CORNISH-GEN-L Archives

Archiver > CORNISH-GEN > 2002-01 > 1010173699


From: "Richard Polkinghorne" <>
Subject: Re: [CON-GEN] Protestation Returns query
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 19:48:19 -0000
References: <MABBKPFPIOBGCILADKPOOEIFCGAA.lynda@mudle-small.freeserve.co.uk> <004e01c191c9$8d198b00$b185193e@default>


Hello Michael and list
>The literate were distinguished by the + mark
As you have implied it by that wording, I beg to differ. As someone who is
currently transcribing the 1696 Association Oath Rolls the use of marks is
something that I am very familiar with.
It is the people who were illiterate, and thus could NOT write their names,
who resorted to marks.
In the originals of these documents, as well as wills etc, the format found
will be:
"The sign of Thomas P Pascoe" , or "The sign of Fred X Bloggs" or somesuch.
the words "The sign of Fred _Bloggs" would have been written by somebody
else, with the "illiterate" person inserting his or her chosen mark. From
all the ones I have seen the most common mark was the persons attempt to
write the first letter of their surname, but they can be anything. Anchors
were often favoured by sailors etc.
The point about the use of + as a mark is that it is the accepted format for
transcribers to insert in their transcriptions to indicate that on the
original the use of a mark was used, but the actual mark could have been
anything. Thomas Pascoe will therefore appear in transcripts as Thomas +
Pascoe, even though he himself used to write a P
The problem Glencross and Douch came across, as have I, is that in several
cases these rolls are all in the same handwriting, indicating that a scribe
or clerk wrote all the names on the roll. It is thus impossible to ascertain
who of those on the roll could in fact write their own name, and so
percentages of "illiterates" become meaningless. I can also see that many
men managed to write their own name in a very childlike scrawl, but one
suspects that they would not have learnt to write anything else. So do we
call these literate or not?
Richard Polkinghorne
Royal Institution of Cornwall # 1629
Cornwall Family History Society # 10327
Cornish Forefathers Society # 594
Edgcombe Family Genealogy and History # 134
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kiernan" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 7:01 AM
Subject: Re: [CON-GEN] Protestation Returns query


> Lynda, What you appear to have is an extract from "The Cornwall
Protestation
> Returns 1641" Transcribed by R. M. Glencross, revised by H L Douch and
> published by T. L. Stout (1974). There has been a fairly detailed study of
> literacy in the seventeenth century based upon the Protestation returns
> (documents for all parishes in Cornwall except four survive - a total of 5
> seperate borough returns and 197 parish returns) and the authors (of the
> book I mention above) made an attempt to distinguish between the literate
> and illiterate. The literate were distinguished by the + mark. The book
> explains, with reasons, why not too much reliance should be placed upon
> this.
> The accuracy of the transcript depends upon the expertise of the
> transcriber, Douch was a well known Cornish historian and so was able to
> suggest spelling for many of the Cornish names, even so, there will be
> differences of opinion between transcribers.
> Mike, Redruth.
>
>
> ==== CORNISH-GEN Mailing List ====
> DO NOT OPEN ATTACHMENTS.
>
>

This thread: