Veere Schotse Kerk rekenning nummer 3

Reeckeninnighe voor Robber Grijson

voor eerst den 9 gulden voor de klocke te leuyyen
ende voor gereeschap voor de kercke
ende 15 stuyvers voor een scheepe
12 stuyvers voor de elements oft de kirck
12 stuyvers 6 duyten voor een kapiteyn die vijf 6 dagen
gelegen heeft / een rock voor Janneken Smokelaers
voor maken en voor noors corsagien same £ 0-13-10

@René, I read in  line 4 den kirck, in line 5  5 of 6 dage, and Janneke's name is indeed Sinckelaers. In the last line I would prefre carsagie. (Scottish corsaye or cursay according to the DSL).

Hi Otto, I agree with your corrections; because of the small size of the image (also when enlarged) I missed or misread some words. One exception however to your corrections: den kirck should be dey kirck in my opinion.

Yes, I had first made it into deij too, but I hesitated about it! I downloaded the image and enlarged it to see all tiny details...

Many thanks, René and Otto.

I have a couple of queries. The first is how to differentiate between ij and y.

Does the letter y sometimes have two dots above it or should this usage always be transcribed as ij?

If we accept the surname in line 1 as Grijson, not Gryson, then should leuyyen in line 2 be leuijijen?

The issue is an important one, as a transcription is being prepared for publication of the surviving Veere Scots Kirk accounts for the first half of the 17th century. They are mostly written in Scots but the loose items have more Dutch. We (the transcribers) are finding examples of y (without dots) and ij (with dots). So we have adopted ij in any instance where there are dots and y where there are none. But that is perhaps too strict and not nuanced enough.

Dear Robert,

This indeed is an issue to think about when publishing. There are two ways that are both generally accepted:

Version A - Transcription of the ij and y in the way the are used in current-day language. In this version, these characters will be transcribed

= as ij if this would still be the common use today : so vijf will be transcribed as vijf

= as y if the word is not spelled with an ij in current-day language: so leuijijen will be transcribed as leuyyen

Version B - a more strict approach, mostly used in formal or scientific / academic transcriptions. In this version, transcription will be as-is; the transcription is the same as mentioned in the source

Regardless which option is used, consistency is key :)

Yes, I agree. We've tried to be consistent and gone with strict version B so far, as the intention is to translate into modern English and maybe Dutch, so modernising spelling would be dealt with that way.

In line 4: '15 stuyvers voor een scheepe'. We initially thought 'schoope', but 15 stuyvers would be a lot of money for a shovel! What do you think 'een scheepe' would have been?

Dear Robert

I think scheepe refers to money paid for the presence of a schepen (an alderman).

Looking at the source text once more, I discovered an additional correction needed in line 3: gereeschap should be gereeschyp.

This also makes more sense: gereeschyp refers to 'making the church ready' for the celebrations concerned, whereas gereeschap would be translated as 'tools', which makes far less sense in this context.