GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-08 > 0933786653
From: Stewart Baldwin< >
Subject: Re: Odard de Dutton
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:10:53 GMT
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 08:54:12 -0500, (Nathaniel
>But the first edition of Ormerod's _Chester_ was published in 1819.
>Ormerod died in 1873. The Helsby edition of 1882 was also reprinted in
>1980. Does the first edition not contain this Dutton material?
>Of course both may still have independently quoted from Sir Peter Leycester.
I don't have the sources handy right now to check, but my recollection
is that Ormerod used Leycester's book (which covered only Bucklow
hundred, if my memory is correct) as a starting point for his own
work, and Ormerod's account of Bucklow hundred was little more than a
revision of Leycester's work, with the accounts of the other hundreds
being new material. Leycester's contribution to that part of the book
would have then been carried over when Helsby revised Ormerod's
version. [Helsby's revisions are generally put in square brackets, so
that it is usually easy to tell the difference between Ormerod's
original work and the very considerable additions which were made by
Thus, if someone was quoting material from Leycester, it could easily
appear that they were taking it from Ormerod or Helsby.
|Re: Odard de Dutton by Stewart Baldwin< >|