RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: clontarf on Tuesday 04 March 25 14:06 GMT (UK)
-
Bedfordshire Notes and Queries, Vol 2, p90 has the following transcription of a memorial in Battlesden church (I have added line numbers for ease of reference):
1. Heic Iacet
2. Praenobilis Vir JOHANNES DUNCOMBE
3. Eques Auratus
4. Gulielmi Battlesduni in agro Bedfordiensi Armigeri
5. Et Eliz: Johannis POINTZ Equitis Aurati gnatae filius
6. Eliz: MAIJ antequa et honesta oriundae familia Maritus
7. Ex Septem unico Conjugio natis, unici Gulielmi superstitis Pater,
8. Pater Maritus Filius Optimus Carolo Secundo
9. Triumvir Armamentaritis et a Secretioribus Consiliis
10. Rebus bene gestis haud multo post Quinquevir AEravi Praetor.
11. Res Regias administrabat pura admodum et parca manu
12. Munifica hujus Rex et Dominus, res privatas restituit et auxit
13. Singularis sic comparata res domi
14. Vir
15. Tanti Regis fiducia Spectabilis, tot tantisque muneribus clarus
16. Fide virtute, probitate saeculi concensu et existimatione egregius
17. Sed dimissos post honores, quam praesentis inter Splendores illustrior
18. Respondit ipse quippe Dominus Euge[naeus] Bonus et Fidelis Servus
19. Laeta vox etsi terrena
20. Coelitus olim exaudita
21. Resurgenti; o Beata
22. Obijt
23. IV Nonas Martii
24. Anno Salutis MDCLXXXVII
25. AEtatis Suae LXIV.
I think some of the Latin may be wrong (by the mason or the transcriber) - Nonas in line 23 should probably be Mensis; and filius in the line 5 perhaps should be filia.
Google translate and my limited knowledge of Latin produced the following general sense of the inscription:
"Here lies a noble man John DUNCOMBE, a golden knight, son of William, armiger of Battlesden in Bedfordshire, and Elizabeth daughter of John POINTZ, another golden knight. He was married to Elizabeth MAY. She (or perhaps Sir John) came from a family of ancient and honorable origin. Out of this marriage came 7 children with only son William surviving. Sir John was all round a splendid chap serving King Charles the Second for many years managing the royal affairs with a very pure and frugal hand. The king had great confidence in him and he was famous for many roles, virtuous in faith, and distinguished by his integrity and reputation. The Good and Faithful Servant was called to heaven by the Blessed Risen One and died on the 4th of the month of March in the Year of Salvation 1687 aged 64."
I had particular trouble with lines 9 and 10 which I think say when or how long and in what position Sir John worked for the King.
Any assistance much appreciated.
-
I think “nonas” in line 23 may be OK. Roman dating: the numeral gives number of days before the nones (or ides, or kalends, as specified) of the month, i.e., for March, the 9th. So 5th of March.
-
Thank you jnomad. That is very interesting. Does this mean "Nonas" is a mis-spelling, or is the "-as" ending required grammatically?
The parish register shows his burial on 6 Mar 1686/7, but every history of Sir John I have seen says he died on 4 March.
-
He died on 4 March.
IV Nonas Martii = 4 March, that is, 4 days before the Nones, including the first and last day in the calculation. In March, the Nones are on the 7th (normally the 5th, never the 9th).
As the rhyme goes:
"In March, July, October, May
the Nones fall on the 7th day
the Ides fall on the 15th day"
Biography
https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/member/duncombe-sir-john-1622-87
-
Yes, Bookbox is right; sorry I didn’t check what I thought I remembered. And the Nones is day 1 in the count of four back. So 7, 6, 5, 4. It’s just a happenstance that the 4th day before the Nones is the 4th day of the month.
-
Thank you both. Two questions:
1. Would it be correct then to say that literally IV Nonas Martii = the fourth of/before the Nones of March?
2. Is Nonas, instead of Nones, a case ending because of either the implied prepositions of/before or Nones of March?
-
1: Yes... On the fourth day before the Nones of March
2: Obiit IV Nonis Martii
Ablative plural of Nonae - Nonis (used for dates when specifying when something happened. Obiit is referring to the date of death)
-
2. Is Nonas, instead of Nones, a case ending because of either the implied prepositions of/before or Nones of March?
Yes. The implied preposition is ante, meaning 'before', which takes the accusative case. This is why it is Nonas (and not Nonis). The ablative case (Nonis) is used only for the day itself, not when counting the number of days before.
