> 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. Gordon

Dear John 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. Consistency was not the order of the times in documents before the 18/19th century and it is not likely and also not impossible where probate inventories are concerned that forescore sheep would mean 19 sheep. Generally speaking, the most likely reading would be 80. Your information on the possibility of it meaning 19 sheep, however, will make me look at the value of these items far closer than before in order to work out which is the most likely number of sheep, or whatever other article is in question. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Barton" <bartonlander@free.net.nz> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:33 PM Subject: [OEL] Inventing words > >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 > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

In message <200408041856.i74IuMo7030013@mail.rootsweb.com>, Roy <roy.cox@btinternet.com> writes >Good HOT Afternoon - > >The 'meat' of our food production in years past is quite evolutionary and >Terrick VH Fitzhugh has set out an admirable description covering almost two >A5 pages in his book "The Dictionary of Genealogy". I have attempted to >precise this and trust it works! >>>>>>>>>> >"Enclosures" [Physical Process] or "Inclosures" [Legal Process] in the >Middle ages were the typical method of agriculture, now called "The Open >Field System". > >Householders in the manor held strips of land scattered among larger open >fields, hold hay-making and grazing rights in the meadowland and pasture in >proportion to the number of strips they held in the arable. > >The fields are called "OPEN" because there were no hedges or fences between >the various strips. there were grass paths called baulks between each strip, for access. If a man could get hold of the adjacent strip (by purchase or marrying the owner's daughter) he could plough up the baulk as well, but this was unofficial, so that when the time came to add up total strip holdings so that a block of land could be allocated, the baulk land was lost. > It time it became more efficient for a man to hold one >substantial block of land, rather than scattered strips. The lord of the >manor tended to withdraw his strips the lord of the manor generally had demesne land, in a block already, - the strips were as held by his manorial tenants. >into one group and to take in land from >the waste, the waste (uncultivated land) belonged to him anyway, as did all mineral rights, valuable in coal country. > 'Common' generally refers to the pasture fields, in which each tenant had a right to so many cow or sheep commons - i.e., the right to run X numbers of livestock (according to land holding usually). The beasts were turned out together, and it was up to them to get on with it, and eat their fill. Fussy eaters lost valuable fodder, which could be serious in bad seasons. There was generally a date before which cattle could not be pastured on certain common fields - but once they had been, and had eaten, there was no way of recovering the grass, so it was worth paying the fine of 6d or whatever a head, and having a contented cow or ox. > "Common Land" for grazing which I have heard of but know no details! > >The bulk of enclosures were in the late C18 and early to middle C19. The small owners generally lost out, since losing a baulk mattered more, the less total land you had. There was also the matter that the enclosures were asked for by the big farmers, who tended to be allocated the best land, and the small men got the scruff. Locally, they also had to pay for oak pale fencing round their new fields (plus the parson's glebe, which cost a lot of money. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Good HOT Afternoon - The 'meat' of our food production in years past is quite evolutionary and Terrick VH Fitzhugh has set out an admirable description covering almost two A5 pages in his book "The Dictionary of Genealogy". I have attempted to precise this and trust it works! >>>>>>>>> "Enclosures" [Physical Process] or "Inclosures" [Legal Process] in the Middle ages were the typical method of agriculture, now called "The Open Field System". Householders in the manor held strips of land scattered among larger open fields, hold hay-making and grazing rights in the meadowland and pasture in proportion to the number of strips they held in the arable. The fields are called "OPEN" because there were no hedges or fences between the various strips. It time it became more efficient for a man to hold one substantial block of land, rather than scattered strips. The lord of the manor tended to withdraw his strips into one group and to take in land from the waste, becoming part of his demesne. This affected mainly pasture land for various reasons but arable duly became affected in the same way. The "Domesday of Inclosure" was drawn up in 1517-18 which only applied to six or seven counties - [Not Stated] - the years that followed brought many suits in chancery or other courts of equity, the resulting decisions being recorded in the Rolls of the Court. Having I think answered the 'open' question, I cannot see a straight answer to "Common Arable Field" unless the document concerned was referencing the Common Pleas rolls that in the 16-17-18th centuries enrolled these enclosures also. Another thought is the sharing of land in the same respect as "Common Land" for grazing which I have heard of but know no details! Kind Regards Roy & June Cox www.btinternet.com/~roy.cox/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: YeagerLA@aol.com [mailto:YeagerLA@aol.com] Sent: 04 August 2004 01:43 To: OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [OEL] Common vs Open Hi 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. Many thanks Kind regards Leigh Driver ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== OLD-ENGLISH Web Page http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/

