ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2002-05 > 1020883756


From: "norman.lee1" <>
Subject: Re: Help needed
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 19:49:16 +0100
References: <3CD91BD6.25554.E672C0@localhost>


Dear Norman

> xj die Novembris nata fuit Agnes Broke et eodem die baptizata est in
> d'c'a' eccl'ia'.

11 day of November was born Agnes Broke and the same day was baptised in the
said [c'a'?] church. (my translation).

It could be that this church was a chapel, not a parish church, at that time
and the c'a' could be capella anglica, meaning English/Anglican chapel. In
my neck of the woods (north west) large parishes solved their problems by
having several chapels of ease which acted like cadet parish churches, had
their own registers, but were served by curates. It could also be that the
vicar came and baptised a whole lot of children on a particular day, rather
than leave it to the curate. After all, he would then have the money for the
baptism paid to him rather than the curate. Either that, or perhaps the
chapel was temporarily without a curate. I don't know if this is the case
for this particular church. Do you have any information about the history of
this particular parish?

Audrey (High Peak, near Stockport)

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Help needed


> On 7 May 2002 at 18:58, John Henley wrote:
>
> > Hi norman,
> >
> > Not sure why you think you made a mistake. Baptism the same day as
> > birth would be the norm in an age when continued life for the
> > newly-bormn was so uncertain.
>
> I must admit that I am doubtful that this is the answer. If so, it would
> mean that every single child born in this parish during the years 1542 to
> 1547 (that is 46 children) was born early enough in the day to allow for
> a same day baptism. I have carefully checked and the same form of
> words is applied to each baptism for that period. After 1547, this form of
> wording is no longer used.
>
> >
> > I note that the formula is repeated for
> > subsequent entries, and that no parentage is given. I suppose that the
> > entries could just relate back to a large mass baptism on one
> > occasion, in which case 'the same day' might refer back to a date
> > given at the head of a list of entries which gave the birthdates.
>
> The baptism that I listed, was the very first one in the register.
Although
> there was no parentage given for this baptism, the subsequent entries
> do give the fathers' names. During the above mentioned five years,
> there were baptisms carried out on the children of 29 different fathers.
>
> >
> > As for d'c'a', i have no experience of these early registers [still
> > stuck around 1800 :-) ] and it may well be a set phrase. 'in dictam
> > ecclesiam' would give 'in the said church' which might refer back to
> > the last time the name of the church was mentioned - perhaps the
> > title-page : are you sure it is not s't'a, which would give 'in
> > sanctam ecclesiam ' - in holy Church; or f'c'e' - in faciem ecclesiæ -
> > 'in the face of [i.e.before, in front of] the Church' But I am no
> > expert, and am sure someone ith experience will be able tot ell you.
>
> One day in 1543, the word d'c'a' has been slightly expanded to dicta'. I
> am taking this to mean, "the aforesaid".
>
> >
> > Have you tried Eve McLaughlin's booklet on Latin for Family
> > Historians? Cheers
>
> I do have access to a number of Latin dictionaries, including two for
> Family Historians.
>
> My latest thinking is that the word "nata" might, in the context of these
> baptisms, mean something other than "born". Maybe something like,
> "was delivered here".
>
> So, perhaps a better translation would be:
>
> "11th November was delivered here Agnes Broke and, the same day,
> was baptized in the aforesaid church".
>
> Where, "aforesaid church" refers to the name of the church as written
> on title page of the register.
>
> Well, that is my latest thinking on this matter. If anyone has a better
> theory, please let me know.
>
> I wish to thank you John, for your suggestions, which have had the
> effect of making me look at this in more detail. Also, my thanks to all
> those that have written to me privately. Every suggestion was much
> appreciated.
>
> Norman Adams
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> >
> > John Henley
> > (still catching up on masses of emails )
> > using Archive CDs - see
> > http://www.archivecdbooks.org
> > and researching (and not finding much time for - but always very glad
> > to hear of any) HENLEY, PARKER, PRENTICE, SECKER, RAPER, DURDEN [IN
> > London/Middx./Essex/Suffolk] ROLFE, (O)RAFFERTY, EVANS, PARSONS,
> > SYMONDS [IN Berks/Hants/Wilts] HILL [IN Staffs/Cambs/Berks]
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: <>
> > > Let me start by saying that I have absolutely no knowledge of Latin,
> > > whatsoever. I use a Latin/English dictionary to help me with
> > > records that are written in Latin.
> > > I am currently attempting to make sense of some early Parish
> > > Registers (without too much success). Perhaps an example of
> > > what is confusing me, will help.
> > > The first entry for the year 1542 is as follows:
> > > xj die Novembris nata fuit Agnes Broke et eodem die baptizata est
> > > in d'c'a' eccl'ia'.
> > > Using my primitive method of translation, I originally decided
> > > that this probably said something like:
> > >11th November was born Agnes Broke and, the same day, was
> > > baptized in (?????) church.
> > > I thought it was a bit strange that baptism took place on the day
> > > of the birth, but decided that there could be a good reason for this.
> > > Then, I noticed that a similar wording appeared against all the
> > > following baptisms (for several years).
> > > Now, I realize that I have got it wrong. I have obviously made a
> > > mistake
> > > in translating eodem, and have no idea how d'c'a' fits into all of
> > > this.
> > > Can anyone please put me back on the right track
> .> > Many thanks
> > > Norman Adams
>
>


This thread: