Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical IntroductionMcKechnie, William Sharp
History
Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John: With an Historical Introduction
McKechnie, William Sharp
Constitutional history -- England -- Sources; Law -- England -- History; Law -- England -- Sources; Magna Carta
Mr. Round explains this word in a learned appendix (_Geoffrey de
Mandeville_, p. 414) to mean “blackmail,” _i.e._ “money extorted under
pretence of protection or defence.”
Footnote 42:
See _Rot. Claus._, p. 225 (17 John membrane 31). The evidence of this
writ does not stand alone. In another writ on the same membrane of the
_Close Rolls_, dated 19th June, John informs his half-brother, the
Earl of Salisbury, that he has concluded peace, and instructs him to
restore certain lands and castles immediately, as this had been made a
condition of peace. See also the writ to Stephen Harengod _infra_, p.
49.
-----
It has been taken for granted by many historians that the peace was
finally concluded, and the Great Charter actually sealed and issued on
the 15th, not on the 19th.[43] The fact that all four copies of Magna
Carta still extant bear this date seems to have been regarded as
absolutely conclusive on this point. Experts in diplomatics, however,
have long been aware that elaborate charters and other documents, which
occupied a considerable time in preparation, usually bore the date, not
of their actual execution, but of the day on which were concluded the
transactions of which they form the record. Legal instruments were thus
commonly ante-dated (as it would be reckoned according to modern legal
practice). Thus it is far from safe to infer from Magna Carta’s mention
of its own date that the great seal was actually adhibited on the 15th
June.
-----
Footnote 43:
Blackstone, however (_Great Charter_, xv.), speaks of a “conference
which lasted for several days, and did not come to a conclusion till
Friday, the 19th June.”
-----
Such presumption as exists points the other way. The Great Charter is a
lengthy and elaborate document, and it is barely possible that any one
of the four originals known to us could have been engrossed (to say
nothing of the adjustment of the substance and form) within one day. Not
only is it much longer than the Articles on which it is founded; but
even the most casual comparison will convince any unbiassed mind of the
slower rate of engrossment of the Charter. All four copies show marks of
great deliberation, while those at Lincoln and Salisbury in particular
are exquisite models of leisurely and elaborate penmanship. The highly
finished initial letters of the first line and other ornamental features
may be instructively compared with the plain, business-like, rapid hand
of the Articles. How many additional copies now lost were once in
existence bearing the same date, it is impossible to say; but each of
those still extant may well have occupied four days in the writing.[44]
-----
Footnote 44:
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account