-
Bookbox is right (as usual).
You haven’t had any help with lines 9 and 10. I don’t know about triumvir and quinquevir. I assume he was a member of bodies with 3 and 5 members, but I don’t know about such things in Charles II’s administration.
-
You haven’t had any help with lines 9 and 10. I don’t know about triumvir and quinquevir. I assume he was a member of bodies with 3 and 5 members, but I don’t know about such things in Charles II’s administration.
He was head of the Bedfordshire Militia, Commander of the Ordnance, a Treasury baron, Chancellor of the Exchequer etc., as set out in the History of Parliament link that I have already posted in reply #3. The Latin used here is just designed to reflect Roman administrative terminology, in keeping with the classical style of the whole inscription.
-
Having read the History of Parliament biography I would say that not only has the epitaph writer gilded the lily, he has also attempted to rewrite history. Sir John indeed had many roles (line 15), not all of them successful, but in order to match any of his appointments to the allusive and flowery language of the memorial I need to know more precisely what the memorial says - ie. data before interpretation.
Line 8:
This seems to be two thoughts: Pater Maritus Filus Optimus - "father, husband, best son" referring back to Sir John, and Charles the second doing the appointing referred to in lines 9 and 10. Is this valid, or is the writer praising the King?
Lines 9 and 10:
My crude translation: "(Charles the Second) appointed Sir John to a three man body dealing with armaments and a more secretive Council and after this was successful appointed him not long after to be chairman (governor) of a five man body." The most obvious correspondence to Sir John's actual career would be his seat on an ordnance commission formed after the death of Sir William Compton in 1663. The Parliament biography says the ordnance commission was so successful, the King nominated Sir John to the Treasury board ("Quinquevir Aeravi praetor"?). Could "Secretioribus" be an attempt to latinize "secretary" and the line is saying Sir John was secretary of the three man armaments council, or are there two entities involved?
Line 25:
Does "Aetatis Suae LXIV" mean aged 64 or in his 64th year?
-
line 8: the meaning is ‘father, husband, and best son to Charles II’.
line 9: armamentaritis is incorrect, should be armamentariis = ‘for military equipment’. A seat on the Ordnance Commission sounds feasible.
line 10: aeravi is incorrect, should be aerarii = ‘of the Treasury’.
So ... ‘Father, husband and best son to Charles II. [He was appointed] one of three men of the Ordnance Commission and, through [his] good handling of some rather secret matters, not long afterwards [he was appointed] one of the five Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.’
line 25: aetatis suae LXIV can mean either ‘aged 64’ or ‘in his 64th year’.
-
I think “optimus” goes with all three nouns: best father, husband and son. And I don’t think he’s being said to be son to Charles II. “Carolo secundo” goes with the next bit. (We have to supply punctuation.) So: “Best father, husband, son, for Charles II triumvir of ordnance …” — i.e. member of the Ordnance Commission (which had three members).
-
That's a fair enough view, jnomad.
-
Thank you both. That deals with the most specific reference to Sir John's career.
Final request before I close the topic: Have I got the genealogical information on the inscription correct? Does the inscription say Sir John was son of William Duncombe of Battlesden and Elizabeth (who was daughter of Sir John Pointz) and he was only married to Elizabeth May and had 7 children with her, only William surviving. Does the inscription say William of Battlesden or John is the armiger? Obviously if William was then John will be as well, but what does the Latin actually say (more punctuation would have helped)?
I know mother Elizabeth's surname was actually Morris and Sir John Pointz was Sir John Morris before adopting his father-in-law's surname, but that is a topic for another time and place.
-
Yes to your first question. And “armigeri” describes John’s father, not John (both in genitive case, whereas John is nominative) — though as you say John will have inherited the status.
-
Thank you jnomad (and Bookbox and Wayne N) for your insights.
-
You’re welcome.