Dear Otfried and Christoph,
Thanks for your detailed replies.
Re:
'I fail to understand how his second message (regarding the sundown to sundown
reckoning of the liturgical day) could resolve the problem and how it could
support the view that "De tertio Pasche would ordinarily refer to the third
week of Easter".'
What I'd said to Frank in between his two messages, and what I realise I
didn't make clear in my original was that the payment was made on Ascension
Day but the farm itself seemed to begin from de tertio Pasche. I'm sure
it's a date, as it's followed by 9 Edward III, as the regnal yr is normally
written in specific dates (such as the date of the court) in these court
rolls. I don't think it's a third of the payment as Christoph suggests
because in my experience they always specify the dates of the other
payments, and it doesn't seem to fit with the sense of the section
following.
' but rather "post pascha" (= exclusive count).'
The inclusion of 'post' and also 'dies dominica' is certainly what I'd
expect of these rolls, which was really the reason for my original inquiry-
wondering if there was something in the Latin that I was missing. They are
usually very clear so that no errors can occur in the payments. This said,
there are occasional omissions/errors. I've put in my translation of the
whole section (and here dated the third week from the Sunday):
By the force of this order, Henry de Swilington, summoned at the complaint
of Thomas le Roller, comes into court. Thomas speaks against him, saying
that when he, a farmer of the vill of Wakfeld, paid to Henry, as receiver
for the lord earl, at the feast of the Ascension of Our Lord [25 May 1340],
£8 for the farm of the vill *from the third week of Easter* 9 Edward III
[30 April 1340 ] by an indenture deed from the hand of the said receiver,
the same Henry, at Michelmas following, denied payment of the £8 nor did he
wish to implead them of it but by the force and character of his office,
unjustly levied another £8 from him, and he seeks proof of this by inquiry.
Henry says that he allocated all the cash which he received from the said
Thomas to what was owed by him, but he would revert to placing himself on
an inquiry concerning this. And in order to be able to be certain of the
truth of these matters, an inquiry was taken by William de Sandal,
Augustine Pelliparius, Adam Hewer, Thomas de Lepton, Robert Ilhor, John
Hode, John Tup, Robert de Hyperum, William Gardiner, William Jonot, John
son of Walter and John del Halle who say on their oath that Henry Receiver
received from Thomas £8 for the farm of the vill as he said, and later
denied the payment and levied another £8 by an unjust distraint. Judgement
is to be made in the presence of the lord and his council.
Maybe in the end, I'm just going to have to choose one of these dates, with
an explanatory footnote, and of course citing this help. But any further
comments would be very welcome.
Thanks
Kathy
Dr Kathleen Troup Fax: (64)(7)856 2158
History Department, Phone: (64)(7) 856 2889,ext. 8570
University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|