Different technique for sheep and hens. As you say, they're not like books. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] "Forescore" > > >even get to the dictionary. One in particular, probably because it hasn't > >been discovered. This is 'forescore', meaning 19. > > Interesting - I hadn't spotted that before, and I've never seen an > 'aforescore' version, which should exist. . There should be such a > word, the direct translation of undeviginti, one of twenty. But where is > the accompanying word for duodeviginti (18)? 'twoaforescore' perhaps. > Let's have it for the anglicisation of Latin phrases. > > >That appeared upon the coast, > >on wednesday the fourscore of April, > Score. looked at for itself, is also an interesting unit. Even the > barely literate countrymen needed to be able to count up the important > things, like sheep and sheaves and hens. And a score is the standard > unit they used. But it does suggest a considerable ability to judge > numbers by eye. 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 > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Thanks Eve I'd forgotten about the fiction that went with entry and exit fines, especially daft when you consider that these had to be paid upon inheritance of a tenancy or leasehold. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> Cc: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [OEL] DISSIEZED > In message <004601c4792f$a2cd3dc0$d5ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Can you tell me about the word "disasseised"? I find this expression, along > >with its opposite "asseised" in indentures and other documents passing land > >between one person and another. It all seems to be quite legal with no > >suggestion of forcibly depriving anyone of their property. > just disseised is normal. And a charge of nouvel disseisin kept the > lawyers happy for ages. It did then mean illegal deprivation -as by > thieves or bad barons, BUT the same thing was later done by agreement, > to cover a sale which had been arranged. You were not supposed to sell > land without permission, and paying fees, so the fiction was agreed of a > common recovery. X sold property ABC to Y, and the money was held by S > and T. Y then claimed that his ancestor really owned ABC all along and > X/s ancestor had pinched it. X said what a load of ... rubbish and he > could prove his rights, with evidence from two men, John Doe and Richard > Roe. Y said wheel them on. So a while later, X and Y went to court and > called for JD and RR to appear - which of course, they did not, being > fictitious. Judge then said Y had proved his case, and ABC was his. S > and T then handed over the money to X, received a small fee, and > everyone was happy. > In land transfer, you tend to get that prop[erty was owned by Joe > Bloggs who died seised of (description) and his heirs was Fred Bloggs > > > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <00b101c47988$6c1560b0$bff1a1cd@pcpowerhrhqxek>, Gordon Barlow <barlow@candw.ky> writes >> In Shakespeare's Henry V II 1 line 71, Pistol, in a sword-fight, says >"Give >> me thy fist, thy fore-foot to me give". This word (fore-foot with the >> meaning fist) is one of Shakespeare's 5000 odd inventions. Well over 50 >> words prefixed 'fore-' were invented in his lifetime; to him alone we owe >at >> least 15... >> John Barton > >Well, I'm not at all sure Shakespeare *invented* *any* word. um - I did impeticos thy gratillity? Doesn't find a place in my dictionary. > His writings >are the earliest records *that survived*, containing certain words: I am sure that is right for a lot of the odder ones. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <004601c4792f$a2cd3dc0$d5ccfc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >Can you tell me about the word "disasseised"? I find this expression, along >with its opposite "asseised" in indentures and other documents passing land >between one person and another. It all seems to be quite legal with no >suggestion of forcibly depriving anyone of their property. just disseised is normal. And a charge of nouvel disseisin kept the lawyers happy for ages. It did then mean illegal deprivation -as by thieves or bad barons, BUT the same thing was later done by agreement, to cover a sale which had been arranged. You were not supposed to sell land without permission, and paying fees, so the fiction was agreed of a common recovery. X sold property ABC to Y, and the money was held by S and T. Y then claimed that his ancestor really owned ABC all along and X/s ancestor had pinched it. X said what a load of ... rubbish and he could prove his rights, with evidence from two men, John Doe and Richard Roe. Y said wheel them on. So a while later, X and Y went to court and called for JD and RR to appear - which of course, they did not, being fictitious. Judge then said Y had proved his case, and ABC was his. S and T then handed over the money to X, received a small fee, and everyone was happy. In land transfer, you tend to get that prop[erty was owned by Joe Bloggs who died seised of (description) and his heirs was Fred Bloggs > -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

In message <000e01c478aa$2202d180$5c67e150@j3k4c7>, Donald Tomkinson <don.tomkinson@lineone.net> writes >I'd be very glad of an explanation of the following terms in a Plea of >Assize of 1384: > >CHIVALER gentleman (tech. horseman, knight > >DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) yes > >WRIT OF FOMEDON ? can you check this 0 ?? writ of summons > >SIESIN (possession?) seisin, yes, formal possession, technically by received a chunk of grass from the property > >MESNE TENANT on a manor, direct tenant of the lord > >ENFEEOF enfeoff - put in possession of a (major) property > >BANCO de Banco regale? - (judge of/ case in) King's Bench court, one of the major royal courts of justice > >Also in Final Concords,1609 > >DEFORCIANTS defendants, persons accused or responding to a civil case; plaintiffs were the other side. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

>even get to the dictionary. One in particular, probably because it hasn't >been discovered. This is 'forescore', meaning 19. Interesting - I hadn't spotted that before, and I've never seen an 'aforescore' version, which should exist. . There should be such a word, the direct translation of undeviginti, one of twenty. But where is the accompanying word for duodeviginti (18)? 'twoaforescore' perhaps. Let's have it for the anglicisation of Latin phrases. >That appeared upon the coast, >on wednesday the fourscore of April, Score. looked at for itself, is also an interesting unit. Even the barely literate countrymen needed to be able to count up the important things, like sheep and sheaves and hens. And a score is the standard unit they used. But it does suggest a considerable ability to judge numbers by eye. 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 Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Hi 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. Many thanks Kind regards Leigh Driver

> In Shakespeare's Henry V II 1 line 71, Pistol, in a sword-fight, says "Give > me thy fist, thy fore-foot to me give". This word (fore-foot with the > meaning fist) is one of Shakespeare's 5000 odd inventions. Well over 50 > words prefixed 'fore-' were invented in his lifetime; to him alone we owe at > least 15... > John Barton Well, I'm not at all sure Shakespeare *invented* *any* word. His writings are the earliest records *that survived*, containing certain words: but we shouldn't go further than that. We can't even say what words were invented in his lifetime, or anybody else's. Only very rarely can we know exactly when words were invented - though the jargon-words of professions and trades are increasingly a major exception to that rule. Words can exist for hundreds of years before they make it into *written* language. Gordon Barlow

Can you tell me about the word "disasseised"? I find this expression, along with its opposite "asseised" in indentures and other documents passing land between one person and another. It all seems to be quite legal with no suggestion of forcibly depriving anyone of their property. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Pott" <davpott@hotmail.com> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 10:25 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] DISSIEZED > Disseisin- wrongfully depriving someone of seisein. > > From Bristow also Hey. > > David Pott > > KFHS 8776 > The Beaver Inn, Ashford, Kent. > > The Elmsted site http://members.lycos.co.uk/elmsted/index.html > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > THREADED archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >

Hi Thanks for your message. Sir Wm.'s younger son was exec of the will and named Charles. this one may be him. I will do further research on it. Thanks also for the name of the book. Regards Mary

In message <9.2fa232d8.2e4004ac@aol.com>, GaryIvoDe@aol.com writes >DISSIEZED (dispossessed?) - To put in possession of (1300's term, England). No, that is seized - Disseize is to take away possession of, the term is still used to the C17, and even from time to time in the C18 -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Old English is not my forte, but with definitions changing over time and spelling being phonetic and inconsistent could there be more than one definition for this term fourscore? "This is 'forescore', meaning 19. Disguised in the text (Winter's Tale, Act 4 Sc.3) as 'fourscore'." For example: Fore is defined as the first part, goes first, was located anteriorly, the forward part (of something) being a vessel (bow) or watercraft; or relating to or located in the the front (front porch, front lines). Fortnight: two weeks, a period of fourteen consecutive nights. In the US, a speech by our 16th president contained the word fourscore. Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. ~~ Abraham Lincoln Score is defined as 20 members, units, items definition: noun; the cardinal number that is the product of ten and eight; 80, eighty, LXXX definition: adjective; being ten more than seventy; cardinal; being or denoting a numerical quantity but not order; "cardinal numbers" twoscore: definition: noun; being ten more than thirty synonyms: 40, cardinal, forty, XL threescore: definition: noun; a set with 3 times 20 members definition: adjective; being ten more than fifty synonyms: 60, cardinal, LX, sixty sixscore: adjective and noun; six times twenty; one hundred and twenty sevenscore: seven times twenty, that is, a hundred and forty. "The old Countess of Desmond....lived sevenscore years" ~~ Bacon Score can be found in twoscore, threescore, fourscore, sixscore, sevenscore, eightscore, and ninescore. It seems that many of these are unused now. They can be found in Webster's 1913 Dictionary, and others. Fivescore seems to have been used also. Old William seems to have done very well at inventing words. - Denne meldingen er sjekket for virus av Norton Anti-virus - This message was checked for virus by Norton Anti-virus

Disseisin- wrongfully depriving someone of seisein. From Bristow also Hey. David Pott KFHS 8776 The Beaver Inn, Ashford, Kent. The Elmsted site http://members.lycos.co.uk/elmsted/index.html

Isn't DISSIEZED just a relinquishing of an estate? I think it's what happens when it is sold to another. I believe that SEISIN is taking possession of the estate. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary Varley" <mary@mvarley.freeserve.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] PLEA OF ASSIZE 1384, ETC. > Donald > I don't know the answers to all of your queries but those I do know are > below: > > > DISSIEZED - forcibly evicted (I think) > ENFEEOF - surrendering of property to trustees > DEFORCIANTS - defendants > > Mary > > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE from list mode -- > Send the one word UNSUBSCRIBE to > OLD-ENGLISH-L-request@rootsweb.com > >

Gordon, they were like a militia I think, and they were people who were farm workers or weavers or whatever. There's some dispute amongst historians about how trained they ever were, and seems likely that it depended almost entirely on the Lord Lieutenant of the county and his deputies re how often they got people together to be trained, some did quite a lot and some almost none. The militia's are earlier as well as later, there are plenty of remaining militia rolls with names of the men - in Suffolk there's the famous 1522 Military Survey which tells us each man's occupation as well as what weapon he had. The armour in each parish was kept in the church. Lyn B

Agreed. My old dictionary says that the legal term often implied "illegally dispossessed." But this may have come much later in time. Gary