Discussion:
Thomasine/Thomasyn vs. Latin forms Thomasina, Thomasia, Thomesia
Add Reply
Douglas Richardson
2017-05-29 21:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Newsgroup ~

In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants.

When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina."

Here is a weblink to the original record:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink

In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms.

In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's name is spelled "Thomesine."

See the following weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink

I should note that I elsewhere find the Latin form of this woman's name as Thomasia. See for example the following record in Latin:

Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm).

Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms.

Here is another example. In the online Common Pleas lawsuit index, the following entry is listed for CP 796 (Year: 1460) for a lawsuit written in Latin:

d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk
Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife

This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually "Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin.

This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit.

Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm

So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam. But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn.

In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

Reference: SC 8/46/2291
Description:
Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall
Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina
Addressees: King and council
Nature of request: Thomasina, wife of William de Fornivall, states that on her marriage she brought her husband rents and possessions to the value of 100 marks annually, with other money and goods and chattels to the value of 4000 marks, but that through his cruelty and harshness she has been unable to live with him for fear of her life, as is well known, although no blame attaches to her for this. She has often humbly requested her sustenance from him, as he was adjudged by law of Holy Church to give her £100 annually, but he has refused to do anything. Therefore she asks that a remedy might be ordained for her, so that she might be able to have sufficient security of peace, and a suitable maintenance.
Nature of endorsement: [None]
People mentioned: William de Fornivall (Furnival)
Note: Dated on the guard to? before 1383, with reference to CFR 1377-83 p.373. It also notes 'Thomasina de Fornivall apparently a widow and fairly active in 1386 seq.', quoting CPR 1385-9 p.175 (dated at Westminster, 12 March 1386) and CPR 1385-9 p.533 (dated at Westminster, 26 November 1388).CCR 1381-5 p.279 is dated at Westminster, 9 June 1383, and the petitioner is clearly a widow by then. This petition may well date from the reign of Edward III rather than Richard II.
Date: [c. 1383]
Richard Carruthers
2017-05-29 22:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear Douglas,

I have seen similar onomastic variability in my research. I record the
instances faithfully and generally choose a standard one for anything
I write, citing the originals in their original, of course. Perhaps what
happened here was that the archivist or historian who gave a
"standardised name" for the lady in question chose Thomasina because
she had encountered her first in a form that made her immediately
recognise it as a form of that name. Perhaps he or she was a fan of the
Hailey Mills movie about a cat of that name which came out in my natal
year in stuck in my memory! One simply doesn't know.

This sort of thing can be a source of frustration, regret, or even annoyance.

In my research into the ERNLE sib, some entries in the ODNB spell it one
way, whilst others use an alternate spelling. This makes hyperlinking and
cross-referencing more difficult to be sure, but one must spare a thought
for its non-genealogist compilers who may be less aware of the fact that
such variant instances all refer to the same family.

On the subject of the Christian name you mention:

In the published version of the earliest parish register for
Denchworth in Berkshire
(https://archive.org/details/registersofdench00denc), where the heir
of the Wiltshire ERNLEs had his first child, Michael ERNLE (despite
the n-less spelling used here) baptised as this was his wife's home
parish (she was a HYDE of Denchworth), viz.:
p.1
1541
Mr. Michaell Earlye, sone and heire of Mr. John Earlye, gentleman, was
baptized the xxix daie of September, 1541. (i.e. the Feast of St
Michael and All Angels, whence his name)

I found a puzzling entry for the burial of a person who looks as
though his name is a form of the female Christian name Thomasine,
viz.:

p. 16
1545
buried in Denchworth.
The X day of September was Thomasson Yerly, the sonne of John Yerly,
buried in the yere and day above written.

especially as earlier in the register appeared a HYDE baptism for some
of the same name who was clearly denoted as female, viz.:

p.2
1555
Thomyson, dau. of John Hide (Thomasine), 2 Feb.

I have wondered whether there may be an error in the sex of the child
buried in 1545, as Thomas was a name that did appear in this
generation of the ERNLE family as shown in the 1565 Visitation of
Wilts. It shows that the 2nd (and surviving) son of John ERNLE of
Bishop's Cannings, Wilts., by his wife, Mary, daughter of William
HYDE, of Denchworth was called Thomas ERNLE (founder of the Brembridge
in Dilton line of the family, and my ancestor, who was born around the
same time at the child bur. 1545, and died 1595 [bur. Westbury,
Wilts.]).

Since I know that ERNLE was sometimes recorded with the n-less
variants shown in the Denchworth registers, I wonder if the Thomasson
YERLY of 1545 was not also a member
of the Wilts. ERNLE family.

