It is my belief that the type of paper, ink and especially the pen provided 
by a courthouse was a significant factor for common men and women deciding 
whether to 'sign' their name or place an 'X' on a document.  I have found 
both types of 'attesting' by the same adult persons on different court 
records during the early/mid-1800's, some of whom found writing personal 
correspondence lucidly a few years later.  Not having experience and the 
manual dexterity (or 'touch') in using a quill pen, or one with a metallic 
nib, during the 1800's and before, often resulted in ink 'blobs,' smears, 
'jerky' unintelligible letters, etc by the uninitiated.  (Try signing your 
name on rough-textured paper with a bird-feather sharpened with a 'pen 
knife,' and think of how the quality and 'smoothness' of such pens varied 
extensively and deteriorated rapidly.)  It was not until the late 1800's 
that smoothly scribed ink-entries are found in my ancestral records.  It 
seems that a 'lead-pencil' (lead being a misnomer for graphite) was often 
used for personal correspondence by my family even during the early 1900's. 
Try a Google or Yahoo search for pen and pencil history...

Witnesses were also required to confirm the document-maker's identification, 
who may or may not have actually 'signed' their names as well.  Finally, the 
court clerk provided his signature and applied appropriate 'seals' to 
establish the entire document's legality.

Neil McDonald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Drake" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] Signing documents


> It is and has been the law that the fashion in which one is identified and
> was/is to be known to be his act; be it, an X, a seal, a written signature
> with all or part of the name assigned early in life, an A.K.A., one's
> initials or even a pen name (Samuel Clemens was Mark Twain).
>
> It is the intention and purpose for which the mark was made, and not the
> mark itself that must be identifiable.  Thus, in the question posed, the
> writer had a "TD" in his line, as do I, though those men were doubtless
> unrelated or even known to each other. In both instances, that symbol 
> served
> their legal purposes - to reveal that the purpose for their marks was to
> manifest their intention to undertake whatever action they had done or
> performed.
>
> I suppose your own checking account is the simplest example; the bank will
> recognize and honor your symbol or letters, depending only upon what you
> designated to be placed on your checks when the account was opened, and at
> your fancy you may change even that.  The exceptions to the rule being 
> only
> that if you undertake some deception or criminality by the name or symbols
> you have used, that act may have legal ramifications.
>
> Paul