When niece is not cognata

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Douglas Richardson

When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2004 20:55:56

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a recent discussion of the meaning of the Latin word, cognatus, I
posted an example of cognatus meaning niece taken from records of post
Conquest England. This example came from a letter dated 1219 written
by William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, to Hubert de Burgh, Justiciar
of England. A transcript of this letter in Latin can be found in the
book, Royal and Other Historical Letters illustrative of the reign of
Henry III, edited by Rev. Walter Waddington Shirley, 1 (1862): 42.

The first part of the letter as transcribed by Rev. Shirley reads as
follows:

"Carissimo amico suo Huberto de Burgo, justiciaro Angliae, suus in
omnibus W[illelmus], comes Warrenae, salutem et totius dilectionis
plenitudinem. Quoniam credo vos de adventu dominae comitissae Augi
neptis vestrae, cognatae nostrae, in Angliam guadiam habituros, vobis
significo quod ipsa in partes istas venit, et ego et ipsa jam cum
domino rege locuti fuimus. Qui diligenter et benigne nos recipiens,
praefixit nobis diem in octavis Nativitatis B. Mariae, ubicumque sit."
END OF QUOTE.

In the above letter, William de Warenne refers to Alice, Countess of
Eu, as "your niece and my kinswoman." It is odd that the earl should
refer to Countess Alice as Hubert de Burgh's niece, as she was not de
Burgh's niece at all. Rather, she was William de Warenne's own
niece. And, Hubert de Burgh was married to Countess Alice's
kinswoman, Beatrice de Warenne. So, the letter should have said "my
niece and your kinswoman," not the reverse.

Since my original post regarding this letter, I have gone back and
double checked the letter as transcribed by Shirley and confirmed that
the wording was as my files indicate. However, while I've correctly
recorded the letter's statement into my files, I've felt that there is
probably an error someplace.

Interestingly, I recently came across yet another transcript of the
same letter. The second transcript is found in an article entitled
"Warenniana" published in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 6
(1853): 110-111. The author provided an English translation of the
Latin text as follows:

"To his most dear friend, Hubert de Burgh, Justiciary of England, his
in all things (suus in ombibus), William, Earl de Warenne greeting,
and the fullness of entire love. As I think you will be rejoiced at
the arrival in England of the lady Countess of Eu, my niece and your
kinswoman (Comitisse Auge neptis nostre et cognate vestre), I inform
you that she is come here, and I and she (ego et ipsa) have already
spoken with my lord the king, and he, readily and kindly receiving us,
has appointed us a day on the Octaves of the Nativity of the Blessed
Mary, wherever he may be." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, the author of Warenniana has reversed the possessive
pronouns in his transcript, so that the letter now reads "neptis
nostre et cognate vesstre," or, "our niece and your kinswoman."

It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Douglas Richardson

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 30 nov 2004 22:48:56

Dear Newsgroup ~

In my post below, I commenced by saying that I had previously posted
an example of "cognatus meaning neice." More exactly, I should have
said that I had previously posted an example of "cognata meaning
niece." The rest of my comments stand as stated.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah


douglasrichardson@royalancestry.net (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<2619efc9.0411301155.91ce0a0@posting.google.com>...
Dear Newsgroup ~

In a recent discussion of the meaning of the Latin word, cognatus, I
posted an example of cognatus meaning niece taken from records of post
Conquest England. This example came from a letter dated 1219 written
by William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, to Hubert de Burgh, Justiciar
of England. A transcript of this letter in Latin can be found in the
book, Royal and Other Historical Letters illustrative of the reign of
Henry III, edited by Rev. Walter Waddington Shirley, 1 (1862): 42.

The first part of the letter as transcribed by Rev. Shirley reads as
follows:

"Carissimo amico suo Huberto de Burgo, justiciaro Angliae, suus in
omnibus W[illelmus], comes Warrenae, salutem et totius dilectionis
plenitudinem. Quoniam credo vos de adventu dominae comitissae Augi
neptis vestrae, cognatae nostrae, in Angliam guadiam habituros, vobis
significo quod ipsa in partes istas venit, et ego et ipsa jam cum
domino rege locuti fuimus. Qui diligenter et benigne nos recipiens,
praefixit nobis diem in octavis Nativitatis B. Mariae, ubicumque sit."
END OF QUOTE.

In the above letter, William de Warenne refers to Alice, Countess of
Eu, as "your niece and my kinswoman." It is odd that the earl should
refer to Countess Alice as Hubert de Burgh's niece, as she was not de
Burgh's niece at all. Rather, she was William de Warenne's own
niece. And, Hubert de Burgh was married to Countess Alice's
kinswoman, Beatrice de Warenne. So, the letter should have said "my
niece and your kinswoman," not the reverse.

Since my original post regarding this letter, I have gone back and
double checked the letter as transcribed by Shirley and confirmed that
the wording was as my files indicate. However, while I've correctly
recorded the letter's statement into my files, I've felt that there is
probably an error someplace.

