certainly wished to include it in their programme, and eventually succeeded in doing so. But one doubts whether they felt much solidarity with the church's demands over freedom of election and the length of vacancies, the subject of John's November I2 I4 charter, confirmed in Magna Carta. Indeed, the Articles, in chapter 43 , actually protected the rights of barons to have the custody of vacant abbeys of their foundation. Here the Charter was preserving for barons rights that it was reducing for the king. Robert fitzWalter, one is reminded, had taken violent action to assert his prerogatives as patron of Binham priory.
当然希望将其纳入他们的方案，并最终成功地做到了。但人们怀疑他们是否对教会对选举自由和空缺时间的要求感到声援，这是约翰在《大宪章》中确认的 11 月 I2 I4 宪章的主题。事实上，第43章的条款实际上保护了男爵对其基金会空置修道院的监护权。在这里，《宪章》为男爵保留了权利，而为国王则减少了权利。有人提醒说，罗伯特·菲茨沃尔特（Robert FitzWalter）曾采取暴力行动来维护他作为宾汉姆修道院赞助人的特权。

Fundamentally, the opposition programme developed from the narrowly baronial schemes, like that in the Unknown Charter, to one with much a wider scope for hard material reasons. As Holt put it, 'the society in which the battle for Magna Carta was fought and won was not one in which the great tenants-in-chief dominated the political scene completely'. The concern in the Charter for other sections of society was 'an act recognizing social facts'. The baronial leaders needed support. They included the demands of the knights and under-tenants, London and the towns, the Welsh rulers and the king of Scots, in order to get it, as those groups joined up. At the same time, however, the great barons sought to limit such demands where they encroached on their own interests.
从根本上说，反对派纲领从狭隘的男爵计划（如《未知宪章》中的计划）发展到由于硬物质原因而范围更广的计划。正如霍尔特所说，“为《大宪章》而战并取得胜利的社会并不是一个大佃户完全主宰政治舞台的社会”。《宪章》对社会其他阶层的关注是“承认社会事实的行为”。 男爵领袖需要支持。他们包括骑士和下层佃户、伦敦和城镇、威尔士统治者和苏格兰国王的要求，以便得到它，因为这些团体联合起来。然而，与此同时，大贵族们试图在侵犯自身利益的情况下限制这种要求。

On Monday, 8 June i21 5 , King John issued letters of safe conduct allowing the baronial envoys to come to Staines for the establishment of peace. The safe conduct was to last until the end of Thursday, if June. Although the letters only mention Staines, almost certainly the meeting place was meant to be Runnymede, the 'meadow of Staines', or 'the meadow between Windsor and Staines', as it was called. Runnymede had several advantages for the final negotiations. It was probably a traditional meeting place, 'mede' of course meaning meadow, while the 'Runny' was related to the Anglo-Saxon word for 'counsel' and 'consultation'. Runnymede was a discrete area, bounded on one side by the Thames and on the other by Cooper's Hill. It could only be approached from two directions, along the road by the Thames, so the king, based at Windsor, would come from the north-west, and the barons, at Staines, from the south-east. Given the way the Thames winds, Windsor was south of the river whereas Staines was to the north, with the only convenient crossing place being Staines bridge. Both sides could, therefore, think their bases were secure from attack. According to the account of the election of Abbot Hugh, on-Tuesday, 9 June, John himself arrived at Windsor with Archbishop Langton in his company. Hugh arrived on the same day, and was soon discussing his business with Langton. When the king came up and sought to pass between them, Langton introduced Hugh as 'abbot of St Edmunds', and begged for the whole dispute to be now concluded. 'Let him,' John replied, 'come to us tomorrow in the meadow of Staines where by God's grace and the aid of your merits, we will attempt to settle the matter.'
21 5 年 6 月 8 日 ， 星期一 ， 约翰 国王 发出 安全 行为 信 函 ， 允许 男爵 使节 来 斯坦 斯 建立 和平 。安全行为将持续到周四结束，如果是六月。 虽然这些信件只提到了斯坦斯，但几乎可以肯定的是，聚会地点是Runnymede，即“斯坦斯的草地”，或者“温莎和斯坦斯之间的草地”，正如它所称的那样。Runnymede在最后的谈判中有几个优势。它可能是一个传统的聚会场所，“mede”当然是草地的意思，而“Runny”则与盎格鲁-撒克逊语中的“咨询”和“咨询”有关。Runnymede是一个独立的区域，一侧以泰晤士河为界，另一侧以库珀山为界。它只能从两个方向接近，沿着泰晤士河的公路，所以驻扎在温莎的国王会从西北方向来，而斯坦斯的男爵们会从东南方向来。考虑到泰晤士河的蜿蜒方式，温莎在河的南边，而斯坦斯在北边，唯一方便的过河地点是斯坦斯桥。因此，双方都可能认为他们的基地是安全的，不会受到攻击。 根据休修道院长选举的记载，6月9日星期二，约翰本人在兰顿大主教的陪同下抵达温莎。 休在同一天到达，很快就和兰顿讨论了他的生意。当国王走过来试图在他们之间穿梭时，兰顿介绍休为“圣埃德蒙兹的住持”，并恳求现在结束整个争端。“让他吧，”约翰回答说，“明天到斯坦斯的草地上来找我们吧，靠着上帝的恩典和你的功德，我们将设法解决这个问题。

Ralph of Coggeshall gives a splendid picture of the scene at Runnymede, where the barons 'gathered with a multitude of most famous knights, armed well at all points, and they remained there, having fixed tents. But the king with his men dwelt in the same meadow in pavilions.'" The contrast here was doubtless between the pavilions of the king that reached high, like circus tops, towering above the smaller but multitudinous tents of the barons and knights, which stretched out across the meadow. John, however, was far from spending all his time at Runnymede. The Charter itself and a letter of June are the only documents he authorized there before the peace on I9 June. All the other royal letters between Io and I9 June were witnessed by him at Windsor, which evidently remained his base and where he almost certainly spent the night.
科格歇尔的拉尔夫（Ralph of Coggeshall）描绘了朗尼米德（Runnymede）的精彩场景，男爵们“聚集了众多最著名的骑士，他们全副武装，他们留在那里，有固定的帐篷。但国王和他的手下住在同一片草地上的亭子里。这里的对比无疑是国王的亭子，高耸入云，就像马戏团的顶部一样，耸立在男爵和骑士的较小但众多的帐篷之上，这些帐篷延伸到草地上。然而，约翰并没有把所有的时间都花在朗尼米德。《宪章》本身和 6月的一封信是他在6月9日和平之前授权的唯一文件。伊娥和I9 June之间的所有其他皇家信件都是在温莎见证的，温莎显然仍然是他的基地，几乎可以肯定他在那里过夜。

Just how the final negotiations that led to the Charter were conducted we do not know. Most probably they were in the hands of a small group of representatives from either side, such as those John had envisaged coming 'on behalf [ex parte] of the barons' in his letters of safe conduct. Doubtless John's chief advisers were those he named in the Charter itself. For the barons, the negotiators presumably included the leading members of the eventual twenty-five. Saer de Quincy was almost certainly prominent since he was the only person specifically mentioned in John's letter of safe conduct issued on 25 May. In a treaty over London, which dates to around 19 June, eleven barons are named, the first five names appearing in the same order in a letter that was issued by the twenty-five around the same date. The five were Robert fitzWalter, bearing his title Marshal of the Army of God, Richard, earl of Clare, Geoffrey de Mandeville, calling himself earl of Essex and Gloucester, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, and Saer himself, all men with deep and obvious grievances against the king. Both sides, of course, would have been accompanied by clerical staffs. There were doubtless plenary meetings, perhaps in a special neutral tent, which one can imagine becoming famous in the course of the discussions. There must also have been meetings of the individual teams, with messages and drafts of chapters going to and fro between them. Coggeshall speaks of peace being finally agreed through the intervention of Langton and several unnamed bishops and barons. That the negotiations proceeded chapter by chapter is shown by the way the engrossments, while abandoning the paragraphs of the Articles, nonetheless indicated the start of new chapters with prominent capital letters.
导致《宪章》的最后谈判是如何进行的，我们不得而知。最有可能的是，它们掌握在双方的一小群代表手中，例如约翰在他的安全行为信中设想的那些代表[单方面]男爵“。毫无疑问，约翰的首席顾问是他在宪章中提到的那些人。对于男爵来说，谈判代表大概包括最终的二十五人的主要成员。几乎可以肯定，Saer de Quincy是突出的，因为他是John在5月25日发出的安全行为信中唯一特别提到的人。在6月19日左右的伦敦条约中，有11位男爵的名字，前5位男爵的名字以相同的顺序出现在25位男爵大约在同一天发出的一封信中。这五个人是罗伯特·菲茨沃尔特，他的头衔是上帝军团元帅，理查德，克莱尔伯爵，杰弗里·德·曼德维尔，自称埃塞克斯和格洛斯特伯爵，罗杰·比戈德，诺福克伯爵，以及萨尔本人，他们都对国王有着深刻而明显的不满。当然，双方都会有文职人员陪同。毫无疑问，有全体会议，也许是在一个特殊的中立帐篷里，人们可以想象在讨论过程中成名。还必须有各个团队的会议，在他们之间来回传递信息和章节草稿。 Coggeshall谈到，通过兰顿和几位未具名的主教和男爵的干预，最终达成了和平协议。谈判是逐章进行的，这从全神贯注的方式可以看出，虽然放弃了条款的段落，但仍然表明了新章节的开始，并用突出的大写字母。

