William Shakespeare's grandfather - Richard Shakespeare - is recorded in written records as spelling his surname at least "five" different ways! As most people were either illiterate or semi-literate - it is probably far more accurate to state that five different scribes (working in various official capacities) spelt Richard's name in five different ways. This was common - as spelling was not yet standardised in the UK and scholars were expected to write with flare - spelling names, activities and concepts in vastly different (and entertaining) ways! William Shakespeare demonstrates this convention - sometimes spelling the same word (appearing on the same page) as much as three different ways! A fully literate scribe was expected - in the old days - not only to "read" a text but also "decipher" what was being said and conveyed by the author! A lack of standard language usage made this process a highly skilled event - arguably far more difficult than reading modern English! The type of officials we are discussing included "Church" and "Civic" representatives. Invariably, these persons wrote according to how words "sounded" - rather than by any associated convention. This was usually the case as their illiterate clients had no idea (or preference) as to how their surnames were spelt. Indeed, this difference in spelling the Bard's surname is one of the planks in the "Oxfordian" verses the "Stratfordian" debate - but is it a red herring? Literate individuals could (and did) often insist on a certain way of spelling their surname if they were given the choice. It is equally true that if such individuals wished to disappear - the waters might be muddied by placing the odd letter in a different place when signing their names! Of course, it could also be the case that some people like to spell their names differently at various times - seeing this as an essential aspect of their individual freedom and identity. Who could blame them? Today, of course, with the modern standardisation of the English language, there has arisen an almost Confucian obsession with spelling surnames in a specific manner (the Chinese people venerate their ancient surnames). Surnames, like DNA, have become an important part of an individual's identity. In the 1500s (primarily through Tax Returns) all the people of my family living in Duddington and King's Cliff spell their surname "Wyles" without exception. During the early to middle 1600s - two individuals (spouses) - have their name spelt as "Wiles" on their gravestones. During the middle to late 1600s - two individuals (spouses) - possess a grave-marker which spells their names as "Wyles". From there on in - around 95% of the Wyles family occupants of the graveyard of St Mary's Church (Duddington) spell their surname "Wyles". One couple in the 1800s use "Wiles" - with one or two on official records having their surname spelt "Whyles" - when their gravestones clearly state "Wyles". Anthony Holden, William Shakespeare - His Life and Work, ABACUS, (1999), Pages 52-54
0 Comments
Dear Adrian (from Gillian) Well written as ever. Can't comment really on your history of letters of the alphabet. It is something I know nothing about but it seems to all fit together logically. But because I am me, I will pass comment on Pagan Wyles and his assimilation into Christianity. In the 7th Century both Leicester and Peterboough (Medeshamstede) were centres of Christianity, and Duddington lies nearly half way between the two. I wonder if there was a road there before the A47? It's position in the Heptarchy would also suggest an Angle settlement not a Saxon one. The arrival of the Danes is interesting. Leicester certainly submitted to the Danelaw and most of the religious foundations in the area were plundered, but there is evidence for the monastery at Peterborough surviving. Personally I don't see the total destruction of Christianity by the Danes, a bit like the Mongols, they plundered for the gold and jewels but didn't really give a thought to 'religion' as such. The thing is, the ordinary working Danes who came over to trade and work the land, in their Paganism recognised the geometry of Christianity (as it was then, before it was turned into a linear chronology and weapon during the Renaissance). Where Christianity survived, and where the genuine Christian spirit of fraternity existed, I can see Danes being attracted and seeing their own essence in the Christian symbolism and narrative. The surviving Icelandic sagas seamlessly progress from pagan to Christian, but this may not be the whole story. Obviously, Vikings would have had centres of non Viking power in their sites and would have treated them mercilessly like Lindesfarne, but where the church existed not as a threat, I am sure an assimilation occurred. What people forget is that