us. vm. AUG. 9, 1913.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
Ill
reading genuine may be mentioned Fritzsche,
Rink, Olshausen, De Wette, Bleek, Sepp,
Ewald, Weiss, A. Schweizer, Tischendorf,
Keim, and Trench. The last-named devotes
several pages (295 ff.) of his 'Studies in the
Gospels ' to its support. That the name of the
mock king " Karabas " inPhilo (' InFlacc.,' 6)
had originally B, and not K, for its initial
is rendered probable by the frequent con-
fusion between the two letters in the oldest
uncial MSS. ; in the Vatican Codex it is
almost impossible to distinguish them, and
in the printed text (as given by Migne,
- Patr. Gr.,' xcvii. 915) of Andreas Cretensis,
- In Circumc. Dom.,' the very title we are
discussing applied by this Writer, however, not to Jesus, but to his great-grandfather appears as KapTravO-ijp. The surname " Kan- thera," borne, according to Josephus (' A. J.,' xix. 6, 2), by Simon, son 'of Boethus. whom Agrippa appointed to succeed Theophilus in the high-priesthood, might thus be a cor- ruption of Banthera, a possible dialectal variant of Panthera, which would then appear in use as a surname among the Jews themselves in early N.T. times.
Corrigendum (11 S. vii. 381, col. 2, 1. 27 from foot). For " Sinaitic, Syriac," read Sinaitic-Syriac, the reference being, of course, to the text edited by Mrs. Smith Lewis in 1894 as 'The Syriac Gospels from the Sinaitic Palimpsest.'
. MACCARTHY.
THE MAKQTJESSATE OF LINCOLNSHIRE ( 1 1
S. viii. 46). It is not stated by MR. G. H.
WHITE on what authority he bases his
rather startling final sentence :
" If the earldom is of the county of Lincoln, it is even possible that the validity of the mar- quessate might be technically impugned."
The question of the legality of different peerages of the same denomination was much discussed in the Norfolk Peerage Case, but the utmost that was claimed was that there could not be two earldoms of the same county. This proposition, though not directly dealt with in the judg- ments, was inferentially decided not to be law ; but, even if it were good law, it would give no support to the quite different pro- position that there cannot be an earldom and a marquessate of the same county.
In the Norfolk case, decided in 1906. Lord Mowbray petitioned for a writ of summons as senior coheir to the Earldom of Norfolk, conferred upon Thomas de Brotherton in 1312. Hugh le Bygod was
created Earl of Norfolk in 1135, and the
title descended to Roger le Bygod, the fifth
earl. This Roger had no issue, and (to
spite his brother John, it is said) purported
to surrender the earldom to the Crown in
1302, taking a new grant to himself and
the heirs of his body. On the assumption
that this transaction was valid, the earldom
reverted to the Crown on Roger's death
in 1306, and in 1312 it was conferred on
Thomas de Brotherton. It Was decided
that the surrender in 1302 was void, and
that there never was a good grant of an
earldom to Thomas de Brotherton, The
terms in which this decision was expressed
show that the noble and learned lords who
decided the case did not doubt that there
might be two or more earldoms of the same
denomination, and a fortiori that there
might be two or more peerages of the same
denomination and different degrees. The
following extracts are taken from the
report in [1907] A. C. 10. There is a much
fuller report printed by order of the House
of Lords, but not published.
The Earl of Halsbury pointed out that Lord Mowbray admitted that he \vas not the heir to the Bygod earldom, " but has to rely on a surrender of the earldom to the king in 1302, and a grant in 1312 to Thomas de Brotherton of the earldom so surrendered."
Lord Ashbourne said :
" The earldom that was granted to Thomas de Brotherton in 1312 was the earldom that had been held by Roger le Bygod and had been surrendered by him to King Edward I. in 1302. The sug- gestion made not very strenuously in argu- ment, that the charter might be regarded as con- ferring a new and independent Earldom of Norfolk on Thomas de Brotherton, apart from the Bygod earldom, cannot, I think, be maintained on any fair construction of that document."
Lord Davey is to the same effect :
11 Now, my Lords, there cannot, I think, be any doubt about the construction of the charter of Edward II. in 1312. The terms of that charter, which have been read by my noble and learned friend beside me [Lord Ashbourne], are plain and unambiguous. It is therefore Bygod's earldom which Bygod had purported to surrender into the king's hands that the king purported to grant to Thomas de Brotherton. It was not, and did not operate as, a new creation of a new earldom."
The point of all these judgments is the same. There never had been a valid sur- render of the Bygod earldom ; therefore the king could not grant that earldom to another family. If there had been " a new creation of a new earldom," even though the Bygod earldom still existed, it would have been a good grant, and Lord Mowbray could have claimed under it. If there
