Although neither your readers nor I are politicians enough to interfere in the changes proposed with reference to the office of Lord Chancellor, I doubt not that some of them, now the subject is on the tapis, may feel interested in a fact connected with it, which our ancient records disclose: namely, that on one occasion there were two chancellors acting at the same time for several months together, and both regularly appointed by the king.

It is an unique instance, occurring in the reign of Edward IV.: the two chancellors being Thomas Rotheram, Bishop of Lincoln, and John Alcock, Bishop of Rochester. The former received the Great Seal in May, 1474, in the fourteenth year of the reign, and without any doubt continued chancellor till the king's death; and yet, from April to September in the following year, the latter was also addressed by the same title. During that interval of five months, there are numerous writs of Privy Seal addressed by the king to both, in which each of them is styled "our chancellor."

This curious circumstance may be thus accounted for. King Edward had for some time been contemplating an invasion of France; and when his preparations were completed (about April), as he required his chancellor, Bishop Rotheram, to attend him on the expedition, it became necessary to provide some competent person to transact the business of the Chancery in his absence. On previous occasions of this nature, it had been usual to place the seal that was used in England, when the king was abroad, in the hands of the Master of the Rolls, or some other master in Chancery, with the title of Keeper: but, for some unexplained reason (perhaps because Bishop Alcock was a man whom the king delighted to honour), this prelate was dignified with the superior designation, although Bishop Rotheram still retained it. The voyage being delayed from April to July, during the whole of that period, each being in England, both acted in the same character; Privy Seals, as I have said, being sent to both, and bills in Chancery being addressed also to Bishop Alcock as chancellor. Rotheram was with the king in France as his chancellor, and is so described on opening the negotiation in August, which led to the discreditable peace by which Edward made himself a pensioner to the French king. No Privy Seals were addressed to Alcock after September 28; which may therefore be considered the close of this double chancellorship, and the date of Bishop Rotheram's return to England.

Who knows whether the discovery of this ancient authority may not suggest to our legislators the division of the title between two possessors with distinct duties, in the same manner that two chief justices were substituted in the reign of Henry III. for one chief justiciary?

The immediate interest of this fact has prompted me to anticipate its appearance in the volumes of my work, which you have been kind enough to announce as being in the press.

Edward Foss.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHAUCER, NO. III

"Now flieth Venus in to Ciclinius tour. * * * * * * "Alas, and there hath she no socour, For she ne found ne sey no maner wight. * * * * * * "Wherefore her selven for to hide and save, Within the gate she fledde in to a cave. * * * * * * "Now God helpe sely Venus alone, But as God wold it happed for to be, That while the weping Venus made her mone, Ciclinius riding in his chirachee, Fro Venus Valanus might this palais see; And Venus he salveth and maketh chere, And her receiveth as his frende full dere."

Complaint of Mars and Venus.

Having in my last communication (Vol. iii., p. 235.) shown cause for the alteration in the foregoing quotation of Ciclinius into Cyllenius, I shall now endeavour to interpret the line in Italics, which in its present shape is utterly without meaning.

Whatever word Valanus may be supposed to represent, whether a proper or a common name, still the construction of the whole line is evidently corrupt.

Taking Valanus, in the first place, as a proper name, the most probable original would be Valens; for the connexion of which with Mercury we must refer to Cicero (De Nat. Deor. iii. 22.), where mention is made of it in these words:—

"Alter (Mercurius) Valentis et Phoronidis filius, is qui sub terris habetur idem Trophonius."

Here the identification with Trophonius strikes us at once as affording a clue to THE CAVE into which Venus fled, giving great probability to Valens as the true solution of Chaucer's meaning.

But if we receive it as such, the following hypothesis becomes necessary, viz., that Chaucer imagined a double impersonation of Mercury—one absent, the other present,—one sidereal, the other mythological,—one Cyllenius, the other Valens.

When Venus first enters Mercury's "palais," she "ne found ne sey no maner wight." This signifies the absence from home of Cyllenius, who was abroad upon "his chirachee" in attendance upon the Sun; and here again is an instance of the nice astronomical accuracy of Chaucer. It was impossible that the planet Mercury could be in the sign Gemini, because his greatest elongation, or apparent distance from the sun, does not exceed 29 degrees; so that the Sun having but just entered Taurus, Mercury could not be in Gemini. Neither could Venus see Valens (the other impersonation of Mercury), because of his concealment in the cave; but when she entered the cave, then she was welcomed and received by him.

Now, to render the text conformable with this interpretation, some alteration in the construction is necessary, as indeed it must be in any attempt to render the passage intelligible.

Taking, away the word "Fro," and transposing "might" to the other side of "Valanus," the lines would stand thus,—

"– it happed for to be That, while the weping Venus made her mone, (Cyllenius riding in his chirachee) Venus might Valens in this palais see; And Venus he salveth and maketh chere And her receiveth as his frende full dere!"

On the other supposition of "Valanus" being a common name, to which a capital letter has been prefixed in mistake, then the only word for which it would appear to be a probable substitution would be "Vallum," in the sense of a border or rampart; but the application would be so far-fetched that I shall not attempt it, especially as I look upon the explanation afforded by "Valens" as most probably the true one.

A. E. B.

Leeds, March 20. 1851.

Страница 1 из 14

Назад1 2…14 Далее