From "Notes and Queries", Dialogues in Letters, 1871, London

SUMMUM Jus, SUMMA INJURIA" (4th S. v.
317, 433, 588.)Ñ Your correspondent G. A. B. has
been at the trouble to collect out of various Latin
authors the above adage, and he inquires if there
are any other instances of it being noticed.
In a sermon by Dr. Thomas Sherlock, an old
divine, and who was at one time Master of the
Temple Church, London, he will find mention
made of the phrase. It is very apt to be used by
some persons as a weapon of offence against the
science of judicature, and therefore I will give
the substance of Dr. Sherlock's interpretation, as
1 do not happen to have my own copy of his
works at hand. I am sure what is given contains
no vital error of the learned bishop's words. It
cannot with consistency be affirmed that what is
summum jut according to the law, is according to
the same law summa injuria. Summum jut regards
the written law ; summa injuria regards the
original reason of all law. He goes on further to
say, attention must be given to the difference
between the reason of justice and the rules oi
justice ; and by the rules of justice he understood
the general principles and maxims of justice by
which the laws of all countries are governed and
directed. By the reason of justice he understood
the fountain from which all maxims and all laws
are derived, which is no other than right reason
itself; for laws are not just as partaking of the authority of the lawgiver, but as partaking of his reason. Hence arises the distinction between jood and bad laws, though both derived from the >ame authority: showing thereby that an authority, though it may make a valid law, yet it cannot make a good one unless acting upon the reason of justice. A. B. Edinburgh.

---

"Тнв DEVIL BEATS пи WIFE " (4"1 S. vi. 273, 358, 427 ; vii. 25.) Ñ With regard to the proverbial " Devil and his dam," and the question " Who is the devil's wife ? " asked by CUTHBBET BBDB and myself, I find illustration in Ñ " Grim, the Collier of Croydon ; or the Devil and his Dame; with the Devil and St..Dun9tan."Ñ Dodaley's Old Playi, vol. xi. The Satanic portion of the plot of this play runs thus : Ñ Spenser's Malbecco tells the story of his wrongs to the infernal judges. They cannot believe that wives are so utterly bad ; and, to make proof, send up to earth the devil Belphagor, who is to remain here a twelvemonth and a day, to marry, and so to take back evidence on the matrimonial question to the hellish synod. Poor Belphagor is at the outset cheated of the wife of his choice, marrying the maid instead of the mistress. His wife, after committing all the sins that woman can commit, poisons him ; and he returns to hell with the new appendage of horns : Ñ " Belphagor. These are the ancient airas of cuckoldry, And these iny dame hath kindly left to me ; For which B쳌lpha쳌or shall be here derided, Unless your great infernal majesty Do solemnly proclaim, no devil shall scorn Hereafter still to wear the goodly horn. " Pluto. This for thy service I will grant tUee freely : All devils shall, аз thou dost, like horns wear, And none shall scorn Belphagor's arms to bear." [Compare the song in As You Like It (iv. 2) Ñ " Take thou no scorn to wear the horn."] This portion of the plot is taken from Machia- vel's Marriage of Belphegor. How much further back can the story be traced? JOHN ADDIS.

---

ARMS OF CHARLEMAGNE (4th S. vii. 75, 180.) The sword said to have been the property of Charlemagne, which, with other regalia, is preserved in the Schatzkammer at Vienna, bears on the pommel an escutcheon charged with the single-headed eagle displayed; the same bearing also appears upon the scabbard. The regalia, however, are of a later date than the time of Charlemagne. The eagle appears for the first time on the seal of the Emperor Henry (an. 1056). Armorial bearings, in the modern, acceptation of the term, were unknown in the days of Charlemagne ; but the eagle might be considered the traditional arms of the emperor, and so would answer W. M. H. C.'a purpose. J. WOODWARD. 4'bS.VII. MAT 6, 71.]

---

It seems life was considerably simpler in the nineteenth century, nicht war?


A