Interestingly, I recently came across yet another transcript of the
same letter. The second transcript is found in an article entitled
"Warenniana" published in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 6
(1853): 110-111. The author provided an English translation of the
Latin text as follows:

"To his most dear friend, Hubert de Burgh, Justiciary of England, his
in all things (suus in ombibus), William, Earl de Warenne greeting,
and the fullness of entire love. As I think you will be rejoiced at
the arrival in England of the lady Countess of Eu, my niece and your
kinswoman (Comitisse Auge neptis nostre et cognate vestre), I inform
you that she is come here, and I and she (ego et ipsa) have already
spoken with my lord the king, and he, readily and kindly receiving us,
has appointed us a day on the Octaves of the Nativity of the Blessed
Mary, wherever he may be." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, the author of Warenniana has reversed the possessive
pronouns in his transcript, so that the letter now reads "neptis
nostre et cognate vesstre," or, "our niece and your kinswoman."

It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Peter Stewart

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 des 2004 04:31:23

Douglas Richardson wrote:

Dear Newsgroup ~

In a recent discussion of the meaning of the Latin word, cognatus, I
posted an example of cognatus meaning niece taken from records of post
Conquest England. This example came from a letter dated 1219 written
by William de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, to Hubert de Burgh, Justiciar
of England. A transcript of this letter in Latin can be found in the
book, Royal and Other Historical Letters illustrative of the reign of
Henry III, edited by Rev. Walter Waddington Shirley, 1 (1862): 42.

The first part of the letter as transcribed by Rev. Shirley reads as
follows:

"Carissimo amico suo Huberto de Burgo, justiciaro Angliae, suus in
omnibus W[illelmus], comes Warrenae, salutem et totius dilectionis
plenitudinem. Quoniam credo vos de adventu dominae comitissae Augi
neptis vestrae, cognatae nostrae, in Angliam guadiam habituros, vobis
significo quod ipsa in partes istas venit, et ego et ipsa jam cum
domino rege locuti fuimus. Qui diligenter et benigne nos recipiens,
praefixit nobis diem in octavis Nativitatis B. Mariae, ubicumque sit."
END OF QUOTE.

In the above letter, William de Warenne refers to Alice, Countess of
Eu, as "your niece and my kinswoman." It is odd that the earl should
refer to Countess Alice as Hubert de Burgh's niece, as she was not de
Burgh's niece at all. Rather, she was William de Warenne's own
niece. And, Hubert de Burgh was married to Countess Alice's
kinswoman, Beatrice de Warenne. So, the letter should have said "my
niece and your kinswoman," not the reverse.

Since my original post regarding this letter, I have gone back and
double checked the letter as transcribed by Shirley and confirmed that
the wording was as my files indicate. However, while I've correctly
recorded the letter's statement into my files, I've felt that there is
probably an error someplace.

Interestingly, I recently came across yet another transcript of the
same letter. The second transcript is found in an article entitled
"Warenniana" published in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. 6
(1853): 110-111. The author provided an English translation of the
Latin text as follows:

"To his most dear friend, Hubert de Burgh, Justiciary of England, his
in all things (suus in ombibus), William, Earl de Warenne greeting,
and the fullness of entire love. As I think you will be rejoiced at
the arrival in England of the lady Countess of Eu, my niece and your
kinswoman (Comitisse Auge neptis nostre et cognate vestre), I inform
you that she is come here, and I and she (ego et ipsa) have already
spoken with my lord the king, and he, readily and kindly receiving us,
has appointed us a day on the Octaves of the Nativity of the Blessed
Mary, wherever he may be." END OF QUOTE.

As we see above, the author of Warenniana has reversed the possessive
pronouns in his transcript, so that the letter now reads "neptis
nostre et cognate vesstre," or, "our niece and your kinswoman."

It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.

This kind of mistranscription isn't as uncommon as we might hope -
compositors in Victorian England often knew Latin well enough for their
trade, and there were specialists in the language, but this didn't
always prevent them from messing up the order of words and changing a
phrase. Proof readers wouldn't necessarily pick this up if the sentence
still made sense; and of course the editor might have written it down
wrongly in the first place.

In this case it would seem that the 1853 publication is more probably
correct than the one from 1862, since it tallies better with facts known
from other sources. However, it may be that the earlier editor had
silently amended what both of them found in the manuscript, which could
also be mistaken from various causes. Is the original letter still
extant to be checked?

As for whether or not cognatus/cognata could mean nephew/niece in
post-Conquest England, you do seem to be in earnest on this point so I
will give you the benefit of the doubt:

The was no special rule or authority that could possibly stop writers at
one time or in one place from repeating the sense of any word as they
had found it in texts written earlier and/or elsewhere. This applies to
England after 1066 as much as to anywhere else in Europe at any time in
the middle ages.

If you would put aside your aversion for long enough to consult the
British Academy's _Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources_,
you would find the following statement in a letter written by John of
Salisbury in 1160:

"cognatus...utpote sororis filius" (kinsman as being the sister's son)

and a connected trail of meaning in the following definition of cousin
from 'Catholicon Anglicum', an English-Latin word list compiled in 1483:

"'a cosyn', cognatus, cognata...nepos...neptis".

