls or fences between the strips, and were also called common fields because everyone had the right of common pasture over everyone else's strips. > > Back in the 1960s some historians tried to see a distinction between common fields, which (they believed) were subject to the system of common farming and fallowing and pasturing I have just described, and open fields, which (they believed) were just areas of unfenced strip fields which were not farmed in common and in which each farmer could plant what he wanted, when he wanted, and over which no one else had pasture rights. This latter system has been shown to have been extremely rare, if it ever existed anywhere, and it is now generally accepted that the phrases 'open field' and 'common field' were entirely interchangeable. > > Matt Tompkins > Blaston, Leics > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ >

I have received the following from Halbert's, some from Bath, Ohio and others in Utah: The World Book of Blanks Blanks - Live! Love! Die! Three Centuries of Blanks The Blank Archives They are primarily phone listings. Some are birth and death records. All in all, I consider it garbage even tho' some of my ancestors are mentioned. Gary

I have a transcript of the burial record of Constantia FUSDALE in Alrewas, Staffordshire, in 1612, and appended to her name is the phrase 'quedam serva.'. This has been translated as 'a certain servant or protector'. Is there any reason why this phrasing was used, rather than just 'a servant'? Or is it that the translation is incorrect? Regards - Judith Gibbons Coventry, UK

'forty foot broad, and forescore ells long' - it makes one wonder whether Elizabethans used 'forty' and 'fourscore', not as precise measurements but rather as a general but imprecise indication of large size or number. ======================== The Bible reflects the use of "forty" in much the same way. Forty days and forty nights of rain and wasn't it forty years of wandering in the desert? An imprecise length of time but a long time. Gary

Having been taken by Halberts several years ago as a beginning researcher, I have to thouroughly agree! Kind regards Sally in USA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:35 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Fraudsters > In message <001001c47bbb$a84a9f20$4fb32d50@john>, John > <overholt@tiscali.co.uk> writes > >For 25 years or so there has been an American outfit, usually referred to > >as Halberts (though they operate in numerous guises), who have numerous > >convictions for postal fraud as a result of selling somewhat spurious > >publications. > >Their supposed family histories generally seem to be called "The World Book of - > >--- (a surname)". > >About 10 years ago this firm of con artists bought Burke's Peerage and they > >were running the same scan in the the UK. > > > > Now a new name has arrived on the scene, at least in the UK, > >calling themselves William Pince Publishers based in Southall > >and Pince calls himself a genealogist and Chairman > >of S.G.N.Genealogical Foundation. His wildly over-priced book is called > >"The -----Family Chronicle" > Ues, I huave seen a refernce to this - very suspicious type of offer, > aimed at collecting money from the gullible. > > > >The offer letter is uncannily similar to Halbert's modus operandi and my purpose > >in writing is to warn the unsuspecting not to touch this rubbish with a barge > >pole! > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com

Hello from William I've just joined the list as I'm trying to read some old census records and I'm stuck on just one name. Can anyone direct me, please, to a good website containing typical Victorian handwriting-style alphabets? Thanks. Kind regards William

For 25 years or so there has been an American outfit, usually referred to as Halberts (though they operate in numerous guises), who have numerous convictions for postal fraud as a result of selling somewhat spurious publications. Their supposed family histories generally seem to be called "The World Book of ---- (a surname)". About 10 years ago this firm of con artists bought Burke's Peerage and they were running the same scan in the the UK. Now a new name has arrived on the scene, at least in the UK, calling themselves William Pince Publishers based in Southall and Pince calls himself a genealogist and Chairman of S.G.N.Genealogical Foundation. His wildly over-priced book is called "The -----Family Chronicle" The offer letter is uncannily similar to Halbert's modus operandi and my purpose in writing is to warn the unsuspecting not to touch this rubbish with a barge pole! Caveat emptor John ---------------------------------------- My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter 1541 spam mails have been blocked so far. Download free www.spamfighter.com today!

