The passage in Latin is part of a letter by Francis Thynne, Lancaster Herald, written in 1605:
Quote:
According to which it seems the Law of Arms was in England in Times past ; for that he which had but only Daughters, or one Daughter to succeed him, might have licence of the King to alien his Name or Arms to any other for the Preservation of the Memory of them both ; as appear’d in the Case of the Lord Deincourt, in the Time of Edw. 2d whereof the Record is thus in the Patent Rolls 10 E. 2. part 2 Mem. 13.
Then follows the Latin text I quoted.
Thynne then continues:
Quote:
Out of the Preamble of which Deed we gather (as before is said) that because he had a Daughter which could not preserve his Memory he might alien his Name and Arms according to the Law, Because none de Stirpe Agnationis was living to forbid the same. But withal it is gathered, that he could not alien the same without Licence of the Prince (who might dispence with the Law). But because the Law and Custom had permitted that Women should inherit with us both Lands, Honours, Name and Arms ; and Quod consuetude dat homo tollere non potest."
Then Fox-Davies comments:
Quote:
Now, the only licence upon the Patent Rolls which we have been able to find to Edmund Deincourt is the licence of which Lancaster Herald gives the reference, as above quoted, and if this is to be taken as a precedent and authority, the permission for the change of name and arms must be presumed inferentially from the preamble. But it will be seen that this licence refers itself to a previous licence, and this previous licence we have been quite unable to find.
It seems more likely that Lancaster had simply gone by the preamble without carefully examining the remainder of the record, for the name and arms are not thereinafter specifically dealt with, and the Royal Licence itself only dealt with the alienation of his lands and estates from his daughter Isabella to "William, son of John Deyncourt, whom failing to John, brother of the said William. Other property is alienated to Master Oliver Deyncourt and John Deyncourt of Parkhall."
Michael F. McCartney;96436 wrote:
Joe wrote, "...I’m writing an article on the four Maryland private acts that authorized changes of names and arms and am trying to put them in some historic context."
Looking forward to this!—I can recall discussions of these MD acts as far back as the hey-day of rec.heraldry but of course somewhat fragmentary, not all wrapped up into one coherent article.
I don’t recall seeing/hearing about this happening in any state other than MD, but can’t help wondering if it might have…
There were many private acts authorizing changes of name, for reasons ranging from legitimation to implementation of conditions in wills. I’ve found three of these from colonial and early post-independence that definitely led to changes of arms in practice, although the arms weren’t mentioned in the acts: Spencer Bennet taking the name of his uncle Sir William Phips (Massachusetts, 1716); William Sparhawk taking the name of his uncle Sir William Pepperrell (Massachusetts, 1766), and William King taking the name of his uncle Theodore Atkinson (New Hampshire, 1788). Another act may have had similar effect, William Burnet Browne renouncing any claim to his father’s surname (Claiborne) in accordance with the will of his grandfather, also named William Burnet Browne, who had imposed in his daughter’s marriage settlement the condition that the eldest son would bear the name of Browne (Virginia, 1803). William Burnet Browne the elder’s grandfather was Col Samuel Browne of Salem, Mass., who definitely used arms (Gore Roll, silver given to the local church and Harvard College with his arms on them, etc.). But I don’t know if WBB the younger actually used his Browne ancestors’ arms, although Crozier lists him with those arms in Virginia Heraldica.
I think I would have to agree with F-D. The reason for this medieval deed is the transfer of lands which Edmund holds as a tenant-in-chief, which from the time of King John onward could only be by royal warrant. Name and arms appear to be irrelevant.
This is a very interesting topic.
There’s an English summary of the licence (dated 15 May 1317) in the printed Calendar of Patent Rolls, which is available on the University of Iowa website :
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v2/body/Edward2vol2page0651.pdf and
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v2/body/Edward2vol2page0652.pdf
The summary bears out what F-D wrote : although it refers to a "recitation that Edmund Deyncourt fears that his name and arms may become extinct in the person of Isabella his daughter and heir apparent", it is actually about allowing him to enfeoff various manors and properties to other Deyncourts.
