Monday 7 May 1660

Annotations

• N Alan Bedford on Thu 8 May 2003, 03:10am

  “Jurate” - one who has taken an oath. In English usage, an alderman. Makes sense in this case. The politicians come, stay for dinner, then leave.

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 8 May 2003, 03:55am

  Sir Thomas Lenthropp
  Wheatley Footnote: Sir Thomas Leventhorpe, Bart., married Mary, daughter of Sir Capell Bedell, Bart. Died 1671.

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 8 May 2003, 04:07am

  More on Jurates of the town of Dover
  Wheatley: “The jurats of the Cinque Ports answered to the aldermen of other towns.”

  Per the OED:
  Jurat … 2. A municipal officer (esp. of the Cinque Ports) holding a position similar to that of an alderman.

• N Paul Brewster on Thu 8 May 2003, 04:19am

  … among others Mr. Bellasses, Sir Thomas Lenthropp, Sir Henry Chichley, Colonel Philip Honiwood, and Captain Titus
  L&M footnotes this list: All were active royalists. Leventhorpe (Lenthropp) and Titus had recently been involved in Booth’s rising.

• N vincent on Thu 8 May 2003, 04:27am

  “Jurates” thanks Alan and Paul: jury also from the same latin jurare (juratum: has been sworn) Most of the law is French-Latin based. English was first used in English courts in 1642.

• N PHE on Thu 8 May 2003, 08:20am

  The passage of time
  The interesting aspect of this webpage is that we get a real feel for how long Pepys was on the ship and the sense that it is quite tedious. On reading the diary in book form, you would be more inclinded to skim through these pages to pick up just the most interesting bits and get onto more eventful times.

• N mw on Thu 8 May 2003, 10:15am

  PHE a lovely point. Tomorrow and any future arrives as you wish with a book, not so here. I can think of no other situation where I can experience time past in its real equivalent. A fine and important observation. Indeed perhaps it is just that point that makes this diary presentation so real. As opposed to so much of the taught history we commonly experience.
  Thanks for that one.
  

• N Christo on Thu 8 May 2003, 01:14pm

  Vincent has clearly never heard of the English Common Law, which predates the Norman Conquest and remains the bedrock of the legal system in both England & Wales and our former colonies. See: http://www.naturenet.net/law/common.html
  

• N j a gioia on Thu 8 May 2003, 03:45pm

  After I was in bed Mr. Sheply and W. Howe came and sat in my cabin … and sat laughing and very merry, till almost one o

• N Nix on Thu 8 May 2003, 04:30pm

  While Christo is correct that much of the SUBSTANTIVE law of English-speaking countries derives from Anglo-Saxon times, Vincent is also right — courts were conducted, and records kept, in “Law French” for half a milennium after the Conquest. This doesn’t mean that they relied on Justinian, but it does mean that much of the language of the law is French- (and hence Latin-) derived. The historic need to be understood in both languages is the reason we have so many duplicative phrases in law (e.g., “cease and desist”). Additionally, some areas of the law (such as marriage and adoption) were controlled by the church rather than the crown, and therefore do have their roots in Rome.

• N Nix on Thu 8 May 2003, 07:20pm

  More on Law French —

  The application of the French, Latin-derived title “jurate” to these officials, rather than the Anglo-Saxon “alderman”, illustrates that what England had was really a mix of Norman and pre-Norman legal rules and institutions. They are from the area closest, physically and presumably culturally, to France — hence “Cinque Ports”. My dictionary indicates that “jurat” is still the term used for certain municipal officers in the Channel Islands. It is also worth noting that, while we think of the jury as the quintessential Anglo-Saxon legal institution, the word itself originates from the Latin “jurare”, to swear, and the concept of trial by jury was introduced by the Normans.

• N vincent on Thu 8 May 2003, 08:01pm

  “never heard of the English Common Law” nay I ‘eard of it, lo and behold did suffer it. It may be common (as dirt) or like common land (taken away by common law) or common sense (sometimes available). It did not mean me and my kind knew what it said(n’estpas). I not be Juras Prudent. I am no longer in your jurisdiction or under your judicial control. Any way I jury rigged up this answer ;

• N language hat on Sat 10 May 2003, 01:35am

  duplicative phrases:
  I suspect these come more from the desire of lawyers to cover every conceivable circumstance and interpretation. In any case, your example doesn’t work, because “cease” and “desist” are both from French.

• N Emilio on Mon 12 May 2003, 05:33pm

  ‘cease’ and ‘desist’ are both from French
  I had noticed that, too. If they had meant to balance the phrase for Middle English and French speakers, it would have been something more like “stop and cease.”
  I do wonder, though - first recorded usage of of ‘cease’ was about a couple hundred years earlier than that of ‘desist,’ and ‘cease’ is still the more common word. ‘Cease’ would have likely been the word more familiar to the average person, so I wonder if such duplications may have been meant to cover a class rather than a language divide.
  

• N Todd Bernhardt on Tue 13 May 2003, 12:01pm

  Maybe they’re not duplicative?

  Perhaps the reason “cease and desist” are used together is because they can be interpreted as telling someone to “stop, and continue to stop” an action?

• N Nigel Pond on Wed 14 May 2003, 03:43pm

  Re: Duplicative Words

  I think Todd has hit the nail on the head: “cease” and “desist” do not mean exactly the same thing. Used together they mean “stop doing it and don’t do it in the future”. Then of course there is the old chestnut to fall back on — that lawyers were paid by the word so it was in their best interest to use as many words as possible.

  On a side note, as a barrister and some time Classics scholar, it pains me to see the current Lord Chancellor removing Latin expressions from legal practice. They had persisted for so long simply because they encapsulated in a few words concepts that in English require many more words to define.

  Sic transit gloria mundi.

• N vk on Wed 14 May 2003, 06:51pm

  I’m sorry, but I do not see this distinction between ‘cease’ and ‘desist’. ‘Continue to stop’ does not appear to make semantic sense.

• N maureen on Wed 14 May 2003, 07:33pm

  Imagine saying the equivalent to a stroppy three year old! First, you are to stop doing that. Second, you are not to start again as soon as my back is turned.

• N Todd Bernhardt on Wed 14 May 2003, 08:06pm

  Obviously, maureen has kids! :^)