A few days ago, Magna Carta was misquoted on this thread by martin. He claimed, incorrectly, that it called for 'one unit of measure'. It's a false claim that has been made several times in the past by members of UKMA.

So that people can judge for themselves what Magana Carta actually said on measurements, here - verbatin - is the actual Clause 35, using modern English spellings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

But it might have been a mistake to assume one measure for wine, another measure for ale and a third for corn, because it would be illegal to reuse any one of the measures to measure the other things.

Yes Tony

Are you now quoting from http://www.petcaretips.net/magna-carta.html

A site that states

"Free Pet Health Care Tips and Pet Newsletter

We know you love your pets and we want to provide you with the best pet health care information possible. Would you enjoy getting quality pet care information and pet care tips, along with animal jokes, animal quotes, heartwarming animal stories, plus animal and pet stories in the news?

The pet care newsletter gives you a very short and easy to read e-letter in your e-mail usually once a week with lot's of fun stuff for dogs, cats and horses and other pets."

It's where I go for all my Weights & Measures information too!

OK, just joking - because they have obviously lifted this translation from the British Library website.

Lets look at what the British Library have to say about the Magna Carta....

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/prtmagnatranslation.html

"In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously. The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin."

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics.html

"Four copies of the original Magna Carta grant survive. Two, including this one, are held at the British Library while the others can be seen in the cathedral archives at Lincoln and Salisbury.

All four copies of Magna Carta declare themselves to have been 'given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runnymede between Windsor and Staines on the 15th day of June in the 17th year of our reign' (1215). Each differs slightly in size, shape and text. The few short words and passages written at the foot of the present document have been incorporated into the main texts of the Lincoln and Salisbury charters and may therefore represent last-minute revisions."

Wait a minute though, Didn't Tony claim that his version was "verbatin" (sic) and was only changed to reflect modern English spellings?

Doesn't "verbatim" mean "word for word"? How did Tony possibly miss the fact that the Magna Carta was written in Latin - it didn't include old English or "modern English spellings"

Tony entitled this thread "The original Clause 35 of Magna Carta, not the misquote by martin"

Tony, I would suggest that the "Original" Magna Carta wasn't even written in the same language that you present your so-called "verbatin" (sic) quote in.

Another superb piece of research by the author of the Customary Measures Society's "Weights and Measures; Britain's Way Ahead". And just as accurate as that flawed & incorrect analysis of UK law.

Anyway, (and seriously), I have always wondered what "haberject" means.

I've made many presentations where I use a similar translation to Tony's, and always get a laugh when I admit to not having a clue what it means.

Anyone got any ideas?

There are two parts to the Magna Carta - first which states that there should be one unit of measure and the other which catalogues those units. I notice that the catalogue of units which shall be used made no provision for measuring the volume of petrol or the consumption of electricity.

The EU directive 80/181/EEC in fact re-iterated teh first part of Clause 35 of the Magna Carta - namely that there shall be one unit of measure thoughout the EU. It then catalogued teh units that should be used, but used untis that were appropriate to the 20th and 21st centuries, not the 13th century

Thanks, Beranger, for your absolutely classic posting above.

You've completely ducked my main point i.e. that martin misquoted the actual words of Magna Carta (martin didn't use Latin, either!) and you effectively concede that the translation I provided is accurate.

But 9/10 for effort in your vain attempt to undermine my post

re (martin): "There are two parts to the Magna Carta - first which states that there should be one unit of measure and the other which catalogues those units"

REPLY: You appear to be extremely knowledgeable about Magna Carta, martin. Er, could we have the actual words you rely on, please (provide the original Latin for Beranger as well if you would, he's got very excited about that)

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
REPLY: You appear to be extremely knowledgeable about Magna Carta, martin. Er, could we have the actual words you rely on, please (provide the original Latin for Beranger as well if you would, he's got very excited about that)
>>

This is a classic attempt by a politician t divert attention from an answer that embarrasses him. I stand by what I said - that the EU directive is effectively a 20th century re-enactment of what Tony caleed Clause 35 of the Magna Carta.

<<<the EU directive is effectively a 20th century re-enactment of what Tony caleed Clause 35 of the Magna Carta.>>>

Spot on. I have said many times before - the real issue is not about the need to have one system. That need is blatantly obvious to anyone who is being realistic. The debate is about which system that should be.

REPEAT QUESTION: You appear to be extremely knowledgeable about Magna Carta, martin. Er, could we have the actual words you rely on, please

REPEAT QUESTION: You appear to be extremely knowledgeable about Magna Carta, martin. Er, could we have the actual words you rely on, please

This is the British Library's translation. And yes, they do say it is Clause 35:

"(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly".


Please note: "...standard measures of wine...standard width of cloth...weights are to be standardised similarly". Note - no reference to 'one unit of measurement'


Please note: "...standard measures of wine...standard width of cloth...weights are to be standardised similarly". Note - no reference to 'one unit of measurement'


Please note: "...standard measures of wine...standard width of cloth...weights are to be standardised similarly". Note - no reference to 'one unit of measurement'

The British Library also says

"In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously. The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin."

So "verbatin" means "the sense of something" rather than the precise wording? I thought it was just a mis-spelling of "verbatim"

For completeness, the translation I use (from O'Keefe's "The Law of Weights & Measures")is slightly different from Tony's, but they are quite similar.

"There shall be but one measure of wine throughout the realm, and one measure of ale, and one measure of corn, that is to say, the quarter of London; and one breadth of dyed cloth, russets, and haberjects, that is to say, two yards within the lists. And shall be of weights as of measures."

I've always wondered about the mention of "yards" within the translation I use, as the yard was called an "ulna" at the time of the Magna Carta. I might start using the British Library's "two ells within the selvedges".

And I would hope that someone can tell me what a haberject is!!!!!

Tony

I concede that your "modern English" translation is probably based upon my "Olde English" translation & that they are quite similar. However, the "Olde English" version begins "There shall be but one measure....", which is not too far away from Martin's version.

I don't disagree with Martin's translation and I don't disagree with your translation. As I state above, I may even change the translation I currently use to include the "two ells within the selvedges" line.

What I disagree with is you attempting to depict a modern reworking of the original Latin as a word-for-word reproduction of the actual document.