Lesson 5: Follow-Up

This flowing and legible Tudor secretary hand demonstrates its scribal nature most particularly in the frequent and inventive use of abbreviation. Note that the terminal -es graph is not here used for the plural only, but to conclude any word ending in es, such as 'Dioces' (line 10). 'Patron' (line 8) takes a non-specific, very current supralineal flourish for the ar, and a similar mark is recruited for the wanting es in 'ecclesiasticall' (line 17). As often in scribal hands written at such speed, there are instances where it is unclear whether the scribe used a contraction mark meaningfully, or merely out of force of habit. Thus the scribe overdetermines the contraction of 'parsons' at the end of line 18, using a p-abbreviation and a supralineal flourish. Or, again, consider the terminal n in 'Royston' (title, line 5, etc.), which in the context of other swashing terminal strokes appears not to specify any contraction. Against these exemplars then place the terminal n of 'London' in line 11: here the terminal flourish appears significantly more pronounced, even if it still, probably, does not require an expansion of any kind (say, terminal e). Would such a flourish merit a textual note? A mention in your description of the hand?

Although a much more fluent and generally delicious hand than that of Lesson 3, the regularity and ample spacing in evidence here make this manuscript extract a model for the study of letter forms. Note several important features characteristic of mid-Tudor secretary hands:

• terminal s comes in several shapes and sizes, including 'sigma' s (as in 'was', line 2) and 'cracked-egg' s ('is', line 5). This latter conservative form, in particular, can be very useful in dating the hand, as it tended to die away during the course of the sixteenth century.
• the elaborated forms of minuscule 'z-form' r, as in 'Priorie' (line 5) or, egregiously, in 'offeringes' in line 16
• this hand furnishes a textbook example of the consistent secretary treatment of double minuscule f in this period; as here, for example in 'offeringes' (line 16), this doubled letter is generally formed by a smallish, squat form of f joined to a larger, more stretched and bolder form. Note that doubled f is rarely, if ever, made up of two identical forms, as are doubled p, r, c, or l.
• the squat form of minuscule p (e.g. in 'Bysshopp', line 10) is very notable here, especially when doubled. Many secretary hands will feature such a distinctly stunted descender on p, sometimes as here alongside more elongated, x-forms (see 'perpetuall', line 7).
• the superscript circle, properly a minuscule o, appended to the number '32' in the regnal year, line 3. This mark indicates the Latin ordinal form of the number, which could therefore be expanded as 'tricesimo secundo', but should probably be left as it is. Whether or not you include the superscript mark in your transcription is up to you; regnal years were very often written without such a superscript mark of ordination, though an (educated) early modern reader would probably have read all the numbers out in Latin.
• the regularity of this hand can sometimes create visual illusions; many beginners will read 'parrishes' in line 3 and 'Parrish' in line 6, because the terminal stroke on minuscule a looks so much like part of another medial r form. Similarly, a beginner might feel that 'wooll' in line 12 looks alarmingly like 'woooll', again because the final bowl of the w resembles exactly the form of the ensuing doubled o.
• finally, note the angular, spurred forms of minuscule a and o, common in mid-century secretary hands. The tendency of f to absorb ('bite') part of the o in the fo cluster (as in 'before', line 14) is very common in secretary hands throughout the period; the subsuming of the o can often be much more extreme, and can lead to mistranscription.

This is the only manuscript extract in this hand contained in our archive. The other selections from this manuscript, the entries under item 31 in our 'index of manuscript images', are much more cursive and less legible than this example, and are therefore more challenging. It may make sense, however, to have a look at these, and at the extracts listed in item 29, to get a sense of how cursive and rough a legal secretary hand of this period could become. Try to pick out the familar letter forms in these examples, drawing on the careful study you have invested in this lesson, and in lesson 3. You may prefer, as usual, to view these images using the links below.

• An Indenture between Robert Martche and Robert Hall et al., Gonville and Caius MS 53/30 [f. 75v +]
• An Indenture between Robert Martche and Robert Hall et al., Gonville and Caius MS 53/30 [f. 76r +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 153 +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 153 +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 205 +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 235 +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 244 +]
• Ecclesiastical Memoranda concerning Ely and Essex, Gonville and Caius College MS 170/91 [p. 245 +]

To conclude this lesson and return to the index of course lessons, close the current window.