Back at Windsor on the afternoon or evening of 10 June, John did not merely dine with Abbot Hugh. He also issued a letter prolonging the truce with the barons until the morning of 15 June. This suggests a confidence that a settlement was now possible, although also that some days might still be needed to reach it, as indeed was the case. Holt has suggested, very reasonably, that behind this confidence lay the reaching of some preliminary agreement.' In other words, it was on ro June that John sealed the Articles of the Barons. He had probably agreed them orally earlier as a basis for negotiations, but the baronial negotiators whom he met on ro June needed something more. If they were to hold their own party to the truce, they had to show some evidence of John's good faith. That was now provided by John's seal appearing on the Articles. It seemed to show that he had indeed conceded those 'chapters which the Barons seek', as the heading in the Articles put it. John, for his part, thus hoped to draw the barons into negotiations and end the civil war. He was not, he would think, actually committed to anything, for even with the seal the Articles, lacking address, witness and dating clauses, had no legal force. John could still hope to secure concessions. He might renege on the whole deal. The next few days would tell.
6月10日下午或傍晚回到温莎，约翰不仅与休修道院院长共进晚餐。他还发表了一封信，将与男爵们的休战延长至6月15日上午。 这表明人们相信，现在有可能达成和解，尽管可能还需要一些日子才能达成和解，事实确实如此。霍尔特非常合理地表示，这种信心的背后是达成某种初步协议。换句话说，正是在六月，约翰封印了男爵的条款。他可能早就口头同意了这些协议，作为谈判的基础，但他在六月会见的男爵谈判代表需要更多的东西。如果他们要让自己的政党休战，他们必须拿出一些证据来证明约翰的诚意。现在，约翰的印章出现在条款上，这已经提供了这一点。这似乎表明，正如条款的标题所言，他确实承认了那些“男爵们寻求的章节”。因此，约翰希望将男爵们吸引到谈判中并结束内战。他会认为，他实际上并没有对任何事情作出承诺，因为即使有印章，这些条款也没有地址、证人和日期条款，也没有法律效力。约翰仍然希望获得让步。他可能会违背整个协议。接下来的几天会证明一切。

John had some successes in the negotiations. The stipulation in the Articles of the Barons that heirs should be married 'by the counsel of the nearest kin' was watered down to the need just to inform the nearest kin, which gave the king much more freedom to bestow marriages on whom he wished. John retaliated against the Londoners (whom he must have regarded with intense hostility) by removing the stipulation, found in the Articles, that tallages imposed on the city, and other privileged towns, needed the consent of the kingdom. It was now only aids, and those just from London, that were so covered. John had thus preserved his lucrative right to tallage towns at will as part of the royal demesne. The towns, in return, simply got an innocuous new chapter (although it is not made separate in modern numbering), which said that cities, boroughs, vills and ports should enjoy all their liberties and customs. There were other gains, partly helped by Archbishop Langton's attitude (examined in more detail later). Thus judgements on the disseisins committed by Henry II and Richard were now to be left until John abandoned or returned from his prospective crusade.
约翰在谈判中取得了一些成功。《男爵条款》中关于继承人应“由最亲近的亲属的劝告”结婚的规定被淡化为只需要通知最亲近的亲属，这给了国王更多的自由来授予他希望的婚姻。约翰对伦敦人（他一定对他们怀有强烈的敌意）进行了报复，取消了条款中的规定，即强加给城市和其他特权城镇的领地需要王国的同意。 现在只有艾滋病，以及那些来自伦敦的艾滋病，才被如此覆盖。因此，约翰保留了他作为皇家领地的一部分随意拥有城镇的有利可图的权利。作为回报，城镇只是得到了一个无害的新篇章（尽管它在现代编号中没有分开），其中说城市、自治市镇、小区和港口应该享有所有的自由和习俗。还有其他收获，部分得益于兰顿大主教的态度（稍后会更详细地研究）。因此，对亨利二世和理查所犯的罪行的审判现在要留到约翰放弃或从他预期的十字军东征中回来。

On the other side, the barons pushed very hard to improve the offer. They scored a major victory in the area of reliefs. The Articles of the Barons here had left the size of these to be decided in the Charter, so there was everything to play for. In the event, the Charter laid down that the heirs of earls and barons should both pay a relief of , while the heirs of knights holding from the king should pay for each fee. John, by contrast, had charged baronial reliefs of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pounds and would have fiercely denied that there was anything 'ancient' about the relief he was now pinned back to. The barons also gained in a more minor way through the tightening up of various chapters. The Articles of the Barons had retreated from the demand of the Unknown Charter that wardships be run by four knights of the fee. Now something like that came back in, if in reduced fashion, through the stipulation that, if the guardian misbehaved, then the wardship should be entrusted to two of the fee's law-worthy men. This was to be true whether the king had entrusted the custody to a sheriff, or had sold it to someone. John's only compensation was that, in both cases, the men were to answer to him for the issues,
另一方面，男爵们非常努力地提高报价。他们在救济领域取得了重大胜利。这里的男爵条款将这些条款的大小留给了宪章中决定，所以一切都可以玩。在这种情况下，宪章规定伯爵和男爵的继承人都应支付减免 ，而从国王手中持有的骑士的继承人应支付 每笔费用。相比之下，约翰收取了数百英镑，有时甚至数千英镑的男爵救济费，并且会强烈否认他现在被钉在身上的 救济金有任何“古老”的东西。男爵们也通过收紧各个章节以更小的方式获得了收益。《男爵条例》已经放弃了《未知宪章》的要求，即监护权应由四名骑士管理。现在，类似的事情又回来了，如果以简化的方式，通过规定，如果监护人行为不端，那么监护权应该委托给两个值得收费的人。无论国王是将监护权委托给治安官，还是将其卖给某人，都是如此。约翰唯一的补偿是，在这两种情况下，这些人都要向他负责这些问题，
so at least he would not lose the revenues which were reasonably due. Tenants-in-chief also gained in chapter 26 by a tightening up of the procedure for the payment of debts during minorities, whereby the sheriff had now to prove what was owed by reference to letters patent of summons.
因此，至少他不会失去合理应得的收入。在第26章中，总承租人还收紧了少数族裔债务的偿还程序，据此，治安官现在必须通过传票专利来证明所欠的债务。

In throwing light on the negotiations, the copies of the Charter made later in the thirteenth century come into play, since in some places almost certainly, in others quite possibly, they preserve elements of drafts made at Runnymede. The chapter on relief, as we have said, was a great baronial victory, yet there are signs that the barons wanted more. The odd phraseology of the chapter has often been pointed out, with earls and barons being treated separately although their reliefs are the same. Was this because there had been the intention of giving them different amounts? The answer, it would seem, is yes, because in a copy of the Charter in a statute book preserved in the Huntington Library in California, which Galbraith argued was derived from a late draft of the Charter, the relief of a baron is put at roo marks, not at
为了阐明谈判情况，13世纪后期制作的《宪章》副本发挥了作用，因为在某些地方几乎可以肯定，在另一些地方，它们很可能保留了在朗尼米德起草的草案的要素。 正如我们所说，关于救济的一章是男爵的伟大胜利，但有迹象表明男爵们想要更多。这一章的奇怪措辞经常被指出，伯爵和男爵被分开对待，尽管他们的浮雕是相同的。这是因为有意给他们不同的金额吗？答案似乎是肯定的，因为在加利福尼亚州亨廷顿图书馆保存的一本法规书中的《宪章》副本中，加尔布雷思认为这是从宪章的后期草案中衍生出来的，男爵的救济被放在 roo 标记处，而不是

John had at least resisted that successfully, and he may have resisted something else as well, namely any suggestion that earldoms themselves were hereditary; hence the curious statement that an earl succeeded simply to the 'barony of an earl', so not actually to an earldom at all. That this too was an area of dispute is suggested by one copy of the Charter in which heirs of earls are indeed to give a Ioo relief 'for a whole earldom' - 'de comitatu integro'.12 If this was pressed at Runnymede, it failed to gain purchase, but at least the earls were given separate treatment in the Charter and avoided being lumped in with the barons. That may have been what John wanted, for in several copies of the Charter the chapter does run them together, simply stating that heirs of earls and barons are both to give a relief 'for a whole barony', so there was here no reference to the separate 'barony of an earl'.
约翰至少成功地抵制了这一点，他可能也抵制了其他东西，即任何关于伯爵领地本身是世袭的暗示;因此，有一种奇怪的说法是，伯爵只是继承了“伯爵的男爵”，所以实际上根本不是伯爵。这也是一个有争议的领域，其中一份宪章副本表明，伯爵的继承人确实要为“整个伯爵领地”提供 Ioo 救济——“de comitatu integro”.12 如果这在 Runnymede 被压制，它未能获得购买，但至少伯爵在宪章中得到了单独的待遇，避免了与男爵混为一谈。这也许是约翰想要的，因为在宪章的几份副本中，这一章确实将它们放在一起，只是简单地说伯爵和男爵的继承人都要为“整个男爵”提供 救济，所以这里没有提到单独的“伯爵的男爵”。

The most striking of all the new chapters in Magna Carta was chapter I4, which laid down in detail the constitution for the assembly that could give the common consent of the kingdom to taxation: the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and greater barons were thus to be summoned individually and the other tenants-in-chief severally through the sheriffs. The background here was, of course, John's great tax of . He had claimed that it had been agreed by 'his council', but that, of course, might be no more than his own ministers. In direct response, the Articles of the Barons had laid down that taxes should be imposed not by the king's council but by 'the common counsel of the kingdom'. But why did Magna Carta, in an entirely new chapter, feel the need to go further, in the process setting out what was in effect the first written constitution of parliament? Copies of the Charter which preserve elements of drafts may provide some explanation. They suggest that at Runnymede the idea that the king's council should have a role in agreeing taxation was resurfacing and needed to be knocked on the head. In a copy of the Charter found in a late thirteenth-century cartulary of Peterborough abbey, now in the possession of the Society of Antiquaries, chapter I2 reads 'No scutage or aid is to be levied in our kingdom save by our council and by the common counsel of our kingdom' - 'per consilium nostrum et per consilium commune regni nostri'. Now it may be that this is no more than an inadvertent scribal addition made in the process of transmission On the other hand, it occurs in a chapter clearly much discussed at Runnymede, hence the way the new chapter I4 was added to it. This Peterborough copy of the Charter, moreover, like some others, as we will see, certainly has a draft version of the chapter on fines, since the phraseology there is far closer to the text of the Articles than to that of the eventual Charter. The king's council
在《大宪章》的所有新章节中，最引人注目的是第一章第四章，它详细规定了议会的宪法，可以使王国对税收达成共同同意：因此，大主教、主教、修道院院长、伯爵和更大的男爵将被单独召集，其他佃户则分别通过治安官被召集。当然，这里的背景是约翰对 .他声称这是由“他的委员会”同意的，但当然，这可能只不过是他自己的部长们。作为直接回应，《男爵条例》规定，税收不应由国王议会征收，而应由“王国的共同顾问”征收。但是，为什么《大宪章》在一个全新的篇章中，觉得有必要走得更远，在制定实际上的第一部成文议会宪法的过程中呢？保留草案内容的《宪章》副本可能会提供一些解释。他们认为，在朗尼米德，国王委员会应该在同意税收方面发挥作用的想法正在重新浮出水面，需要敲打头部。在彼得伯勒修道院的十三世纪末的卡图里发现的宪章副本中，现在由古物协会拥有，第一章第2章写道：“除了我们的议会和我们王国的共同顾问之外，不得在我们的王国征收任何税款或援助”——“per consilium nostrum et per consilium commune regni nostri”。现在，这可能只不过是在传输过程中无意中添加的抄写内容 另一方面，它出现在 Runnymede 明确讨论的一章中，因此添加了新章节 I4 的方式。 此外，正如我们将要看到的，这份彼得伯勒的《宪章》副本，同其他一些副本一样，肯定有关于罚款的一章的草稿，因为那里的措辞更接近条款的文本，而不是最终的宪章文本。 国王议会
also appears in what is probably one of the earliest copies of the Charter. This is found not in a cartulary or statute book but on a single sheet of parchment now preserved in the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It is unique in having John sometimes speak in the first person. It also in chapter 48 has wording that seems to come from a draft, since in one place it is closer to the Articles than to the Charter. In chapter I 2 of this Bodleian copy, the reading is 'No scutage or aid is to be levied in my kingdom save by our council' 'per consilium nostrum'. It seems likely that 'and by the common counsel of our kingdom' has been omitted here, for the copy still has chapter I4 on how the common counsel of the kingdom should be obtained. Perhaps the copy derived from a draft made difficult to follow from the number of changes to the chapter. At the very least, these variants raise the possibility that John put up a rearguard action at Runnymede and tried to give a role to 'his council' in the levying of taxation. If so, one can understand why the eventual Charter, having affirmed that taxes must be levied by the common consent of the kingdom, went on to make crystal clear the nature of the assembly from which that consent must come. At least John would have welcomed there the presence of lesser tenants-in-chief. He may also have inserted the proviso that the business was to go ahead even if not everyone summoned turned up.
也出现在可能是最早的宪章副本之一中。这不是在卡图或法规书中找到的，而是在一张羊皮纸上发现的，现在保存在牛津的博德利图书馆。约翰有时以第一人称说话是独一无二的。第48章的措辞似乎来自草案，因为在一个地方，它更接近于条款而不是宪章。在这本博德利抄本的第一章第二章中，读法是“在我的王国里，除了我们的议会之外，不得征收任何税款或援助”。 这里似乎省略了“借着我们王国的共同劝告”，因为该副本仍然有关于如何获得王国共同劝告的第一章第4章。也许从对本章的修改数量来看，从草稿中得出的副本很难理解。至少，这些变体提出了约翰在朗尼米德采取后卫行动并试图让“他的委员会”在征税中发挥作用的可能性。如果是这样的话，人们就可以理解为什么最终的宪章在确认税收必须由王国的共同同意征收之后，继续清楚地表明必须来自这种同意的议会的性质。 至少约翰会欢迎那里的小佃户的到来。他可能还插入了一个条件，即即使不是每个被传唤的人都来参加，业务也要继续进行。

Another significant change to the Articles came in chapter 55 on putting right fines made unjustly and against the law of the land. In chapter 37 of the Articles, these were fines made for dowers, 'maritagia' (marriage portions and marriages) and inheritances. Since no individual king was mentioned, the chapter apparently covered the fines made with Henry II and Richard as well as John. This would explain, the issue being the more contentious, why Archbishop Langton was called in to assist the twenty-five, if they had to judge any disputes, whereas when it came simply to John's disseisins, in chapter 25 of the Articles, the twenty-five had felt able to act alone. In some copies of Magna Carta, the chapter on fines retains its Articles form, save the fines are those made simply with John, so not with Henry and Richard. The chapter thus reads: 'All fines which have been made with us for dowers, maritagia and inheritances . . . unjustly and against the law of the land are to be wholly remitted.'. In the final version of the Charter, however, the barons hit back and effected a dramatic widening of the chapter. As it stood in the Articles and the drafts, it certainly addressed major grievances, but it also left untouched a whole range of fines, most notably those made to recover the king's benevolence and secure the return of confiscated land. When we get to the final text in the Charter, therefore, the whole scope of the chapter has been expanded. 'Dowers, maritagia and inheritances' disappear, and the chapter covers 'all fines' made with John 'unjustly and against the law of the land'. The clause now got to the heart of his arbitrary rule.
对条款的另一项重大修改是第55章，即纠正不公正和违反国家法律的罚款。在《条例》第37章中，这些是针对嫁妆、“婚姻部分和婚姻”和遗产的罚款。由于没有提到个别国王，这一章显然涵盖了对亨利二世和理查以及约翰的罚款。这可以解释为什么兰顿大主教被召唤来协助这二十五人，如果他们必须判断任何争端，而当涉及到约翰的论点时，在条款第25章中，二十五人觉得可以单独行动。 在《大宪章》的一些副本中，关于罚款的一章保留了其条款形式，但罚款只是与约翰一起支付的，而不是与亨利和理查德一起支付的。因此，该章写道：“所有与我们一起为嫁妆、婚姻和遗产而支付的罚款......不公正和违反当地法律的，应全部减免。 然而，在宪章的最终版本中，男爵们进行了反击，并极大地扩大了这一章。正如条款和草案中的情况一样，它当然解决了重大的不满，但它也没有触及一系列罚款，最引人注目的是那些为了恢复国王的仁慈和确保归还被没收的土地而支付的罚款。 因此，当我们谈到《宪章》的最后文本时，本章的整个范围已经扩大。“嫁妆、婚姻和遗产”消失了，这一章涵盖了与约翰“不公正和违反当地法律”的“所有罚款”。该条款现在触及了他专横统治的核心。

