OLD-ENGLISH-L Archives

Archiver > OLD-ENGLISH > 2008-12 > 1230640738


From: "Polly Rubery" <>
Subject: Re: [OEL] re Nunc child
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:38:58 -0000
References: <001b01c96a4c$7ce7baf0$76b730d0$@youds@ntlworld.com><1C8727550676DA45BF09CA2E80B4326A3AAA6FA727@EXC-MBX2.cfs.le.ac.uk>


Further to Matt's response:

>>22nd Oct - A child nunc: et alter ex gemell: Jacobi Scholefield
25th Oct - Josephe s. Of James Scholefield alter ex gemellis

Joseph was baptised on the 22nd, possibly at the same time his twin was
buried. So it would appear that James Scholefield was the father of twins,
one of whom died before it was baptised.
<snip>
On the other hand it's a bit difficult to see why the clerk should record a child as 'nuncupative'
if by that he meant 'named' - if it had been named, why not record it by that name?
<snip>
The two examples you quote are interesting. If they are both burials then, as you say, they seem to
record the successive burial of twins, only the second of whom is recorded by name - but why the
word 'et' in the first entry? It seems to suggest both twins were buried on the 22nd ("a child, of
unknown name, and the other of twins"). But perhaps 'alter' here means not 'the other' but just
'one of', making the sense "a child, of unknown name, and one of twins".<<

In classical Latin, alter can mean "the one, the other (of two) so for the first burial I read it as

"A child "nunc:" and one out of the twins of James Scholefield"

and for the second:

"Josephe son of James Scholefield and the other out of the twins"

However that still doesn't help with "nunc:" - unless he means it in the sense that the child had
been named, but not baptised and so the name was not recognised by the church...

Like you it has me rather puzzled!
Polly

This thread: