1561 document - help transcribe please?

[Linda]

Well I will try this again but a much shorter message, since I spent so much time in my last attempt and then had a "server busy" message when I tried to send the message!


Could anyone please help to transcribe the following, particularly the bottom paragraph. The document is from State Papers Domestic Elizabeth dated 1561, and is apparently about John Gaywood responding to questions regarding the imprisonment of his wife in The Tower of London.

John in the Tower (http://www.sp12.hull.ac.uk/jpg/jpg18/SP12018f17.JPG)

So far I have the following (last paragraph)

"John Gaywood gent being in? p[ri]son.... convyct as
....... the convicion of Elizabeth his wyfe saide? (saieth?)
she is a poore young maid vunrible? to ............
......& therefore most humble.............. of
saide som? of money ....................for the
said convicion .......if it cannot be obtayneth that?
offer? ........................for the saide wyfes convic..n
...................and to be put in.................
....................................."

Thanks for any help.

[daleaway]

Hello Linda

I've never tried this before but every little helps - I hope.

Instead of "vulnerable" it might be read as "unable to pay....? ? sum and therefore most humbly ?requesteth? (with abbreviation mark over) remyssion of this sum of money"


".. if it cannot be obtaineth ?by ?other ?? by ?22nd February"

I think a date is given by which the sum must be raised... 22nd February? 22nd July?

Dale in New Zealand

[jeeb]

John Gaywood gent being in prison in convycne that --ching the conveconce of Elizabeth his wyfe sweth she is a poore young (wo)man unable to pay and swyeth same and therefore most humbly requesteth mercy and he saith some g? money? --- and for high she belongeth for the said conveconce that being if she cannot be obtaineth to the offer bought? by and fully ----- for the said wifes convance in pounds? to be put in and --- --- for part

Linda,
I am unable to read anymore as this is all that was visible. I hope it helps.
Cheers Jeremy

[Geoffers]

Just off to watch my sons play cricket (Charlbury playing at home, all welcome) so have only had a brief glimpse, I'll have a more thorough browse later

Bits in round brackets are uncertain, bits in square brackets are abbreviated words where I've added the missing letters

"John Gaywood gent being (..) p[er]son (..) convy(c.e?) as
(t??)uching the conviccon of Elizabeth his wyfe saieth
(he/his?) is a poore young (man?) unable to pay any
greate som and therefore most humbly [pyneth = petitioneth?] remission of
such som of money as (.) his highnes belongeth for the
said conviccon w[i]th (.....?) of yt cannot be obtayneth (..)th
offer to pay [C=100] (..?) fifty (.....?) for his said wifes conviccon
by [XX=20] (..?) in (hand?) and to put in one (m.....?) for (....)
of the (res.....?) at som reasonable days otherwise he
is not able." John Gaywood

Geoffers

[Linda]

Thank you very much Dale, Jeremy and Geoffers. |hug|

Your transcriptions certainly make more sense than what I had to begin with.

Can anyone please read what it says in the left margin, 2nd line up from the bottom?


|bowdown|

Linda

[jeeb]

Hi Linda
It seems to say

? ? St. Michaelmas

As you are probably aware St. Michaelmas day is 29th September and was and still is in many instances the day for settlement of rents etc. As was Lady Day, the 25th of March which until 1752 was the first day of the new year. This is why Oct, Nov, & December were the 8th, 9th & 10th months of the year. Confuses a lot of people!
Jeremy

[Linda]

Thanks Jeremy.


This might seem like a silly question, but I don't suppose "John Gaywood" at the end would be actually John's signature....would it? I'm thinking that this is like a court copy of proceedings where it is perhaps a copy of a statement that he had to sign?

Linda

[jeeb]

Hi Linda,
Sorry but as I said in a previous reply I cannot see the end of the document so I am unable to help you. This does seem to de a sworn affidavit of some kind so I think it could well be possible John Gaywood signed it.
Jeremy

[Geoffers]

Can anyone please read what it says in the left margin, 2nd line up from the bottom?
(.....?) (.....?) fest[ival] Mich[aelmas]

This might seem like a silly question, but I don't suppose "John Gaywood" at the end would be actually John's signature....would it?
My inclination is that this is a transcript of a document and that the signature of the person to whom the document refers, has also been transcribed.

Geoffers
Back from a quick win at cricket, so I'll have a browse of the rest of the document to see if I can make any more sense of it.

[Linda]

Thanks for the extra info Geoffers.

I had a stab at the top portion of the page.

Note: An earlier document "Prisoners and their examiners" shows Edward Warner as an examiner, so I am assuming that the word following "Edward" is "warner" - it kindof looks like that anyway. Also the date has been shown as 4th July 1561 so again assuming that the scribble after "July" is "1561" ;)

"The answers of certen psons ..... made to Sr
Edward warner? ...... Thoms ..... , and Wm
..... Esquire upon certen questions .....
the iiijth of July 1561?"

Edit: Sir Edward Warner was Lieut. of The Tower :)

Back from a quick win at cricketCongratulations! |woohoo|

[Linda]

Ooops! I missed your response Jeremy - thank you for your help. :)


Linda

[jeeb]

Hi Linda,

The signatures of certen psons before? present made to Sr Edward Weaver? Knight and Mr Thomas Sacsoul and Wm Rosewell Esquire upon certen questions de---- the iiijth of July 1561

Jeremy

[BeeE586]

I would love to join in here, but the document I have refers to Sir Thomas Wharton Knight, the name at the end is Thomas Wharton, there is no mention of a John Gaywood. Could this be because the bottom part of the page is completely blacked out and what can I do about it ?

Eileen

[Linda]

Thank you for the additional information Jeremy |hug|


Hi Eileen,

I think when you click on the link the result might depend upon your computer settings and browser. I am using IE 6, the image pops up fitted on the page, and after waiting a few seconds I get an orange icon in the bottom right corner of the image, and when I click on the icon the image zooms in and therefore shows only the top part of the page, then I can scroll down to see the bottom part. When I click on the image again it goes back to full page.

I would imagine that Dale, Jeremy and Geoffers might have copied the image to their computers so that they could zoom in/out using their favourite image software. You might want to try that. Shout if you don't know how.

Thanks for your interest |hug|

Linda

[Mythology]

It might also be worth hitting CTRL + F5 if you can't see it all properly.

It is a bog-standard .jpg image on the University of Hull site, so there shouldn't be a problem with it, but I did notice that when I used Linda's link on here to the image instead of using the link on their site to it, it did not load properly first time, and that did the trick.

[BeeE586]

Thank you, Linda and Myth, for your advice.

I do get what I think is the full page when I scroll down, and the page fits my screen. However, the bottom part of the page is totally obscured by dense blackness apart from a line and a half at the bottom whch is so feint as to be illegible.The top part referring to Wharton is perfectly clear.

I'll pass on this one.

Eileen

[jeeb]

Try clicking on the link given in Linda's first thread, I'm sure you must be doing this anyway. Enlarge the image to full size and then an orange icon should appear at the bottom, click on this and scroll to the bottom of page. My image is blacked out at the very end too but I can see most of the John Gaywood paragraph. Have another try! Good luck.
Jeremy

[Mythology]

"My image is blacked out at the very end too"

It shouldn't be.

Having experimented with clearing the cache a few times and using both links, unless it's coincidence it does seem that, for some reason that I cannot fathom, it works better when you are already on their site - I get the whole image nice and clear every time then, wheareas it's a bit hit and miss using Linda's link which leads to exactly the same place! :confused:

So, last attempt at a solution, I'm off out shortly ...

Try going to:
http://www.sp12.hull.ac.uk/image/image18.htm

then scroll down to:
SP/12/18, 7 Answers of Thomas Wharton et al, prisoners in the Tower

and click the first of the four links under that - "f.17"

If that doesn't work ... |computer| ;)

[BeeE586]

Thanks, Myth.

Did that, still blacked out. As you say *&***&%$$$"" - or words to that effect !!! Shan't bother any more.

However, thank you for introducing me to a new site which I shall very much enjoy. I need to keep my hand in deciphering these old documents and this will do very nicely. Who knows what I might discover on the way.

Eileen - |cheers|

[Linda]

Yes Eileen it is a very interesting site - found by Myth! |hug|

It's strange that you and Jeremy are both experiencing the same problem with the image. Do you have the same problem when viewing other images on the same site? (Not that I can help but I'm curious! :D )

Linda

[Mythology]

"found by Myth!"

By accident! If Linda hadn't been given some dud references, causing problems for a friend of ours who was doing copies for her from the ordinary black & white TNA films at Kew (which, apparently, are less than brilliant), I wouldn't have gone looking for an answer to the dud references problem and would not have stumbled across the site - I had no idea it existed until then! :D

[jeeb]

Hi All,
I tried the site Myth suggested and got exactly the same view as I got from Linda's thread. However I see more than Eileen seems to get as it is just the last couple of lines of the John Gaywood extract that are obliterated.
Jeremy

[BeeE586]

Every computer that I have ever owned has had a mind of its own - this is no exception |

I looked at one or two other entries on the Hull site - so far no problems.
I have looked at any number of sites given in posts of both text and pictures - no problem.
E-mail attachments - no problem.

Why just this one ? My image is black from just below the Wharton sgnature to within two lines of the page end. The top part, dealing with Wharton is an almost perfect copy.

I give up

Eileen

[daleaway]

Thank you for the additional information Jeremy |hug|

I would imagine that Dale, Jeremy and Geoffers might have copied the image to their computers so that they could zoom in/out using their favourite image software. You might want to try that. Shout if you don't know how.


Linda

I deny doing anything so clever - just clicked on the link and it opened without a hitch. Browser is IE, installed about two months ago. What was evident, though, was that it had a very dinky new zoom icon on it that I had never seen before, so I daresay my computer has been downloading stuff off its own bat again. But don't take my word for anything techie, I still believe in the little man in the fridge who puts the lighty on.

Dale in New Zealand