Archbishop Langton, as we have seen, had not engaged with the development of the baronial demands in 1214 and 1215 . To do so would have been tantamount to joining the rebellion, which he was absolutely not prepared to do. It was only at Runnymede that the situation changed in a definitive way. John sealed the Articles of the Barons and thus accepted them as a basis for the settlement. Langton could step in without being accused of treason. As a proof of John's acceptance, the archbishop took away from Runnymede a copy of the Articles with John's seal attached, and deposited it in his archives. It was in effect his cover note, his licence to take part, which he could cite to king and pope if they later questioned his involvement.
正如我们所看到的，兰顿大主教在1214年和1215年没有参与男爵要求的发展。这样做无异于加入叛乱，他绝对不准备这样做。只有在Runnymede，情况才发生了决定性的变化。约翰封存了男爵的条款，因此接受了它们作为和解的基础。兰顿可以在不被指控叛国的情况下介入。作为约翰接受的证明，大主教从朗尼米德那里拿走了一份附有约翰印章的条款副本，并将其存放在他的档案中。这实际上是他的封面说明，他的参与许可，如果国王和教皇后来质疑他的参与，他可以向他们引用。

With this sanction, Langton turned to the roles assigned him in the Articles and modified them, or agreed to their modification, in every single place. Most important of all, as we saw in the last chapter, he removed the demand that he and his fellow bishops should guarantee John's undertaking not to appeal to the pope. Reference to the pope disappeared, and John simply said he would not seek from anyone anything by which his concessions might be revoked. The only thing Langton was now asked to guarantee was the Charter's final text. Langton also intervened when it came to the disseisins committed by Henry II and Richard. Under chapter 25 of the Articles, those thus disseised were to have 'right' determined without delay by judgement of their peers in the king's court. If, however, John was to have the 'term' enjoyed by other crusaders, then the archbishop and his fellow bishops were to give the judgement without appeal. The 'term' here meant the period during which John as crusader could enjoy various protections. He was still, before his departure, expected to right his own wrongs,
有了这个制裁，兰顿转向了条款中分配给他的角色，并在每一个地方修改了它们，或者同意修改它们。最重要的是，正如我们在上一章所看到的，他取消了他和他的主教同工们应该保证约翰不向教皇上诉的承诺的要求。对教皇的提及消失了，约翰只是说他不会向任何人寻求任何可以撤销他的让步的东西。兰顿现在唯一需要保证的是《宪章》的最终文本。兰顿在谈到亨利二世和理查德犯下的罪行时也进行了干预。根据《条款》第25章，被剥夺的人应立即由国王宫廷中的同侪判决确定“权利”。然而，如果约翰要让其他十字军享有“任期”，那么大主教和他的主教同僚们将作出判决，不得上诉。这里的“术语”是指约翰作为十字军可以享受各种保护的时期。在他离开之前，他仍然被期望纠正自己的错误，
indeed, he was under an obligation to do so. But the barons clearly feared that he might be exempt from having to deal with the wrongs of his father and brother. In that case, the barons hoped that consideration of the disseisins committed by Henry and Richard might move from the secular to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, with Langton and the bishops giving judgement on them. The Articles did not say who was to decide whether John got the crusader's 'term', but almost certainly the task fell to Langton. The decision was very favourable to John. Thus Langton both gave him the 'term' and decided it should last for the fullest possible period, namely for as long as the prospective crusade continued. That is why John, in chapters 52,53 and 57 of the Charter, was to deal with various issues only when he returned from or abandoned his crusade. Having given John the crusader's 'term', Langton then refused to have anything to do with the substitute judgement the Articles had asked of him. Instead, John was to give justice to those complaining of disseisin by Henry or Richard only when his crusade, in one way or another, was over.
事实上，他有义务这样做。但男爵们显然担心他可能会免于处理他父亲和兄弟的过错。在那种情况下，男爵们希望对亨利和理查德所犯的罪行的考虑可以从世俗管辖权转移到教会管辖权，由兰顿和主教们对他们进行审判。文章没有说谁来决定约翰是否得到十字军的“任期”，但几乎可以肯定的是，这项任务落在了兰顿身上。 这个决定对约翰非常有利。因此，兰顿给了他这个“任期”，并决定它应该持续尽可能长的时间，即只要未来的十字军东征继续进行。 这就是为什么约翰在《宪章》第52、53和57章中，只有在他从十字军东征回来或放弃十字军东征时，才要处理各种问题。在给了约翰十字军的“任期”之后，兰顿拒绝与条款要求他的替代判决有任何关系。相反，约翰只有在他的十字军东征以某种方式结束时，才会为那些抱怨亨利或理查的失职的人伸张正义。

Langton's decision over the crusader's 'term' affected the Welsh. The disseisins that they had suffered at the hands of Henry and Richard were now, like those suffered by the English, to be dealt with only once John had ended his prospective crusade. Langton also stood down from his role in judging whether John's charters allowed Llywelyn's son and the other Welsh hostages to be retained. In Magna Carta, the son and the hostages were simply to be returned 'immediately', and there was no mention of Langton or the charters. It has been suggested that this was because the archbishop, at Runnymede, had indeed sat in judgement on the charters and decided the issue against the king. This seems most unlikely. Such a judgement would have required formal proceedings, and the production and careful inspections of charters, for which there can have been no time at Runnymede. Indeed, it was not until July that Langton and various loyalist magnates issued a letter testifying to the terms of the I2II charter which John had extracted from Llywelyn. It seems far more likely that Langton had declined to play his allotted role, and this had enabled Llywelyn's allies to insist on the immediate return of the hostages.
兰顿对十字军“任期”的决定影响了威尔士人。他们在亨利和理查手中所遭受的损失，现在就像英国人所遭受的一样，只有在约翰结束了他预期的十字军东征之后才能处理。兰顿在判断约翰的宪章是否允许保留利韦林的儿子和其他威尔士人质方面也退出了角色。在《大宪章》中，儿子和人质只是“立即”归还，没有提到兰顿或宪章。有人认为，这是因为朗尼米德的大主教确实对宪章进行了审判，并决定了对国王不利的问题。 这似乎不太可能。这样的判决本来需要正式的诉讼程序，需要对章程进行制作和仔细检查，而Runnymede不可能有时间这样做。事实上，直到 7 月，兰顿和各种忠诚的大亨才发表了一封信，证明约翰从 Llywelyn 那里获得的 I2II 宪章的条款。 兰顿似乎更有可能拒绝扮演他所分配的角色，这使得利韦林的盟友能够坚持立即归还人质。

Langton also stood down when it came to chapter 59 on the treatment of the king of Scots. Instead of Langton deciding whether John's charters meant Alexander should be treated differently from the barons of England when it came to restoration of liberties and rights, the decision was now passed to a judgement of Alexander's peers in the king's court. Again, it is difficult to see how this amounted to Langton deciding the issue in John's favour, as has been suggested. He had simply passed the buck and left it for others to decide. These changes left only one instance in the Charter where Langton's judgement still appeared, and even here his role was qualified. This was in chapter 55 . Here Langton was to sit with the twenty-five in judging the unjust fines and amercements imposed by John. The archbishop was, however, to be involved only "if he will be able to attend'. If he could not attend, the business was to go ahead without him. This cautionary note about his availability one suspects came from Langton himself.
兰顿在谈到第59章关于苏格兰国王的待遇时也站了下来。兰顿没有决定约翰的特许状是否意味着亚历山大在恢复自由和权利方面应该受到与英格兰男爵不同的待遇，而是现在将决定交给了亚历山大的同僚在国王法庭上的判决。同样，很难看出这相当于兰顿如何像有人建议的那样决定对约翰有利的问题。他只是推卸责任，让别人来决定。 这些变化在《宪章》中只留下了一个兰顿的判决仍然出现的例子，即使在这里，他的角色也是合格的。这是在第 55 章中。在这里，兰顿将与二十五人坐在一起，对约翰施加的不公正的罚款和补偿进行审判。然而，大主教只有在“他能够参加”的情况下才能参与其中。如果他不能参加，那么没有他，生意就会继续进行。有人怀疑，关于他可用性的警告来自兰顿本人。

Historians have usually ascribed this clause to Langton, yet have regarded its presence as almost routine and unimportant. It was neither. The clause might easily have been left out of Magna Carta. For all John's sealing of the Articles, it remained obvious that the Charter was being forced upon him. Here the contrast with Henry I's Coronation Charter was very clear. It had a first clause on the church, but then it was a freely given grant. Magna Carta, on the other hand, Langton must have known, was always liable to be quashed by the pope for having been extracted 'by violence and fear', as Innocent indeed later put it. The violent threats
历史学家通常将这一条款归因于兰顿，但认为它的存在几乎是例行公事且不重要。两者都不是。该条款可能很容易被排除在《大宪章》之外。尽管约翰把这些条款盖上了印章，但很明显，《宪章》是强加给他的。在这里，与亨利一世的加冕宪章形成鲜明对比。它有一个关于教会的第一条，但后来它是免费给予的赠款。另一方面，兰顿一定知道，《大宪章》总是容易被教皇推翻，因为教皇是“通过暴力和恐惧”榨取的，正如英诺森后来所说的那样。 暴力威胁
that forced Thomas Becket to accept the iniquitous Constitutions of Clarendon would have been another point of reference. Langton, therefore, had good grounds for keeping the church out of the Charter, and preventing its liberties being stained by the doubtful origins of the secular concessions. The church had already secured its gains in the charter of November , which guaranteed it free elections. Why not leave it at that? Langton then would have been anticipating his successors, the bishops of , who withdrew from the revolutionary Westminster parliament before the coercion of the king, and never afterwards included the church in the reforms. Langton might well have done the same in 1215.
迫使托马斯·贝克特（Thomas Becket）接受不公正的克拉伦登宪法将是另一个参考点。 因此，兰顿有充分的理由将教会排除在宪章之外，并防止其自由被世俗特许权的可疑起源所玷污。教会已经在11月的 宪章中获得了收益，这保证了它的自由选举。为什么不就此罢休呢？然后，兰顿会期待他的继任者， 即主教，他们在国王的胁迫下退出了革命的威斯敏斯特议会，此后从未将教会纳入改革。 兰顿很可能在 1215 年也做了同样的事情。

After this concession to God, the Charter then started all over again and announced 'We have also granted to all the free men of our kingdom . . . all the below written liberties'. In the printed versions of the Charter, this is still part of chapter I on the church, although in three of the four engrossments it appears rather as a new chapter. The division here between the concessions made to God and those made to the kingdom had no exact precedent. The rroo Charter set the church free and then abolished all evil customs that had oppressed the kingdom, but no clear division was made between the two, for the concessions were not actually given to anyone at all. In the Coronation Charter of Henry II, the concessions were made to 'God, holy church, and all my earls and barons and all my men', which meant there was no separation, as there was in 1215 , between church and realm, or realm and God. The same was true in the charter that King Pedro granted to Catalonia in I
在向上帝做出让步之后，《宪章》又重新开始了，并宣布：“我们也赐予我们王国的所有自由人......以下所有书面自由“。在《宪章》的印刷版本中，这仍然是关于教会的第一章的一部分，尽管在四部全神贯注的三部中，它似乎是一个新的章节。在这里，对上帝的让步和对国度的让步之间的划分没有确切的先例。《宪章》使教会获得自由，然后废除了所有压迫王国的邪恶习俗，但两者之间没有明确的划分，因为这些让步实际上根本没有给予任何人。在亨利二世的加冕宪章中，对“上帝、神圣的教会、我所有的伯爵、男爵和我所有的手下”做出了让步，这意味着教会与王国之间或王国与上帝之间没有像 1215 年那样的分离。佩德罗国王在一世 授予加泰罗尼亚的宪章也是如此

Having introduced the church, and modified the role assigned him in the Articles, Langton left the Charter alone. Despite his veneration for Becket, he did nothing to reaffirm Henry II's concession freeing clerks accused of crime from secular jurisdiction. He ignored John's promise of 1213 not to outlaw clerks, although it would have sat well with chapter did not insist that chapter 4 on the running of wardships should also apply to ecclesiastical vacancies, unlike the Charter of 1216 , where a clause to that effect was introduced. Langton also failed to support the Charter in one
在介绍了教会，并修改了条款中分配给他的角色之后，兰顿独自离开了宪章。尽管他崇敬贝克特，但他没有采取任何措施来重申亨利二世的让步，将被指控犯罪的书记员从世俗管辖权中解放出来。他忽略了约翰在1213年不取缔书记员的承诺，尽管这与第4章 没有坚持第4章关于监护权的运作也应适用于教会空缺相吻合，这与1216年的宪章不同，其中引入了一个条款。兰顿也未能支持《宪章》
highly practical and deeply symbolic way. However much they might have wished to do so, he and his fellow bishops issued no sentence of excommunication against contraveners of the Charter of 1215 . That had to wait until I225, when all taint of coercion was at last removed. Yet what Langton had done in 1215 was enough. Privileged in its first chapter, he had provided the church with an impelling reason for giving Magna Carta its full support. That was to be a major factor in its survival and the central place it attained in public life. Once, moreover, the Charter had been conceded, the archbishop did all he could to preserve it and the peace it was supposed to bring.
高度实用和深刻的象征性方式。无论他们多么希望这样做，他和他的主教同僚们都没有对违反1215年宪章的人作出逐出教会的判决。这必须等到I225，那时所有的胁迫污点终于被消除了。然而，兰顿在1215年所做的已经足够了。在《大宪章》的第一章中，他享有特权，为教会提供了全力支持《大宪章》的迫切理由。这是其生存和在公共生活中取得中心地位的一个主要因素。此外，一旦《宪章》被承认，大主教就会竭尽全力维护它和它应该带来的和平。

How did the Welsh and the Scots fare generally at Runnymede? The answer is with mixed fortunes, for again there was considerable give and take. The Welsh gained, as we have seen, in their hostages, including the son of Llywelyn, being now returned 'immediately', without reference to any charters that might make it otherwise. The obnoxious treaty of , under which the son and hostages had been surrendered, was apparently no more. On the other hand, the Welsh lost out, like their English counterparts, over the disseisins committed by Henry II and Richard, with any redress being postponed until the end of John's prospective crusade. They also lost out in another way. Whereas, in the Articles, Welshmen disseised by John in England or in Wales were to be restored 'without plea' (chapter 44), in the Charter (chapter 56) the possibility of a plea, which of course meant John's plea, was entertained. If there was 'contention', the case was to be tried 'by judgement of peers', in the March, according to the laws of England, Wales or the March, depending on where the land was situated. The reference to the various laws came from chapter 44 of the Articles, where the context had been slightly different. The reference to 'in the March' was new and advantaged the Welsh, since it prevented such cases having to follow the king and the court coram rege.
威尔士人和苏格兰人在朗尼米德的总体表现如何？答案是喜忧参半，因为同样有相当多的让步。正如我们所看到的，威尔士人从他们的人质中获得了好处，包括Llywelyn的儿子，现在被“立即”遣返，而没有提及任何可能使它成为其他情况的宪章。令人讨厌的 条约，根据该条约，儿子和人质被交出，显然已经不复存在。另一方面，威尔士人与英格兰人一样，在亨利二世和理查犯下的争端中失败了，任何补救措施都被推迟到约翰预期的十字军东征结束。他们也以另一种方式输了。鉴于在条款中，约翰在英格兰或威尔士扣押的威尔士人将“不经请求”（第44章）恢复原状，而在宪章（第56章）中，请求的可能性，当然意味着约翰的请求，被考虑了。如果存在“争议”，则该案将在三月根据英格兰、威尔士或三月的法律“由同行的判决”进行审判，具体取决于土地的位置。对各种法律的提及来自条款第44章，其上下文略有不同。 “在游行中”的提法是新的，对威尔士人有利，因为它防止了这种情况必须遵循国王和宫廷的 coram rege。

In all this, the Welsh rulers had won more than had King Alexander, in part perhaps because the latter was not yet in arms against the king. The charters that John had extracted from Alexander's father, William the Lion, in , recording the Treaty of
在这一切中，威尔士统治者比亚历山大国王赢得了更多的胜利，部分原因可能是后者还没有与国王作战。约翰从亚历山大的父亲狮子威廉那里摘录的宪章，记录了
Norham, were still on the agenda, for here another form of judgement was found after Archbishop Langton's withdrawal. It was now Alexander's peers in the king's court who were to decide whether the charters meant he could be treated differently from the other barons of England, this when it came to his liberties and rights and the return of his hostages and his sisters (chapter 59). If his peers, as seemed likely, decided against the charters, then, the implication was, the hostages would be returned under the terms of Magna Carta's chapter 49. The assumption obviously was that the sisters too would be released. On this point, Alexander's friends had done well, for the return of the sisters was included at Runnymede itself, having not been in the Articles of the Barons. The sisters, Margaret and Isabella, had been handed over to King John under the treaty of . According to its terms, he had until October 1217 , when his eldest son would be ten, to begin marrying them off. In , therefore, he was not in breach of the treaty. That Alexander and his allies still demanded the return of the sisters showed very clearly that they regarded the treaty as invalid. When it came to Alexander's claims to the northern counties, on the other hand, John might hope the changes at Runnymede had brought him an advantage. Since the counties had been lost to the king of Scots under Henry II, the claim should now wait until the end of John's prospective crusade. Whether the English barons would bother with such distinctions was, however, another matter.
诺勒姆，仍然在议程上，因为在兰顿大主教退出后，这里发现了另一种形式的审判。现在，亚历山大在国王宫廷中的同僚们将决定这些宪章是否意味着他可以受到与英格兰其他男爵不同的待遇，这涉及到他的自由和权利以及归还他的人质和他的姐妹（第59章）。如果他的同僚们似乎决定反对宪章，那么，这意味着，人质将根据《大宪章》第49章的条款被遣返。显然，假设姐妹们也会被释放。在这一点上，亚历山大的朋友们做得很好，因为姐妹们的回归被包括在朗尼米德本身，没有出现在男爵的条款中。玛格丽特和伊莎贝拉姐妹已根据条约 移交给约翰国王。根据协议的条款，他必须在1217年10月之前，当他的长子十岁时，才能开始与他们结婚。 因此，他没有违反条约。亚历山大和他的盟友仍然要求姐妹们归还，这清楚地表明他们认为该条约是无效的。另一方面，当谈到亚历山大对北部各郡的主张时，约翰可能希望朗尼米德的变化给他带来了优势。由于这些郡在亨利二世的统治下已经被苏格兰国王夺走，因此现在应该等到约翰预期的十字军东征结束。然而，英国男爵们是否会为这种区别而烦恼是另一回事。

