perhaps as good as both his. Then the fellow held up three of his fingers, to say that there were but three eyes between us; and then I was so mad at the scoundrel that I steeked my neive, and was to come a whack on the side of his head, and would ha'e done it too, but for your sakes. Then the rascal did not stop with his provocation here; but, forsooth, takes out an orange, as much as to say, your poor beggarly cold country cannot produce that! I showed him a whang of a bear bannock, meaning that I didna care a farthing for him nor his trash neither, as lang's I ha'e this! But, by a' that's guid,' concluded Geordy, 'I'm angry yet that I didna thrash the hide o' the scoundrel!" "1

The original of this may be traced through a work where it could scarcely be looked for, a portly quarto entitled "Elements of the Civil Law, by John Taylor, LL.D., Lond. 1786." The author introduces it as 66 a little history which I have extracted for its singularity out of a writer who does not fall within every man's reading, viz. Rob. Marant, Spec. Aureum, page 19. The legendary part he owes to Accursius :2

1 M'Diarmid's Scrap Book, vol.i. p. 335–337. Edinb. 1834. 2 Accursius, who was a native of Florence, lived in the thirteenth century: his Corpus Juris Glossatum, commonly called Glossa, or Glossa Ordinaria, made an epoch in the

"The Roman people, seeing that it was not good for them any longer to be without a law, sought to procure the laws of the Greeks, namely, the laws of the Athenians made by king Solon; and so having decreed to live under these, they assembled themselves and chose ten fit and learned persons whom they sent to Athens to transcribe the laws of the Greeks from Solon's books, and turn them into Latin. The names of these ten were Caius Julius, Aulus Manilius, Publius Sulpitius, Publicus Curiatus, Titus Romulius, Appius Claudius, Titus Genatius, Publius Festius, Lucius Veturinus, and Spurius Posthumius. When they came to Athens, the Athenians, unwilling at once to give a copy of their laws, determined to satisfy themselves first if the Romans were worthy of such a treasure; and to that end despatched a certain Greek sage to Rome. The Romans foreseeing this, resolved to make a mock of the sage and of the Athenians who sent him; so they brought a certain

annals of jurisprudence, and was long held in high account, though now perhaps most men would be of Pantagruel's way of thinking: "Que les liures des loiz sembloyent une belle robbe dor, triumphante et pretiuse a merueilles, qui feust brodee de merde: car, disoyt il, ou monde ny ha liures tant beaulx, tant aornez, tant eleguans, comme sont les textes des Pandectes; mais la brodeure dyceulx, cest assauoir la glose de Accurse, est tant salle, tant infame et punaise que ce nest que ordure et villennye."-RABELAIS, liu. ii. ch. v.

foolish Roman to dispute with him.

The Greek sage believing his opponent to be a profound philosopher, began to discourse with him by means of nods and signs, and held up one finger, meaning thereby to show that there is but one God. The fool thought that the Greek meant by that to pluck out one of his eyes, so he held up two fingers and a thumb, as if he would say, If you pluck out one of my eyes, I will pluck out both yours! The sage interpreted this sign as a recognition of the Trinity; and then held up his open hand, meaning so to signify that all things are manifest to God. The fool believing that the sage wished to give him a slap in the cheek, instantly held up his closed hand, as much as to say, if you give me a slap, I will strike back with my clenched fist. But the Greek sage thought the fool meant to show that God held all things in his hand. So he concluded that the Romans were a most wise people; and having returned to Athens, he told that they were worthy of the laws, which were accordingly granted to the ten men who had been sent for them."

The science of signs appears to have been long one of the follies of the learned; and Rabelais has ridiculed it with admirable effect in three chapters of his second book :-" How a great clerk of England would have argued against Pantagruel, and

how he was vanquished by Panurge; how Panurge discomfited the Englishman who argued by signs; and how Thaumaste declared the virtues and knowledge of Panurge." It is probable that Rabelais had in view this very passage of Accursius, to whom he more than once refers;1 though his commentators think that Thaumaste must be either Sir Thomas More or Jerome Cardan.

LXVI.

CLERICAL PRECEDENCE.

In his lively and instructive tale of The Merchant and Friar, Sir Francis Palgrave has given a very amusing account of the fierce disputes for precedency between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York.2

1 Liu. ii. ch. v. ; liu. ii. ch. x.

2 I may cite the account left by William of Newbury, who appears to have been a cotemporary of the event :— "Anno M.C.LXXVI. Hugo Cardinalis, Apostolicae sedis legatus, nescio quid ordinaturus venit in Angliam. Qui cum totius Angliae generale Concilium celebraturus, favore adjutus regio utriusque provinciae Cantuariensis et Eboracensis, ecclesiasticas personas Lundoniis convocasset, statuto Concilii die, cum jam sumtis insignibus processurus esset, facta est contentio vehemens inter ipsos Archiepiscopos de Prioratu sessionis in Concilio. Quippe illa Apostolica regula (honore invicem praevenientes) a nostri temporis Episcopis, ita est abrogata, ut sollicitudine pastorali

"The strangers had scarcely entered the chamber when Bardolph du Tyl the Gascon, the king's pursuivant, rushed into the hall, exclaiming in tones of horror, Murder, murder!-My lord the Archbishop of York is murdered by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in his way to the Parliament House.'-The whole assembly was astounded. The road by the side of the river along the Strand, as your Majesty well knoweth, is but a perilous slough, and my Lord of York's mule, sure-footed as she is, could scarcely pick her way amidst the ruts and mire. Just as my lord of York was in that solitary spot, not far

postposita, Episcopi quanto pervicacius, tanto et vanius de excellentia litigent, et omnis fere Episcopalis controversia circa honorum praerogatura versetur. Denique Eboracensis maturius adveniens, primam sedem praeoccupavit, eandem sibi allegans competere ex antiquo beati Gregorii decreto, quo statutum noscitur, ut Metropolitanorum Angliae ipse prior habeatur, qui prius fuerit ordinatus. Cantuariensis vero solenniter posita praeoccupatae sedis querela, secundam sedem, tanquam passus praejudicium recusavit. Mox subditis ejus ferocius pro ipso aemulantibus, simplex verborum contentio crevit in rixam. Eboracencis autem, quoniam pars adversa fertur, loco praemature occupato, cum contumelia deturbatus, cappam conscissam illatae sibi violentiae indicem legato exhibuit, et Cantuariensem ad sedem Apostolicam provocavit. Metropolitanis ergo ita contendentibus, rebusque turbatis, Concilium non celebratum sed dissipatum est, et qui tanquam ad Concilium evocati convenerant, rediere in sua."-Gulielm. Neubrig. Rer. Anglic. lib. iii. cap. i. pp. 210, 211.