>Can anyone clear up for me the distinction between a 'common arable > >field' and 'an open arable field'? Were both divided into strips? It's >in connection with 17th and 18th century enclosure. > There is no difference, Leigh. They both meant large unenclosed fields divided into many long, narrow strips (bundles of strips running parallel to each other being often grouped into furlongs). Each farmer would have a number of strips scattered all through the various furlongs and fields. The strips would have originally been about a pole wide (ie about 16.5 or 18 feet wide) and a furlong long, thus about a quarter of an acre in area, but over the centuries many of them would have been combined with adjacent strips to make wider strips of half an acre or an acre or even more. In the Midland zone of England (a broad belt which actually stretched from Northumberland south and then southwestwards across the Midlands to Dorset) all the arable land of a village would typically be divided into just two or three such open fields. In other regions open fields would also be found but they would usually be smaller and not comprise the entire arable land in the village, some of which would be divided into the small hedged/walled fields we now find everywhere. Open/common fields were associated with a communal form of farming, in which everyone owning strips in the same furlong, or even in the same field, had to plant the same crop, and when there was no crop growing everyone had the right to graze their livestock over the entire field. Every year a different part of the parish's arable land, usually a complete open/common field, would be left fallow (ie nothing would be planted) to give the soil a chance to recover its fertility and to provide year-round grazing. They were called open fields because there were no hedges or walls or fences between the strips, and were also called common fields because everyone had the right of common pasture over everyone else's strips. Back in the 1960s some historians tried to see a distinction between common fields, which (they believed) were subject to the system of common farming and fallowing and pasturing I have just described, and open fields, which (they believed) were just areas of unfenced strip fields which were not farmed in common and in which each farmer could plant what he wanted, when he wanted, and over which no one else had pasture rights. This latter system has been shown to have been extremely rare, if it ever existed anywhere, and it is now generally accepted that the phrases 'open field' and 'common field' were entirely interchangeable. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

>Are you suggesting that Shakespeare really meant that the event in > >Winter's Tale occurred on the 80th April? Well it certainly looks to me as though Shakespeare meant the 80th April, in the light of the following line's reference to 'forty fathom ABOVE water'. But he meant it as a nonsense. 80th April is an impossible date: 40 fathoms above the water is an impossible place for a fish to appear (whether it means, as I think it does, 40 fathoms up in the air, or 40 fathoms inland, as I think John Barton is suggesting). Shakespeare is surely burlesquing the contemporary taste for reports of impossible or improbable events and investing them with supernatural significance (cows born with two heads, women giving birth to rabbits etc etc). Is the 'ballad of fish' a hint that this is just a fishy tale? Also, it's interesting to see the reference lower down in John Barton's earlier posting to the hole in Kinnaston which was 'forty foot broad, and forescore ells long' - it makes one wonder whether Elizabethans used 'forty' and 'fourscore', not as precise measurements but rather as a general but imprecise indication of large size or number. Similar to the way we talk about there being hundreds or thousands of something without meaning that we have actually counted them. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

> > >Well, I'm not at all sure Shakespeare *invented* *any* word. > > > > >between 1590 and 1610 around 6,000 new words were being added to the > >lexicon [more correctly, 'dictionary'] every year. Shakespeare... > > >can't be beaten yet as earliest for 'dislocate', 'dwindle', > > > > > >'submerged', etc. > > >All good stuff, John. My point, though (which I didn't make clear, >perhaps), was that dictionaries only extremely rarely record the first >usage of any word. What they record is the first *documented* usage. > (Hello to everyone, I'm a new subscriber) And the fact that a word is first documented in Shakespeare's works has to be considered in the light of the fact that his was the period when sources in English first become plentiful - before that time far fewer texts in English survive, especially in colloquial, everyday English, than after. So it wouldn't be at all surprising for a long-existing word to be first documented in Elizabethan plays. And secondly, the words which Winchester referred to as being added to the lexicon at that time tended to be Latinate constructions (like dislocate, submerged) - which 'forescore' clearly isn't. Matt Tompkins Blaston, Leics

David Pott wrote: >>It seems more likely to me that >> he meant 'forescore', but deliberately spelled it 'fourscore'; or that the >> text got so altered. >> John Barton >One major problem with this argument is that there was no fixed way of >spelling anything in this period. Agreed. This is an argument surely *against* the idea that Shakespeare couldn't have written 'forescore' if he meant 'fourscore'. Precisely because spelling had not been formalised till the Civil War tracts of 1641, it could either have been a slip of the pen, a result of ambivalent spelling, a printer's foible, an idiosyncrasy of Shakespeare's personal preferred spelling (different people usually though not always spelled a word their own way consistently), or a deliberate confusion - which spelling inconsistency would make difficult to discover. All I am saying is that the view of some modern professors, that he seriously intended "the eightieth of April", and was merely burlesqueing/mocking contemporary ballads which often did include such absurdities, is simply not good enough. Shakespeare was quite capable of managing triple meanings in a passage, and never wrote crude nonsense unless there was such a double-entendre. The plays of course became mangled during publication, and it is quite likely that an original 'forescore', fully intended to mean 19th (a nonce-word, but easily understood one), was misunderstood by the printer and altered. Since David Garrick printed the word as forescore, in the 18thC when spelling had definitely become formalised, it seems incumbent on even the most sceptical of researchers to allow that either meaning (19 or 80) MIGHT be intended, and to follow that line to wherever it leads. Particularly if it leads to establishing, after over 400 years of speculation, the date of birth of the Stratford contender to authorship. John Barton

