In common modern usage paying homage is to respectfully acknowledge superiority of someone or something. In the context of the manor, homage has more specific meanings. To do or make homage was a formal and public acknowledgement of the feudal relationship of a vassal (tenant) with the lord of the manor, a form of allegiance. Such an allegiance was one of the terms under which a tenant may hold land from his lord. The service of homage could only be made by tenants with an estate greater than for life and only be made directly to the lord himself.
Coke describes the oath taking ceremony. The unarmed and unguarded, bare headed tenant kneels on both knees and holds both hands up to the lord (symbolic of reverence and subjection). The lord incloses the tenant’s hands between his own (symbolic of protection and defense) while the tenant says:
” I become your man from this day forward of life and limb, and of earthly worship, and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you faith for the tenements that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our sovereign lord the king”
Churchmen and unattached women (femme sole, single women or widows) could not become the lord’s man or woman, because they had commitments to God or a potential future husband. So they did an partial homage, swearing to be true and faithful only.
What did becoming the lord’s man entail? In the Court Baron or Customary Court, the lord’s men or homage, which acted as judges or jury, depending on the type of case. Duties included attendance at the court, reporting events affecting property rights (e.g. deaths of tenants), reporting breaches of the lord’s rights (e.g. encroachment of common land) and resolving disputes between tenants.
The legal Latin term for homage is homagium or humagium.
© Sue Adams 2015
In The Original in Context, I examined how archivists place an original item in the context of a collection, using the 6 core elements of ISAD(G), noted in red below. Now I will use 2 more ISAD(G) elements (noted in blue below), linking to originals and copies, to record the relationships between original source items and copies or derivatives made from them that I discussed in How Many Copies?. For an adequate analysis of any source for genealogical purposes these 8 elements are the minimum set.
I have also added ISAD(G) element ‘System of Arrangement’ to link to the next lower level in the archival hierarchy (noted in blue). ISAD(G) assumes the reference code and level are sufficient to describe relationships between catalogue records and leaves implementation to the developer. I have used a non-standard element ‘Part of’ (noted in green) to implement linking the next highest level record in the archival hierarchy. The following 10 elements are used in an experimental Evernote implementation:
- Reference code
- Extent & medium
- Part of
- System of Arrangement
- Existence and location of originals
- Existence and location of copies
Staying with the Abinger baptism example, I created a set of linked notes as catalogue entries for a subset of the records identified in the earlier blog posts. In light of further analysis that benefitted from the insights of archivists at the Surrey History Centre and London Metropolitan Archives, whom I thank with gratitude, I have updated the diagram that explored the derivation of copies:
For the sake of brevity and clarity of concept, I have included just one of the derivation paths in the Evernote implementation. Marked in blue above, I have included the original parish register, Bishop’s transcript, microfilm, digital image, Ancestry database, and copies I made:
The means of derivation, discussed in What is an Item, has been colour coded: green means an extract/abstract, red is a compilation that includes material from other collections, and blue or purple are my research copies.
Evernote is popular and widely adopted by the genealogical community. The free version is accessible to all. As I want you to explore building you own catalogue of genealogical records, these are important considerations. Evernote was designed as an organisation tool, not a cataloguing system, so there are some drawbacks. I am not suggesting that is the ideal tool for the purpose of implementing an ISAD(G) compliant catalogue.
Archival cataloguing software, designed to implement archival standards, would be an ideal tool for testing my ideas. However, I have yet to find a consumer friendly version of archival software that is both freely available and requires little or no prior archival or information technology knowledge for use or installation.
This is how I built my catalogue using Evernote:
I created a notebook that documents repositories, and separate notebooks for each repository including my personal archive. I stacked the 6 notebooks to keep them together and made each notebook public so you can view or join them. For Evernote users joining the notebook makes it visible from your own account. If you join all of the notebooks, you will be able to see the whole catalogue. The notebooks are:
- Repositories contains a note for each archive notebook with a listing of its contents.
- Surrey History Centre contains a note for each level of the archive catalogue for the original Baptism Register, as discussed in The Original in Context.
- London Metropolitan Archive contains a note for each level of the archive catalogue for the Bishop’s Transcript.
- Family History Library, Salt Lake City contains a note for each level in the library catalogue for the microfilm of the Bishop’s Transcript.
- Ancestry contains a hierarchy of notes for the digital image and database entry.
- Sue’s archive contains notes for 3 copies I downloaded or otherwise copied.
Each notebook also contains a ‘Table of Contents’ note, which I used as a quick method of accessing the hyperlinks to each note. I used these hyperlinks to connect notes within a notebook, representing the archival hierarchy, and between notebooks, representing derivations from originals and intermediate forms. Please explore. Does this work for you?
Can ISAD(G) represent all of the source information genealogists need?
This experiment has been instructive and provided some insights. It does seem that all the information needed to describe the traditional archival hierarchy, treated as a series of containers, is covered in the experimental example. The information needed to describe derivation of copies, if restricted to just one final item, is also covered. If you were to add more items to this example, would you still be able to trace derivation? I think that may require a breadcrumb trail of links to be recorded for each item.
Differences in the views of archivists and genealogists have become starkly apparent to me. Archivists describe collections from a top down perspective, starting with an overview and working down to individual items, and emphasize original items. Genealogists encounter individual items, often as copies, and then work out how things fit together. Typically the researcher starts with a database or index search, then progresses to identify image copies, and then checking the authenticity of the image.
Please try this approach out for recording information about your sources. You can use tools other than Evernote, as that would make an interesting comparison.
© Sue Adams 2015
Feudal systems closely connected governance and land tenure. It was based on the relationship between two free men, a lord and a vassal. The lord gave the use of his land, rights and privileges to his vassal in return for a variety of services, including military service, money, labour, something symbolic, or prayers. Over time services were commuted to money rents.
A hierarchy of ownership developed with the monarch as the ultimate lord. The king’s vassals could pass on rights and privileges to their own vassals.
Feudal systems arose in parts of Europe between the 10th and 12th centuries. In England the feudal system was finally abolished on 1 January 1926 by the Law of Property Act 1922 and related acts.
Feudal is derived from medieval Latin feudum , feodum or French féodal.