Could Thomasson refer to a person of either sex? Was it perhaps a
diminutive of male Thomas along the lines of Tom(p)kin?

Perhaps recourse to the original PR will sort this matter out. I await
(avec impatience) the release of Berkshire's parish registers on
ancestry.com as I did those for Wilts., Glos., Dorset, Somerset (etc.)
(all of which are now available there due to cooperation with those
counties' respective record offices/archives).

Thank you for your interesting contribution on this subject. I hope
some lister may be
able to shed light on this puzzle.

All the best,

Richard
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied
further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from
the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and
is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died
1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has
many modern descendants.
When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name
is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink
In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the
vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do
not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name
forms and Latin name forms.
In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's
name is spelled "Thomesine."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink
I should note that I elsewhere find the Latin form of this woman's name as
Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm).
Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this
woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms.
Here is another example. In the online Common Pleas lawsuit index, the
following entry is listed for CP 796 (Year: 1460) for a lawsuit written in
d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk
Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife
This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually
"Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin.
This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in
English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his
wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit.
Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm
So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam.
But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn.
In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in
question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No
Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
+ + + + + + + + +
Reference: SC 8/46/2291
Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall
Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina
Addressees: King and council
Nature of request: Thomasina, wife of William de Fornivall, states that on
her marriage she brought her husband rents and possessions to the value of
100 marks annually, with other money and goods and chattels to the value of
4000 marks, but that through his cruelty and harshness she has been unable
to live with him for fear of her life, as is well known, although no blame
attaches to her for this. She has often humbly requested her sustenance from
him, as he was adjudged by law of Holy Church to give her £100 annually, but
he has refused to do anything. Therefore she asks that a remedy might be
ordained for her, so that she might be able to have sufficient security of
peace, and a suitable maintenance.
Nature of endorsement: [None]
People mentioned: William de Fornivall (Furnival)
Note: Dated on the guard to? before 1383, with reference to CFR 1377-83
p.373. It also notes 'Thomasina de Fornivall apparently a widow and fairly
active in 1386 seq.', quoting CPR 1385-9 p.175 (dated at Westminster, 12
March 1386) and CPR 1385-9 p.533 (dated at Westminster, 26 November
1388).CCR 1381-5 p.279 is dated at Westminster, 9 June 1383, and the
petitioner is clearly a widow by then. This petition may well date from the
reign of Edward III rather than Richard II.
Date: [c. 1383]
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Peter Stewart
2017-05-29 22:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants.
When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink
In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms.
Don't you understand that the masculine original of this name, Thomas,
is not English - or French or Latin for that matter?

Since Thomas is borrowed, why do you think it takes that form derived
from Latin rather than one closer to the Aramaic original?

And since Thomasine is also not English, why is that form borrowed from
French necessarily preferable to another, in this case a Latin version
on which this particular French form was modelled? Or why not insist on
Thomasse instead, since native English speakers don't generally indulge
in extra syllables where these can be dropped?

Your personal likes and dislikes are not binding on others. Most people
learn this in infancy. Then in childhood they discover that variety is
not a fearsome monster.

Peter Stewart
taf
2017-05-30 19:24:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Or why not insist on Thomasse instead, since native English speakers
don't generally indulge in extra syllables where these can be dropped?
A lack of indulgence amply demonstrated by the popular forms in England these days (if trends on FreeBMD are any indication), Tamsin or Tamzin.

taf
Peter Stewart
2017-05-30 23:50:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Or why not insist on Thomasse instead, since native English speakers
don't generally indulge in extra syllables where these can be dropped?
A lack of indulgence amply demonstrated by the popular forms in England these days (if trends on FreeBMD are any indication), Tamsin or Tamzin.
Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular"
feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to
the British Isles).

But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a
perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English
communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of
latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher
would waste a moment over such nonsense.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2017-05-31 10:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
From: Peter Stewart
Sent: 31 May 2017 00:50
Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles).
But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------

I'm afraid you're out of step with most academic historians of late medieval England there, Peter. As I've explained several times before, it is usual for record publishing societies to adopt the principles proposed by Roy Hunnisett in Indexing for Editors (British Records Association, London, 1972). At pp 56-7 he says:

'Forenames of Englishmen should be given in their modern English spelling , or their most common one if there is more than one, in calendars as in indexes. This means that when necessary they must be translated from Latin and French and modernised from their older English spelling. The Latin forms present the greatest difficulties. The main problems arise from names such as Matildis, Reginaldus, Jacobus, Elias and others which can represent what are now two distinct forenames. It is suggested that when applied to medieval Englishmen such names be translated into the form which has given rise to most English surnames - Maud, Reynold, James and Ellis in the examples cited ...'