the god of the Christians claimed something that none of the other gods dared claim. That is absolute sovereignty over everything, material and immaterial. A most high god who is a loving father of all. All the other gods had problems with other gods, had spirits they couldn't tame, had weaknesses as well as superpowers. You could invoke them for help, but you never claimed they had total sovereignty. The 'most high god' of the Christian and Jewish tradition was the god who ruled over all the other gods. The narrative that Christianity and Judaism are monotheistic is quite modern and doesn't actually fit scripture. Any pagan with a pantheon of gods, might indeed be attracted to a most high god who was without hang-ups and who needed no tribute, only love. Dear Gillian (from Adrian) When we drive to Duddington, we pass Peterborough which seems to sit more or less exactly in a valley. A monastery is a good idea. I suppose it was Peter Burgh or Peter's Fort? The Anglo-Saxon King was known as Burgred or 'Red Fort'. In the back of my mind I think 'Peter' means 'stone' so we are looking at a 'Stone Fort'. Having just checked wiki you are right - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medeshamstede - perhaps St Mary's was related to this monastery. There is talk of a deadly Viking attack in 864 CE - ten years before the Duddington Hoard was hidden in 874 CE. Perhaps it took ten years to head in land or they were distracted. What kind of Christians were the Anglo-Saxons? I am assuming different from the earlier Celts and the later Normans? The Vikings did what they were told so if a Jarl took on Christianity then his entire army did! Dear Adrian (from Gillian)
Interesting question regarding the church in England around 860CE... I include an extract from a book showing the structure of the church system a century or so earlier. There is no reason to think it had changed much in the intervening period. Later reforms to secular and monastic clergy, (driven by the French church) probably didn't reach England till late Saxon times shortly before the Norman conquest (and accelerated by it). It was these reforms which led to the all powerful grand monasteries of the Middle Ages. Monasteries in England in the 9th Century would look very different to what we think of as a medieval monastery. The Irish church (Celtic) church had been heavily influenced by Egyptian monasticism (evidence of strong trade links between Ireland and North Africa) and was entirely based around monasteries of monks living much like the desert fathers. England developed another model more influenced by continental Europe, where there were parallel groupings of secular and monastic clergy. It is this which the text I have scanned talks about. The worship in Duddington at the time would more closely resemble the worship in an Orthodox church today, than a Tridentine rite Catholic church. It was before the cult of Purgatory set-in which radically changed the devotional life of Western church, everyone would be standing, there would be a roodscreen and the sacred mysteries would take place behind that. There would be no pulpit as we know them today. The priest would be among the people for the Gospel and any homily. People would come and go during services, zoning in and out, taking in as much as they could, it was not a performance to be watched. The question is: was Duddington a church run by secular or monastic clergy? |
AuthorAdrian Chan-Wyles - Last Male Descendant of the 'Wyles' Family of Duddington! Archives
November 2023
Categories
All
|
- Home
- Wyles family of Duddington Facebook
- Wyles Blog
- Duddington: Etymology
- Duddington Land Survey (1984)
- Statement Of Inclusivity (17.7.2019)
- Wyles Family Tree (1301-2016)
- Origins of the Wyles Family of Kings Cliffe
- Deciphering the Wyles Enigma of Duddington
- Etymology: Wyles Family Name
- Wyles Family Portraits
- Kilmurray Clan (Eire)
- 69th South Lincolnshire Regiment
- Duddington Hoard (1994)
- Duddington Church & Graveyard
- Duddington Videos
- Duddington Digest
- Wyles Family Coat of Arms
- Wyles Family Paternal DNA
- Wyles Family Certificates
- Wyles-Wiles Extra Parish Records Data
- Wyles Marriages
- Northamptonshire Record Cards
- Duddington Militia List – 1777
- Wyles Wills & Marriages (1601-1790)
- Wyles Marriages Cambridgeshire (1618-1830)
- Duddington area: Baptisms (1650-1812)
- Duddington area: Baptisms (1813-1843)
- Duddington area: Marriages (1650-1860)
- Duddington area: Burials (1700-1865)
- Duddington Burials (1735-1966)
- Contact
©opyright: Site design, layout & content (2009) Adrian Peter Chan-Wyles. No part of this site (or information contained herein) may be copied, reproduced, duplicated, or otherwise distributed without prior written agreement
from [email protected].
from [email protected].