One of the most striking new chapters introduced at Runnymede was chapter 54, the only one in which the word 'woman' 'femina' - appeared. This chapter directed that no one was to be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal, that is accusation, of a woman for the death of anyone other than her husband. How on earth did chapter 54 appear at Runnymede? The answer may be that it was through the intervention of those who had worked for the king as judges, not all of whom, as we have seen, were necessarily any longer on his side. The judges knew that female appeals were very frequent. They also knew that in practice, as the chapter itself
在Runnymede上引入的最引人注目的新章节之一是第54章，这是唯一出现“女人”“女性”一词的章节。该章规定，任何人不得因妇女因丈夫以外的任何人死亡而提出上诉，即指控被逮捕或监禁。 第54章到底是怎么出现在Runnymede的？答案可能是，这是通过那些为国王担任法官的人的干预，正如我们所看到的，并非所有人都一定不再站在国王一边。 法官们知道，女性上诉非常频繁。他们也知道在实践中，作为章节本身
implies, the legal rule restricting such appeals to the death of the husband had not always been enforced in cases of homicide. Men, therefore, accused by women of other homicides, had found themselves imprisoned pre-trial. Now that would no longer happen, those accused being able to give sureties for their appearance in court.
这意味着，在杀人案件中，将这种上诉限制在丈夫死亡的法律规则并不总是得到执行。因此，被妇女指控犯有其他杀人罪的男子在审前被监禁。现在这种情况将不再发生，那些被指控的人能够为他们出庭提供担保。

At Runnymede, lords also gave less than friendly thought to their unfree peasants. It was now that the remarkable clause was inserted into chapter 20 which showed that villeins were protected only from amercements imposed by the king. In other words, as far as the Charter was concerned, lords could impose on their unfree peasants whatever amercements they liked. The Charter, like the Articles, also failed to deal with an issue of major concern to peasants, although curiously enough it had been covered in the Unknown Charter. Its last clause, almost as an afterthought, demanded that 'no man should lose life or limb' for an offence against the beasts of the forest. The Unknown Charter was very much a baronial document, yet this was not an issue that had direct relevance to barons or knights. It was peasants, unable to pay heavy amercements, who would lose life or limb for forest offences. The Anonymous of Béthune thought there was a clause in Magna Carta on the subject. In fact, it had to wait until the Forest Charter of I217. At Runnymede, the barons, with much else to think about, just could not take the trouble to include it.
在朗尼米德，领主们也对他们不自由的农民给予了不太友好的想法。现在，第20章中插入了引人注目的条款，该条款表明，恶棍只受到保护，不受国王强加的补偿。换言之，就《宪章》而言，领主可以把他们喜欢的任何条件强加给他们不自由的农民。 《宪章》和《宪章》一样，也未能处理农民最关心的问题，尽管奇怪的是，《未知宪章》已经涵盖了这个问题。它的最后一条，几乎是事后才想到的，要求“任何人都不应因冒犯森林中的野兽而失去生命或肢体”。《未知宪章》在很大程度上是一份男爵文件，但这并不是一个与男爵或骑士直接相关的问题。农民无力支付沉重的赎金，他们将因森林犯罪而失去生命或肢体。 贝休恩的匿名者认为《大宪章》中有关于这个问题的条款。 事实上，它必须等到 I217 的森林宪章。在Runnymede，男爵们还有很多其他事情要考虑，只是无法麻烦地将其包括在内。

The earls and barons did take trouble in issues that concerned themselves. They realized that in the Articles, when it came to amercements, they had no special treatment and were at best lumped in with the free men who were to be amerced by 'upright men of the neighbourhood'. The Charter put this right in a new chapter (2I), which stated that earls and barons were to be amerced by their peers. The tenants-in-chief also took pains to show that some concessions related just to themselves. Thus the early chapters of the Charter on relief and wardships were now drafted to demonstrate that. The barons were not told to pass on these concessions to their men, as in the Charter of 1100 . Instead, under-tenants had to rely on just the blanket injunction in chapter 60. The barons also looked after themselves, and did down a clas of under-tenants, in another area. Under chapter 27 of the Articles, free men were not to lose the privileges of knighthood because they held tenements from the king in return for providing arrows or other weapons. In the Charter, this was scrapped and replaced by an entirely new chapter (although it is never printed as such), which protected a lord's right to have the wardship of such men, if they also held from him by knight service. Under-tenants also iost out, perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not, by a reorganization of the Charter. Thus the clause which ordered guardians to return lands fully stocked to heirs when they came of age was moved from chapter 35 in the Articles to chapter 5 in the Charter. In the Articles it had been tacked onto the chapter about the payment of Jewish debts during a minority, and clearly applied to under-tenants as well as to tenants-in-chief. In Magna Carta it followed chapte 4 on wardships, which was clearly about those in the hands of the king, and thus only for tenants-in-chief. There were also implications, perhaps again inadvertent, perhaps not, in the way some other chapters were redrafted. Thus the constables and bailiffs prevented from seizing corn and chattels now became (in chapter 28) those of the king. Whereas chapter 30 of the Articles had said that right was not to be denied, deferred or sold, so applying to the conduct of everyone, in the Charter the equivalent chapter, the famous chapter 40 , simply applied to the king.
伯爵和男爵们确实在与他们有关的问题上遇到了麻烦。他们意识到，在《条款》中，当涉及到赎回时，他们没有特殊待遇，充其量只能与自由人混为一谈，而自由人将被“邻里正直的人”赎回。《宪章》在新的一章（2I）中提出了这一权利，该章规定伯爵和男爵应由他们的同侪任命。总租户也煞费苦心地表明，一些让步只与他们自己有关。因此，《宪章》关于救济和监护权的早期章节现在起草就是为了证明这一点。男爵们没有被告知要把这些让步转嫁给他们的手下，就像在 1100 年的宪章中一样。相反，承租人只能依靠第60章的一揽子禁制令。男爵们也照顾好自己，在另一个地区打倒了一群下层佃户。根据该条款第27章，自由人不得因为持有国王的租地以换取提供箭或其他武器而失去骑士特权。在宪章中，这被废除了，取而代之的是一个全新的章节（尽管它从未被印刷过），它保护了领主拥有这些人的监护权的权利，如果他们也通过骑士服务从他那里获得。 承租人也因《宪章》的重组而退出，也许是无意的，也许不是。因此，命令监护人在继承人成年后将充分储备的土地归还给继承人的条款从《条款》第35章移至《宪章》第5章。在条款中，它被附加到关于在少数时期偿还犹太人债务的一章中，并明确适用于下级佃户和主佃户。 在《大宪章》中，它遵循第 4 章关于监护权的规定，这显然是关于国王手中的监护权，因此只适用于总佃户。其他一些章节的重新起草方式也产生了影响，也许又是无意的，也许不是。因此，被禁止没收谷物和动产的警员和执达官现在（在第28章中）变成了国王的。虽然《宪章》第30章规定，权利不得被剥夺、推迟或出售，因此适用于每个人的行为，而在《宪章》中，相应的一章，即著名的第40章，只适用于国王。

