2 ms·
I think the type is a variation on a w rather than a ligature, 'dw', but I'm not entirely sure. In one of the facsimiles in the article you can see the same typ
by cess11 2y ago
I think the type is a variation on a w rather than a ligature, 'dw', but I'm not entirely sure. In one of the facsimiles in the article you can see the same type in 'and so and so fwrth for that time'.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoThere are a lot of Ws in the passage, and they all seem to have a serif at the top left. This is even true where the W is not word-initial and that serif may seem to interfere with part of the preceding letter: > The sword and the law he made to be the foundation of his governement, > in the bogs he pursued them, in the thickets he followed them,
- thaumasiotes 2y agoFollowing up, the same glyph appears elsewhere on the page you mention: > This duke before his voiage, calling at Fiscam (?) all his nobilitie unto him, caused them to sweare fealtie unto his yoong sonne William, whome he then at his journie betooke unto the governance of earle Gilbert, and the defense of the governour unto Henrie the French king. Why do we think it's more plausible that the words are being spelled "dw", "fwrth", "ywng", and "betwke" than "doo", "foorth", "yoong", and "betooke"? "Took" is still spelled that way today, and "poor" uses the same vowel as "forth". Whereas to the best of my knowledge, W can only appear as a vowel in Welsh.