'There may be good reasons to depart from the rule in particular cases; if so it is advised that such reasons be explained at an appropriate place in the volume. It is impossible to legislate for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when increasingly the same Latin names can represent the 'continental' as well as the 'native' forms when applied to Englishmen. Each editor has to decide which are the better for his people in the period of his documents.'

The principle behind the reference to surnames is that they tell us what was the contemporary vernacular form represented by the Latin translation. Consequently we use Hugh not Hugo, Lucy not Lucia, Ann not Anna, Mary not Maria, Cicely (or Cecily) not Cecilia, Pernel/Parnel not Petronilla.

Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option.

Matt Tompkins
Peter Stewart
2017-05-31 11:20:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
From: Peter Stewart
Sent: 31 May 2017 00:50
Tamsin is probably the closest approximation to an English "vernacular" feminine form of Thomas (which itself is, of course, a name exotic to the British Isles).
But then it's not a point worth fussing over, as Thomasina is a perfectly sensible alternative. The crackpot idea that English communication should avoid latinity - much less in a post half-full of latinate words - is too silly to contemplate. No sensible researcher would waste a moment over such nonsense.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
I'm afraid you're out of step with most academic historians of late medieval England there, Peter.
Why should you suppose that "most academic historians of late medieval
England" set (or follow) a standard that ought to be adopted by medieval
genealogists? Late medieval England is one tiny patch in a vast field of
study, far from the most interesting to me. And anyway, in time this
pettifogging cohort may grow out of their rather useless conformity. If
their purpose is to know "what was the contemporary vernacular form",
they should realise as undergraduates that these were multifarious, not
at all standardised.
Post by Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
'Forenames of Englishmen should be given in their modern English spelling , or their most common one if there is more than one, in calendars as in indexes. This means that when necessary they must be translated from Latin and French and modernised from their older English spelling. The Latin forms present the greatest difficulties. The main problems arise from names such as Matildis, Reginaldus, Jacobus, Elias and others which can represent what are now two distinct forenames. It is suggested that when applied to medieval Englishmen such names be translated into the form which has given rise to most English surnames - Maud, Reynold, James and Ellis in the examples cited ...'
Perhaps Hunnisett would be a spiritual brother of T.E. Lawrence's
proof-reader, regarding whose pedantic bleatings he had the illuminating
exchange with his editor copied below. His comment "I spell my names
anyhow, to show what rot the systems are" applies just as well to
medieval names.

Peter Stewart


Q. I attach a list of queries raised by F. who is reading the proofs. He
finds these very clean, but full of inconsistencies in the spelling of
proper names, a point which reviewers often take up. Will you annotate
it in the margin, so that I can get the proofs straightened?

A. Annotated: not very helpfully perhaps. Arabic names won't go into
English, exactly, for their consonants are not the same as ours, and
their vowels, like ours, vary from district to district. There are some
'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know
enough Arabic not to need helping, but a wash-out for the world. I spell
my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are.

Q. Slip 1. Jeddah and Jidda used impartially throughout. Intentional?

A. Rather!

Q. Bir Waheida was Bir Waheidi.

A. Why not? All one place.

Q. Slip 20. Nuri, Emir of the Ruwalla, belongs to the 'chief family of
the Rualla.' On Slip 23, 'Rualla horse,' and Slip 38, 'killed one
Rueli.' In later slips 'Rualla.'

A. Should have also used Ruwala and Ruala.

Q. Slip 28. The Bisaita is also spelt Biseita.

A. Good.

Q. Jedha, the she-camel, was Jedhah on Slip 40.

A. She was a splendid beast.

Q. Slip 53. 'Meleager, the immoral poet.' I have put 'immortal' poet,
but the author may mean immoral after all.

A. Immorality I know. Immortality I cannot judge. As you please:
Meleager will not sue us for libel.

Q. Slip 65. Author is addressed 'Ya Auruns,' but on Slip 56 was 'Aurans.'

A. Also Lurens and Runs: not to mention 'Shaw.' More to follow, if time
permits.

Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein,
el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein.