In message <00aa01c47b0c$d41d98f0$4af0a1cd@pcpowerhrhqxek>, Gordon Barlow <barlow@candw.ky> writes >> When I am packing guides, I can usually pick up a >> handful of five without a mistake, and ten tolerably accurately, but >> twenty wriggling things like sheep and chickens..... >> Eve McLaughlin > >Scouts are even worse, Eve. *Nasty* little wriggling things! You have to >make sure the lid is nailed down tight. Tie them to tent poles by their lanyards (or woggles) -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Thanks Sandra. All now quite clear. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra Lovegrove" <lovegrove@one-name.org> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:53 PM Subject: [OEL] WRIT OF FORMEDON > Don's enquiry about Plea of Assize etc., had me chasing back to the > English Legal History textbook which explains thus (hold on hard: it's > really quite technical). The Chancery court had already invented the > form of action "Formedon in Remainder" to enable an action by the > remainderman under an entail (still with me?) In 1279 an improvement > was introduced by the statute "De Donis"(concerning gifts") to provide > an action to deal with similar problems of the issue in tail (still > there?). This new action was called the writ of "Formedon in the > Descender". So there we have it. I hope that's quite clear now! > > (I have formula specimens of the wording of these writs ni case you > would like to identify which of them were involved.) > > SANDRA LOVEGROVE > > Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. > Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on > http://www.lovegrove.org.uk > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> > To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: 02 August 2004 17:01 > Subject: PLEA OF ASSIZE 1384, ETC. > > > > I'd be very glad of an explanation of the following terms in a Plea > of > > Assize of 1384: > > > > CHIVALER > > > > DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) > > > > WRIT OF FOMEDON > > > > SIESIN (possession?) > > > > MESNE TENANT > > > > ENFEEOF > > > > BANCO > > > > Also in Final Concords,1609 > > > > DEFORCIANTS > > > > Don Tomkinson > > > > ______________________________ > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To contact the list administrator: > OLD-ENGLISH-admin@rootsweb.com > >

No, I am not suggesting that - quite the opposite. What I was saying, or thought I was, is that we have to use our sense in each case. In some cases forescore/fourscore may be 19 but in others it may be 80. We just have to work out the probabilities. I thought that was what you were saying too, or have I got it wrong? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: [OEL] Forescore > Norman, you say: > >I'm sure you're right in all you say but the problem with > >forescore/fourscore remains. May I suggest that as with several other words > >(e.g. bare and bear, here and hear), we have to look at the sense and make > >our best judgements in many of the documents we look at. > > Are you suggesting that Shakespeare really meant that the event in Winter's > Tale occurred on the 80th April? Even if you 'carry over' the superfluous > days, you still get 19th - the 19th of June. It seems more likely to me that > he meant 'forescore', but deliberately spelled it 'fourscore'; or that the > text got so altered. Garrick's spelling of the same word in his text > 'forescore' clinches the matter; it is a nonce-word meaning 19 which didn't > get picked up by the OED. Deliberate confusion to conceal a hidden meaning. > The birth of William Shaksper at Stratford, 40,000 fathoms from the sea, on > Wednesday the 19th April 1564, which date is very likely to be the correct > (but hitherto unknown) one. > To intend us to think the date was the 80th would be uncharacteristic of > Shakespeare; without either meaning or humour. It is obviously a clue to > look further. > John Barton > > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Norman, you say: >I'm sure you're right in all you say but the problem with >forescore/fourscore remains. May I suggest that as with several other words >(e.g. bare and bear, here and hear), we have to look at the sense and make >our best judgements in many of the documents we look at. Are you suggesting that Shakespeare really meant that the event in Winter's Tale occurred on the 80th April? Even if you 'carry over' the superfluous days, you still get 19th - the 19th of June. It seems more likely to me that he meant 'forescore', but deliberately spelled it 'fourscore'; or that the text got so altered. Garrick's spelling of the same word in his text 'forescore' clinches the matter; it is a nonce-word meaning 19 which didn't get picked up by the OED. Deliberate confusion to conceal a hidden meaning. The birth of William Shaksper at Stratford, 40,000 fathoms from the sea, on Wednesday the 19th April 1564, which date is very likely to be the correct (but hitherto unknown) one. To intend us to think the date was the 80th would be uncharacteristic of Shakespeare; without either meaning or humour. It is obviously a clue to look further. John Barton