The self-regard of the barons was also shown in one of the most striking chapters introduced at Runnymede, namely chapter 14 defining the assembly that was to give the kingdom's common consent to taxation. It was, of course, to be entirely an assembly of tenants-in-chief, dominated by the greater barons. Despite all the reasons why they might have been included, there was to be no formal place for 'magnates' who did not hold in chief. And there was to be no place for knights representing the counties or burgesses the towns. The exclusion of London seems especially remarkable, given the importance of the city in the rebel coalition. The mayor was one of the twenty-five barons. After the collapse of the Magna Carta peace, the barons and the citizens of London wrote jointly to King Alexander 'against' King John. There were also feelings in the city that it should be represented at national assemblies when taxation was discussed. Something of the paradox was revealed in the Charter itself, which, on the one hand, said that aids could only be levied on London by the common counsel of the kingdom, and then denied London any place in the assembly from which that common counsel came. The baronial leaders at Runnymede also failed to protect London and other privileged towns from John's determination to get tallage out of
男爵们的自尊心也体现在朗尼米德最引人注目的一章中，即第14章，定义了王国共同同意征税的议会。当然，这完全是一个由大男爵主导的佃户总会。尽管他们可能被包括在内，但对于那些不担任首席的“权贵”来说，没有正式的位置。代表各县的骑士或城镇的市民没有立足之地。鉴于伦敦在反叛联盟中的重要性，伦敦被排除在外似乎特别引人注目。市长是二十五位男爵之一。在《大宪章》和平破裂后，伦敦的男爵和市民联名写信给亚历山大国王“反对”约翰国王。该市也有人认为，在讨论税收问题时，它应该在国民议会上有代表。 《宪章》本身揭示了一些悖论，一方面，它说只能由王国的共同顾问向伦敦征收援助，然后又不让伦敦在共同顾问来自的议会中占有一席之地。朗尼米德的男爵领袖也未能保护伦敦和其他特权城镇免受约翰决心摆脱塔拉格的决心
the Charter. Not surprisingly perhaps, since if the king was prevented from tallaging his towns at will, then lords might find themselves similarly restricted when it came to tallaging the boroughs subject to their own jurisdictions. Had the negotiations been taking place in London, perhaps the city would have done better. As it was, although Robert fitzWalter was hereditarily the leader of London's militia, no chronicler mentions the presence of London forces at Runnymede.
宪章。这也许并不奇怪，因为如果国王被阻止随意占领他的城镇，那么领主们可能会发现自己在占领受自己管辖的自治市镇时也受到类似的限制。如果谈判在伦敦进行，也许这座城市会做得更好。事实上，尽管罗伯特·菲茨沃尔特（Robert FitzWalter）世袭了伦敦民兵的领袖，但没有编年史家提到伦敦军队在朗尼米德的存在。

When it came to local government, knights and free tenants cannot have welcomed the dilution of chapter 45 , in which the king's officials were now required to know not the 'law of the land' but the less local 'law of the kingdom'. The contemporary French translation of the Charter retains here 'la lei de la terre', which suggests that 'law of the land' may have survived in some engrossments. Knights had also reason to question the changing treatment of the office of coroner, an office, of course, which they held. In chapter I4 of the Articles, the sheriffs were not to interfere with the pleas of the crown without the coroners. In chapter 24 of Magna Carta neither sheriffs nor coroners were to hold the pleas of the crown. Local society would have been as happy as the king with the implication that crown pleas were only to be heard by the king's judges, but, in the process, the chapter had been changed from one trusting the coroners to one distrusting them. Against these setbacks, however, if such they were, there was a major gain.
当谈到地方政府时，骑士和自由佃户不可能欢迎第45章的淡化，其中国王的官员现在被要求知道的不是“土地法”，而是不太地方的“王国法”。《宪章》的当代法文译本在这里保留了“la lei de la terre”，这表明“土地法”可能在某些全神贯注中幸存下来。 骑士们也有理由质疑验尸官职位的待遇变化，当然，他们担任这个职位。在《条例》第I4章中，治安官不得在没有验尸官的情况下干涉王室的请求。在《大宪章》第24章中，治安官和验尸官都不得主持王室的请求。当地社会本来会像国王一样高兴，因为王室的恳求只能由国王的法官审理，但在这个过程中，这一章已经从信任验尸官变成了不信任验尸官。然而，面对这些挫折，如果真是这样的话，就会有很大的收获。
The twelve knights, elected in each county to reform evil practices, now got their own separate chapter, namely chapter 48 , instead of being tacked on to the end of the Articles' chapter 39. The whole process was also given much more bite. In the Articles, the malpractices were to be 'corrected' by the knights, and it was not said when. In the Charter, by contrast, the abuses were to be 'wholly abolished' by the knights within forty days, and 'never revived'. The threatening nature of the power thus conferred is shown by the way in which John managed to insert one brake on the process. The abolitions were to take place only once he had been informed of what was proposed. Doubtless the king hoped at that stage to make objections and ask for delays. In several copies of the Charter which preserve elements of earlier drafts, this saving clause does not appear at all. This strongly suggests that John got it inserted at a late stage in the negotiations, the copies preserving a text from before the addition was made. This fits exactly with the two original engrossments now in the British Library, the one that went to Canterbury and Cii, in both of which the saving clause appears in an extra line below the text of the Charter with an indication of where it should go. It looks as though in the draft from which the engrossments were being copied, the saving clause had in some way been arrowed in as a late addition, and been missed by the clerks first time round. Arguments over chapter 48 are also revealed by the single-sheet copy of the Charter in the Bodleian Library referred to above. There the malpractices are still 'to be corrected' - 'emendentur' - as in the Articles, not 'abolished' 'deleantur' - as in the final text of Magna Carta. The toughening up of this chapter was a great victory for the knights.
十二名骑士，在每个县选出，以改革邪恶的做法，现在有自己单独的章节，即第48章，而不是被固定在条款第39章的末尾。整个过程也被赋予了更多的咬合力。在条款中，这些弊端将由骑士们“纠正”，并且没有说明何时。相比之下，在宪章中，骑士们将在四十天内“完全废除”虐待行为，并且“永不恢复”。这样赋予的权力的威胁性质从约翰设法在这个过程中插入一个刹车的方式中可以看出。只有在他被告知拟议的内容后，才能废除死刑。毫无疑问，国王希望在那个阶段提出反对意见并要求推迟。在保留先前草案内容的几份《宪章》副本中，根本没有出现这一保留条款。 这有力地表明，约翰在谈判的后期才插入了它，副本保留了添加之前的文本。这与现在在大英图书馆的两本原始全文完全吻合，一本是《坎特伯雷》和《Cii》，这两本都以保留条款出现在《宪章》文本下方的额外一行中，并指明了它应该去哪里。看起来，在抄录全神贯注的草稿中，保留条款在某种程度上是作为后期添加的，并且第一次被书记员遗漏了。关于第48章的争论也从上面提到的博德利图书馆的《宪章》单页副本中可以看出。在那里，弊端仍然是“有待纠正的”——“emendentur”——如条款中，而不是“废除”“deleantur”——如《大宪章》的最终文本。 这一章的加强对骑士们来说是一场伟大的胜利。

Magna Carta wanted was a wider body of knights and free tenants to witness and guarantee the judgements - a notable testimony to the importance of the court and the place of the knights and free tenants within it. It may be that knightly opinion defeated further modifications to the assize procedures laid down in chapters I 8 and I9. Some later copies of the Charter thus have the judges visiting three times a year, not four, and in the Charter of their visitations were reduced to just one. In 1217 the idea of the judges staying on to hear left-over pleas was abandoned. Instead they were to hear them later on in their circuit. The 1217 Charter also dispensed with the four knights elected in the county court and just said vaguely that the judges were to hear cases with the knights of the county. If this change, which clearly reduced knightly control of the assizes, was pressed at Runnymede, the knights had successfully resisted it.
《大宪章》想要的是更广泛的骑士和自由佃户来见证和保证判决——这是对法庭的重要性以及骑士和自由佃户在法庭中的地位的显着证明。也许是骑士的意见否决了对第一章、第8章和第十九章中规定的审判程序的进一步修改。因此，后来的《宪章》副本规定法官每年探视三次，而不是四次，而在《宪章》中 ，法官的探视次数减少到只有一次。1217年，法官留下来听取遗留请求的想法被放弃了。取而代之的是，他们稍后会在他们的巡回赛中听到他们的声音。1217年的宪章还免除了在县法院选出的四名骑士，只是含糊地说法官将与县骑士一起审理案件。如果这种明显削弱了骑士对骑士的控制力的改变被压在朗尼米德，骑士们已经成功地抵抗了它。