A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious.
Andrew Lancaster
2017-05-31 13:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Stewart
Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein,
el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein.
A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious.
The poor editor. :) Of course he still had to do his job somehow I suppose.
Peter Stewart
2017-05-31 13:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andrew Lancaster
Post by Peter Stewart
Q. Slip 78. Sherif Abd el Mayin of Slip 68 becomes el Main, el Mayein,
el Muein, el Mayin, and el Muyein.
A. Good egg. I call this really ingenious.
The poor editor. :) Of course he still had to do his job somehow I suppose.
I can sympathise with him over the immoral/immortal poet, but not over
the variety of name forms. In communication, understanding is all - and
Lawrence was not trying to communicate with people who couldn't take in
two or more forms of the same name.

Peter Stewart

Peter Stewart
2017-05-31 11:43:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 31/05/2017 8:21 PM, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

<snip>
Post by Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
Of course, as Hunnisett says, there is no point in being obsessively doctrinaire on the point, and no one is going to care greatly whether Thomasine or Thomasina is given. But it is important for record translators to have principles and to apply them consistently, and if you have adopted Hunnisett's approach (as most do) then when faced with Thomasia the logical consequence is to render it as Thomasine. Tamsin, a form unrecorded before the early modern period so far as I am aware, and even then largely limited to Cornwall and the far south west, would be the crackpot option.
Thomas Hardy in *The Return of the Native* called his heroine
alternately Tamsin and Thomasin. Most probably he considered "Thomasine"
and rejected it as too Frenchified and/or precious.

Peter Stewart
Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)
2017-05-30 15:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
________________________________
From: Douglas Richardson <***@msn.com>
Sent: 29 May 2017 22:38
Post by Douglas Richardson
Dear Newsgroup ~
In the online Discovery catalogue, the archivist has indexed a record copied further below as being for Thomasina de Fornivall. This record comes from the SC class of records, which are petitions to Parliament (or the king) and is dated c.1383. This woman was the wife of John de Dagworth, Knt. [died 1360] and William de Furnival, Knt., 4th Lord Furnival [died 1383]. She has many modern descendants.
When the original record written is checked, however, I find her given name is spelled "Thomasine" not "Thomasina."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink
Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of ...<http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062501#imageViewerLink>
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk
Petitioners: Thomasina de Fornivall (Furnival), wife of William de Fornivall: Name(s): de Fornivall (Furnival), Thomasina: Addressees: King and council
Post by Douglas Richardson
In this instance, the archivist has taken a perfectly good name in the vernacular, Thomasine, and Latinized it as Thomasina. For reasons that I do not understand, historians often wobble back and forth between English name forms and Latin name forms.
In another petition available online involving the same woman, this woman's name is spelled "Thomesine."
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9062573#imageViewerLink
Justices Itinerant, JUST 1/1486, image 1787f (available at
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/Just1no1486/aJUST1no1486fronts/IMG_1787.htm).
Reviewing the above, we see that Thomasia occurs as a Latin form of this woman's name; Thomasine and Thomesine are the vernacular forms.
d 1436 London debt Plaintiff: Fallan, William, clerk
Defendants: Leventhorp, Lawrence, of London, esq., Thomasina, his wife
This woman's name is indexed as Thomasina. The woman's name is actually "Thomesiam" [Latin form] in the original record in Latin.
This same couple is found in another Chancery lawsuit which is written in English. Here the plaintiffs are Laurence Leventhorp and "Thomasyn" his wife. The wife's name also occurs as "Thomyssyn" in the same lawsuit.
Reference: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/ChP/C1no25/IMG_0273.htm
So in Latin form of this woman's name is given in one record is Thomesiam. But her name in another record written in English is Thomasyn and Thomyssyn.
In summary, here are the vernacular forms employed for the two women in question: "Thomasine," "Thomesine," "Thomasyn," and "Thomyssyn." No Thomasina. No Thomasia. No Thomesia.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-------------------------------

Thank you for posting that, Douglas - it's very useful. Though I wish you had discovered it two or three years ago, when I was puzzling over this name in connection with a number of texts I was working on. I forget what the others were, but three were the 1419 ipms of Richard Hankeford (nos. 328 - 330 in volume 21 of the Calendars of IPMs), whose wife is called Thomasia in the original Latin inquisitions. In the printed calendar the name has been rendered as Thomas ('his wife Thomas', 'his mother Thomas'), a translation I was doubtful about, but I could not discover any satisfactory evidence for the contemporary vernacular form of the name. I considered Thomasine or Thomasina, but did not feel justified in deriving either of them from Thomasia. In the end I changed Thomas to Thomasia in the on-line version of the ipms - see here:

http://www.inquisitionspostmortem.ac.uk/view/inquisition/21-328/330

Next time I'll plump for Thomasine.

Matt Tompkins
Loading...