Thanks to all. Given that Thynne’s interpretation of the Deincourt license would have supported F-D’s thesis [that the law of England prohibits changes of name without royal consent], I figured that he was probably correct in admitting that it doesn’t. But I was wondering whether the opening clause expressed an intention of preserving Deincourt’s name and arms on his own, i.e. that he needed a waiver of the statute Quia Emptores to alienate his lands, but not to alienate the arms.
And in addition, thanks to Arthur for pointing out this great resource of an online edition of the patent rolls.
Speaking of a great resource! Check http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/e2v2/body/Edward2vol2page0089.pdf
Feb 23, 1314: "Licence, as well at the request as on account of his good service to Edward I. and to the king, to Edmund Deyncurt, who affirms that his surname and arms after his death will be lost from memory in the person of Isabella daughter of Edmund Deyncurt, his heir apparent, and who heartily desires that the same may afterwards be held in memory, to enfeoff whomsoever he will of all his lands and tenements, knights’ fees and advowsons of churches, which he holds in chief, to hold to the feoffee and his heirs by the due and accustomed services. Further grant that the persons whom he shall so enfeoff may bear the surname of the said Edmund Deyncurt and his arms in memory of him."
!!!
The royal license allows (but apparently doesn’t require) that those enfoeffed as Deyncurt’s successors in the lands & etc. "may" bear the Deyncurt name & arms. I assume that Deyncurt, whose motive was the preservation of his name & arms, was more prescriptive when he actually made the enfoeffment (if that’s the right term)?
Can one of our Latinists help me with Fas alium superare draconem? I’ve found it rendered as "It is worthwhile to slay one more dragon"; is that accurate?
This was a motto proposed by the Virginia Company for a seal being designed in 1619. King James vetoed the motto and the seal was never adopted.
Thanks.
Fas Alium Superare Draconem
I’m having difficulty arriving at the same translation as “It is worthwhile to slay one more dragon”.
Dracōnem is easy enough to mean dragon, and by extension was often used metaphorically for the Devil.
Superāre is the verb, here it is conjugated as either (1) the present active infinitive to mean “to overflow, to survive”, or as (2) the second-person singular present active imperative to mean “(you) be overflowed, (you) be survived”.
Fās is an interesting noun that is indeclinable and specially means divine law, or the will of God.
Alium is an adjective that is declined so as to modify Dracōnem. Someone must have been playing fast-and-loose with their sentence order to have stuck it where they did – presumably for emphasis. It means other or another.
I’m only an amateur Latinist, but it seems a little sloppy.
"God wills the overthrow of another dragon?"
Joseph McMillan;97776 wrote:
"God wills the overthrow of another dragon?"
But there, ‘God’ is the subject – ‘wills’ is the verb – ‘overthrow’ is the object/predicate.
At first go, I can’t make this Latin make sense. We have a verb ‘superare’, and ‘draconem’ seems to be the object. Since ‘fas’ is undeclinable it presents a problem – it can either be the subject of the sentence (in which case the verb is wrongly conjugated since there is no agreement between them), or it is the object of the sentence (in which case what do we do with the dragon, besides slay him I guess…).
This seems an example of an English motto being shoehorned into Latin by someone who wasn’t a Latin expert.
Something along the lines of it is God’s will to survive another dragon?
Kenneth Mansfield;97778 wrote:
Something along the lines of it is God’s will to survive another dragon?
Rather than "survive," shouldn’t it be "prevail over"? I think that better defines "surmount"
I was only going by Steven’s notes. I have no dog in this fight.
steven harris;97774 wrote:
Fas Alium Superare Draconem
Fās is an interesting noun that is indeclinable and specially means divine law, or the will of God.
Fas is a word that implies duty or obligation stemming either from Divine/religious imperatives or solemn human obligation. It’s frequently encountered in legal documents as fas est + inf. verb. In this case, the est has been omitted as is typical of Latin. The opposite is nefas est, which implies absolute prohibition, again stemming from Divine/religious dictates or solemn obligations. Unfortunately, English doesn’t do the word justice. The best you can do is use "must" with perhaps some sort of modifier.
Fas alium superare draconem could be translated as "[one] must [always] conquer another dragon/demon/serpent." Perhaps, more idiomatically, "we must always conquer the next demon." Basically, it’s saying that we are impelled by God/providence to keep striving against adversity.
That worthwhile translation is really off the mark because it fails to capture the essence of "fas."