As I have said often before, there were no hard & fast rules governing
precisely what a word might be used to mean. Each writer had learned
from common exercises - such as studying St Jerome's Bible - as well as
from individual reading of material from different times & places. In
broad terms, the more learned a person was, the more likely to be
imaginative and/or idiosyncratic in choosing words to fit literary
occasions.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 01 des 2004 08:07:45

Peter Stewart wrote:

<snip>

If you would put aside your aversion for long enough to consult the
British Academy's _Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources_,
you would find the following statement in a letter written by John of
Salisbury in 1160:

"cognatus...utpote sororis filius" (kinsman as being the sister's son)

On looking this up, I find that it's a clearer illustration of
"cognatus" meaning "nephew" than the few words quoted in the dictionary
indicated.

For John of Salisbury, in this context at least, "nepos" evidently meant
"grandson", "cousin" or some more generalised, distant relationship, and
he gave "cognatus" (specifically "e vicino", meaning near in blood) as
the preferable term for a nephew.

The whole sentence, about the imperial prefect of Rome, is as follows:

"Sed et ipse, ut vulgariter dici solet, Octav[iani] nepos est et e
vicino, ut rectius dixerim, cognatus, utpote sororis filius" (he is
himself, as commonly said, Octovian's grandson/cousin but, as correctly
stated, his close kinsman, being his sister's son).

Peter Stewart

Esteban Trento

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Esteban Trento » 01 des 2004 13:25:01

I'm not sure if this would be of any help. In Spanish, a language
derived directly from vulgar Latin, there is the word "cuñado" (or
"cuñada"), which is pronounced almost exactly as cognato (or cognata).
[In Spanish the "ñ" (Alt+164 in ASCI code) is pronounced very similar
to "gn" in Italian or French, or "nh" in Portuguese.]

The Spanish word "cuñado" (or "cuñada") means either the brother (or
sister) of my wife/husband, or the husband (or wife) of my
brother/sister; i.e. brother/sister in law.

Maybe that may help to understand the meaning of the phrase.

Best,

Esteban

Chris Phillips

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 01 des 2004 13:34:35

Douglas Richardson wrote:
It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.

I can imagine that "uestri" and "nostri" could be very easily confused.
Depending on the hand, "u" and "n" could be virtually indistinguishable, and
then it would boil down to "o" versus "e", which might also be hard to tell
apart.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 01 des 2004 19:27:42

"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message news:<cokdue$6b9$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Douglas Richardson wrote:
It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.

I can imagine that "uestri" and "nostri" could be very easily confused.
Depending on the hand, "u" and "n" could be virtually indistinguishable, and
then it would boil down to "o" versus "e", which might also be hard to tell
apart.

Chris Phillips

Dear Chris ~

Thank you for your erudite comments. Much appreciated.

In my post, I noted that Hubert de Burgh was married to Beatrice de
Warenne, a kinswoman of Alice, Countess of Eu. As such, one might
assume that Hubert was called Countess Alice's kinsman on that basis.
I certainly have found other examples of kinsfolk by marriage being
noted in private correspondence, especially in later periods.

However, I might note that Hubert de Burgh's own ancestry is virtually
unknown. As such, it is entirely possible that Hubert de Burgh and
Countess Alice were themselves related in some unknown way. Besides
her lofty Warenne ancestry on her mother's side, Countess Alice was
also descended on her father's side from the d'Aubeney and Builly
families. So, there are several possible points in which Countess
Alice's ancestry might have touched Hubert de Burgh's.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Peter Stewart

Re: When niece is not cognata

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 02 des 2004 10:11:10

Chris Phillips wrote:
Douglas Richardson wrote:

It is unclear to me which transcript of the above letter is more
accurate. However, inasmuch as the Countess of Eu was definitely the
niece of Earl William de Warenne, I would think that the author of the
Warenniana article is more likely to have correctly transcribed the
letter. If so, then I know of no other example of cognata/cognatus
meaning niece and nephew in post Conquest England.


I can imagine that "uestri" and "nostri" could be very easily confused.
Depending on the hand, "u" and "n" could be virtually indistinguishable, and
then it would boil down to "o" versus "e", which might also be hard to tell
apart.

Misreading two letters in "nostrae" to come up with "vestrae" may be
plausible enough, but then immediately doing the same in reverse by
turning "vestrae" into "nostrae" is a bit of a stretch.

I still think it's more likely that the transcriber or compositor simply
lost his place, and having got the first word wrong then made the second
different from remembering the sense of the passage before looking back
to the manuscript & not realising the error.

These processes can be done at speed & often with more momentum than
exactness. For a most minutely studied instance, the plays of
Shakespeare as originally printed in quartos and first folio contain
plenty of similar compositors' slips; and these would be much easier to
make in Latin prose with the same inflections than in English verse.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»