Don's enquiry about Plea of Assize etc., had me chasing back to the English Legal History textbook which explains thus (hold on hard: it's really quite technical). The Chancery court had already invented the form of action "Formedon in Remainder" to enable an action by the remainderman under an entail (still with me?) In 1279 an improvement was introduced by the statute "De Donis"(concerning gifts") to provide an action to deal with similar problems of the issue in tail (still there?). This new action was called the writ of "Formedon in the Descender". So there we have it. I hope that's quite clear now! (I have formula specimens of the wording of these writs ni case you would like to identify which of them were involved.) SANDRA LOVEGROVE Researching LOVEGROVEs in all places and at all times. Please do visit the LOVEGROVE Information Centre on http://www.lovegrove.org.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tomkinson" <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: 02 August 2004 17:01 Subject: PLEA OF ASSIZE 1384, ETC. > I'd be very glad of an explanation of the following terms in a Plea of > Assize of 1384: > > CHIVALER > > DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) > > WRIT OF FOMEDON > > SIESIN (possession?) > > MESNE TENANT > > ENFEEOF > > BANCO > > Also in Final Concords,1609 > > DEFORCIANTS > > Don Tomkinson > > ______________________________

Very many thanks to all who replied to my request for definitions. I'm very grateful. Don Tomkinson

>It seems more likely to me that > he meant 'forescore', but deliberately spelled it 'fourscore'; or that the > text got so altered. > John Barton One major problem with this argument is that there was no fixed way of spelling anything in this period. David Pott KFHS 8776 The Beaver Inn, Ashford, Kent. The Elmsted site http://members.lycos.co.uk/elmsted/index.html

>Well, I'm not at all sure Shakespeare *invented* *any* word. A fascinating book "The Meaning of Everything - the Story of the Oxford English Dictionary" by Simon Winchester (OUP, 2003) states that between 1590 and 1610 around 6,000 new words were being added to the lexicon [more correctly, 'dictionary'] every year. More than at any time in history save possibly now". I grant that this dictionary (I have only the 8 volumes of the New English Dictionary up to 'Shyzle') does not attempt to 'beat the date' exhaustively. But in the last 120 years, not a lot of earlier usages have been found for most words. e.g. none for 'accommodation', Othello 1604; 'laughable' in Merchant of Venice, hyphenations such as 'baby-eyes', 'pall-mall', and 'ill-turned'. Shakespeare was not the only culprit, everyone was doing it. But he can't be beaten yet as earliest for 'dislocate', 'dwindle', 'submerged', etc. And of course "whoreson beetle-headed flap-ear'd knave" (Taming of the Shrew). But the gist of my email was whether the Winter's Tale passage indicates an author other than the man from Stratford, born on 19th April [1564], seven days before the known baptism date of 26th April, 43 miles (40,000 fathoms) from the Bristol Channel. If so, quite a lot of history (or tradition) needs to be re-written. I've submitted this word (forescore as 19) to the OED for inclusion in the forthcoming 3rd edition. John Barton

> >Well, I'm not at all sure Shakespeare *invented* *any* word. > > A fascinating book "The Meaning of Everything - the Story of the Oxford > English Dictionary" by Simon Winchester (OUP, 2003) states that between 1590 > and 1610 around 6,000 new words were being added to the lexicon [more > correctly, 'dictionary'] every year. Shakespeare... can't be > beaten yet as earliest for 'dislocate', 'dwindle', 'submerged', etc. And of > course "whoreson beetle-headed flap-ear'd knave" > > John Barton > All good stuff, John. My point, though (which I didn't make clear, perhaps), was that dictionaries only extremely rarely record the first usage of any word. What they record is the first *documented* usage. A great many ancient dialectal words and usages have been recorded in relatively recent times. It may seem (be!) pedantic to point that out, but I think the distinction is an important one. I have been assured by the occasional academic that certain words - being recorded in, say, 1200 and next in 1600 - fell out of use during that period. Well, not likely. Gordon