Why would children be detained from baptism?

Parish Records and other sources

Moderator: Global Moderators

JulieD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Australia

Post by JulieD » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:07 am

Hi Lesley

I just found your posts above Anne's...you have been busy!!

'Sceugalesitie' would be a word to have up your sleeve for a game of 'Scrabble'...it's wonderful...and what you have put together from the dictionary may fit too. But I can't see the second letter as a 'c' like in the word 'christian' just on the line below it.

Whew...have a lot to learn about the Church and the Inner and Outer Highs!! I will have to try to follow this up with the kirk session records as I have a funny feeling about this Frame family...that they may possibly be THE one I am after!! Many thanks Lesley!
Julie

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Post by LesleyB » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:55 am

Hi Julie

I suspect the letter may be formed differently if it is a leading letter.
But you may well be right... the letters at the beginning of that word could almost just as easily be "Fr..." which opens up a whole new bag of possibilities!
Maybe for someone else the word will just jump out at them! I hope so... 'cos I want to know what is now too! :lol:

Best wishes
Lesley

JulieD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Australia

Post by JulieD » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:56 am

Hi Lesley

I see what you mean now! If it had been a 't' like I imagined it was, the horizontal 'bar' would have come across from the middle and not the top of the vertical line...unless the writer was having a bad day I suppose! 'Sceugalesitie' is on the list, but unfortunately I have not found anything resembling it in the correct context other than what you already had. Will keep trying though. Thank you!
Julie

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Post by LesleyB » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:18 pm

Hi Julie
...unless the writer was having a bad day
In documents I've struggled with (!) some of which I have never got the bottom of, there seem to be quite a number of writers who were not considerate enough to form their letters consistently - there are often variations in how someone forms letters, sometimes depending on where they fall in a word (e.g. first letter, last letter) or what the preceeding or following letters are....and what day of the week it was... :roll:

Also often half the problem is that you are dealing with an unfamiliar 17th/18th century Scots vocabulary on top of the already difficult hand. (as if life was not diffficult enough already... :lol: )

I can only hope that someone who has a flash of inspiriation will step in and help out!

Best wishes
Lesley

p.s. I think in the second line it is ...baptised "this" day... rather than "that" day.

JulieD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Australia

Post by JulieD » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:01 pm

Thanks Lesley!

The Frame clan really appreciates your efforts on our behalf! Let's hope that the confusing word/s just jump out at somebody one day. Why did it have to be THAT particular word....it's possibly the most important of the lot!!
Julie

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:14 pm

Ah jist luv sic a challenge, ken, but this yin defeated me, but :!: , forbye Ah'm nae Secretary Hand expert at a', at a', ochoon, ochoon ............


So I called in a favour, and asked a real expert about the word in question.

Not only did she interpret the word concerned, but also did a full transcript, together with the admission that she was still defeated by one word, - the mark of a real expert :!: , - so pit yer hauns thigither oot there fur Rosemary Bigwood :!: =D> =D> =D>


So, congratulations to all those who made suggestions, not least Lesley whose dictionary peregrinations cannot but be admired :!:

But, as so often is the case, the reality is less complicated than we all tried to make it.

Enough of the chatter.

Herewith the transcript ...........

Januarij 10 1701
James Frame in Flemingtoune and Jean Armor had
four lauful children baptized this day who wer com to
som years and detained hitherto from Baptisme be rea-
son of the parents scrupelositie which by the blessing
of God upon the ???? christian endeavors of their minister
Mr. James Browne wer removed.
The childrens names are James, John, Jonet &
Margarit. Wit: John frame and Robert
Corsbie.
Januarij 12


Note that Rosemary has transcribed the old Scots ƒ as "s".

So, there you go :!: :!: :shock: :wink:

David
Last edited by DavidWW on Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Archiver
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Post by Archiver » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:22 pm

I have a feeling the middle section of the word is actually [...]pl[...] or [...]ph[...]. The p in the middle of baptism and the p at the beginning of parents looks the same.

So, if the first letter is 's' (it doesn't look like the same as the letter 'f' at the beginning of other words) then 'c', possibly 'r', then 'o' 'u' (it's got the stroke above it saying it's a 'u'), then there might be letters missing given the other mark there. So we've possibly got sc[r]ou[...]plesitie - or is it sc[r]ou[...]phsitie?

I'm more confused now than ever.
Work is the curse of the drinking classes

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:25 pm

Archiver wrote:I have a feeling the middle section of the word is actually [...]pl[...] or [...]ph[...]. The p in the middle of baptism and the p at the beginning of parents looks the same.

So, if the first letter is 's' (it doesn't look like the same as the letter 'f' at the beginning of other words) then 'c', possibly 'r', then 'o' 'u' (it's got the stroke above it saying it's a 'u'), then there might be letters missing given the other mark there. So we've possibly got sc[r]ou[...]plesitie - or is it sc[r]ou[...]phsitie?

I'm more confused now than ever.
Rosemary reads it as scrupelositie

David

Archiver
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: Aberdeen

Post by Archiver » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:35 pm

DavidWW wrote:Rosemary reads it as scrupelositie
Perfect!

Scrupulositie, -é, -y, n. Also: scrupolositie, scroupolosity, scripolisite. [e.m.E. scrupulosite (1526), F. scrupulosité (14th c.), L. scrūpulōsitāt-, f. scrūpulōs-; Scrupul(o)us adj.]
1. Doubt, hesitation (in matters of conscience).
2. The meticulousness or sensitivity of (a person’s) conscience.
3. Meticulousness or narrowness in the interpretation of (chiefly, religious) law, practice or procedure; an over great attachment to rules or traditions for their own sake; passing into, superstition.

From the Dictionary of the Scots Language, www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl
Work is the curse of the drinking classes

LesleyB
Posts: 8184
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Scotland

Post by LesleyB » Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:05 pm

That is wonderful that the mystery is solved! Well done Rosemary! =D>

I can sleep now :lol: (withoot worrying aboot they peregrinations coming tae get me!) :shock: :wink:

Best wishes
Lesley