Considerable efforts were made to tighten up the drafting of the crucial chapters 39 and 40 on justice. Chapter 39 now began 'No freeman', rather than 'The body of a freeman', as in the Articles, probably because it sounded odd to have the body of a freeman disseised. The chapter broadened the ways in which the king might go or send against someone by omitting the Articles' 'by force', while it inserted 'lawful' before 'judgement of his peers'. Chapter 40, apart from making the king the subject of the sentence, now spoke of 'right and justice' - 'rectum aut justitiam'-rather than simply 'right'. It was through 'justice', of course, that one obtained 'right', and it strengthened the chapter to include both.44 Similar expertise went into improving the order of the Charter's chapters. The two on debts to the Jews were advanced to chapters IO and II from 34 and 35 , thus coming after the chapter on distraint for debt. What became chapter I2 on scutages and aids came up to join them from chapter 32, taking matters about London and the towns with them. As a result of these changes, the first part of the Charter gained a more coherent focus, aimed at the financial operations of royal government. Another improvement was in linking together the two chapters on the assizes, chapters 18 and 19 , rather than having them separated as chapters 8 and 13. A rather different fate attended some of the chapters which were most subject to change, for these often dropped right down the order, usually for no particular reason other than that, as we may suspect, they had got shuffled out of their previous positions in the course of their redrafting. Thus the chapter on measures, where a large new section was added on standards, fell from chapter in the Articles of the Barons to chapter 35 in the Charter, where it took the place of the chapter on the king's disseisins. The latter,
为加强关于司法问题的关键章节第39章和第40章的起草工作，作出了相当大的努力。第39章现在开始“没有自由人”，而不是像条款中那样的“自由人的身体”，可能是因为没收自由人的身体听起来很奇怪。 该章通过省略条款中的“武力”一词，扩大了国王可以去或派人去对付某人的方式，同时在“对他的同僚的审判”之前插入了“合法的”。第40章，除了把国王作为判决的主语之外，现在还谈到了“权利和正义”——“直肠和正义”——而不仅仅是“权利”。当然，正是通过“正义”，人们才获得了“权利”，它加强了这一章，将两者包括在内。关于犹太人债务的两篇文章从第34章和第35章被推进到第IO章和第二章，因此排在债务约束的章节之后。从第32章开始，第I2章开始，关于骷髅和辅助工具，加入了他们的行列，将伦敦和城镇的问题与他们一起进行。由于这些变化，《宪章》的第一部分获得了更连贯的重点，旨在皇家政府的财政运作。另一个改进是将关于大体的两章，即第18章和第19章连接在一起，而不是将它们分开为第8章和第13章。一些最容易改变的章节的命运却截然不同，因为这些章节经常被按顺序排列，通常没有特别的原因，只是正如我们可能怀疑的那样，它们在重新起草过程中被从原来的位置上洗牌了。 因此，关于措施的一章，增加了一个关于标准的新一章，从《男爵条例》的一章 下降到《宪章》的第35章，取代了关于国王的法令的一章。后者，
much altered and argued over when it came to the disseisins of Henry II and Richard, dropped down from chapter 25 in the Articles to near the end of the Charter, becoming chapter 52 . There it joined up with two new chapters, chapter 53 about the afforestations of Richard and Henry, and chapter 54 on accusations by women. Chapter 55 was the remodelled chapter on fines, which itself had fallen from chapter 37 in the Articles. In the copies of the Charter where the chapter on fines preserves its Articles form, it actually also preserves its Articles order, pretty clear proof that it was the renegotiation that caused the loss of place. We can imagine remodelled chapters being crossed out in a draft, rewritten on a separate piece of parchment and then being added back in at any convenient point, often near the end. Interestingly, however, there is one copy of the Charter where the remodelled chapter on fines is still in its Articles place, so presumably it derived from a draft where the clerk had put it back there.
当涉及到亨利二世和理查的论述时，发生了很大的变化和争论，从条款的第25章下降到宪章的末尾，成为第52章。在那里，它加入了两个新章节，第53章是关于理查德和亨利的植树造林，第54章是关于妇女的指控。第55章是关于罚款的修改章节，该章节本身已从《条款》第37章中删除。在《宪章》的副本中，关于罚款的一章保留了其条款形式，实际上也保留了其条款顺序，这非常清楚地证明是重新谈判导致了位置的丧失。我们可以想象，经过改造的章节在草稿中被划掉，在一张单独的羊皮纸上重写，然后在任何方便的时候重新添加进去，通常是在接近结尾的时候。然而，有趣的是，有一份《宪章》的副本，其中关于罚款的修改章节仍然在其条款中，因此据推测，它来自书记员将其放回那里的草稿。

33 measures 33 措施

35 entry to kingdom
35 进入王国

denial of justice
拒绝司法

42 disseisins by John, Richard and Henry
约翰、理查德和亨利的 42 篇论文

The negotiations at Runnymede were interrupted and invigorated by one great ecclesiastical festival. Sunday, I4 June was Trinity Sunday. Presumably Archbishop Langton himself conducted the service before King John at Windsor, after which there would have been a feast. The lesson for the day was Revelation 4:1-ro, where the twenty-four elders bow down before the throne of God in heaven. At least the number here, twenty-four, saved the rebels from any blasphemous comparisons with the twenty-five barons of the security clause! The day's Gospel, on the other hand, might seem more relevant. It was John , where Christ tells Nicodemus that 'unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God'. Mere baptism by water, moreover, was not enough. A man must be born again in spirit. Fortunately a sermon that Langton preached on a Trinity Sunday survives. While it probably comes from earlier in his career, it may give some clue to his themes on this occasion. The sermon is mercifully short, taking little more than fifteen minutes to read out, so John would have had no need to ask his archbishop to hurry up, as he had at the start of the reign with Bishop Hugh of Lincoln. If he listened, John would have received some clear lessons as to his behaviour in the future, for Langton urged his listeners to pray to the Father for 'good power', to the Son for 'good wisdom' and to the Holy Spirit for 'good will'.45 Such injunctions, if given on Trinity Sunday 12 I 5, were well timed, for the negotiations were nearly at an end.
朗尼米德的谈判被一个伟大的教会节日打断了，并激发了活力。6月4日星期日是三位一体星期天。据推测，兰顿大主教本人在温莎的约翰国王面前主持了仪式，之后将举行盛宴。当天的课程是启示录4：1-ro，二十四位长老在天上上帝的宝座前鞠躬。至少这里的二十四人使叛乱分子免于与安全条款的二十五位男爵进行任何亵渎神明的比较！另一方面，当天的福音似乎更相关。在约翰福音 中，基督告诉尼哥底母，“人若不重生，就不能见神的国”。此外，仅仅接受水的洗礼是不够的。一个人必须在精神上重生。幸运的是，兰顿在三位一体主日宣讲的一篇讲道幸存下来。虽然它可能来自他职业生涯的早期，但它可能会为他在这个场合的主题提供一些线索。这篇讲道很短，读完的时间不超过十五分钟，所以约翰没有必要要求他的大主教快点，就像他在林肯主教休统治之初那样。如果他听了，约翰会得到一些关于他未来行为的明确教训，因为兰顿敦促他的听众向天父祈求“良善的能力”，向圣子祈求“良善的智慧”，向圣灵祈求“善意”.45这样的命令，如果在三位一体主日12 I 5发出，是适时的， 因为谈判已接近尾声。

Historians have long debated the true date of Magna Carta. The four original engrossments, as well as the copy in the bishops' letters testimonial, all end with John's statement that it was 'Given by our hand [Data per manum nostram] in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.' The natural assumption is that I5 June 1215 is the date of Magna Carta. It is therefore astonishing to find that many leading Magna Carta
长期以来，历史学家一直在争论《大宪章》的真实日期。 四份全神贯注的原始内容，以及主教们的见证信中的副本，都以约翰的声明结尾，说它是“在我们统治的第十七年，六月十五日，在温莎和斯坦斯之间被称为朗尼米德的草地上，由我们亲手赐予的。自然的假设是 I5 June 1215 是大宪章的日期。因此，令人惊讶的是，许多领先的《大宪章》
historians, Holt included, have regarded the 15 June date as nothing more or less than 'fictitious'. Instead, they have argued that the terms of the Charter were not agreed until i9 June, and it was only then, or even later, that it was actually issued. The question of the date of the Charter is about more than a few days either way. It is of crucial importance for understanding what happened at Runnymede. The correct date, it will be argued, is indeed 15 June. Only when this is appreciated can one see both the cleverness of John's manoeuvring and the dissatisfaction with the Charter that quickly forced him into further concessions.
包括霍尔特在内的历史学家认为6月15日这个日期只不过是“虚构的”。 相反，他们争辩说，《宪章》的条款直到6月9日才达成一致，直到那时，甚至更晚，才真正颁布。无论哪种方式，《宪章》的日期问题都不止几天。这对于了解Runnymede发生的事情至关重要。有人会争辩说，正确的日期确实是6月15日。只有当这一点得到理解时，人们才能看到约翰的巧妙策略和对宪章的不满，这种不满很快迫使他做出进一步的让步。

The starting point for any discussion of the date of Magna Carta must be the dating clause that we have already quoted: 'Given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runnymede ... on the fifteenth day of June.' It is remarkable how lightly this testimony has been set aside. The dating clause here was absolutely typical of that found in royal charters from the start of the reign of Richard I, when it was first introduced. It was certainly more than formulaic. The place and date change constantly and can be shown in John's reign to correspond with the king's known itinerary. There are also frequent changes in the name of the giver, who might be the chancellor, a chancery official or occasionally the king himself. In I2I5, in the period before Runnymede, the charters were given both by the chancellor, Richard Marsh, and his deputy, Ralph de Neville, at ten different locations. The precise meaning of the clause is also pretty plain. To 'give' the charter 'by the hand' was to authorize its engrossment from the final draft and by extension to authorize its sealing. The natural assumption, therefore, is that John himself authorized the engrossment and sealing of Magna Carta at Runnymede on 15 June. He gave the Charter himself (the only charter he did give in 1215 ) because the barons, not surprisingly, insisted that he take personal responsibility for it, rather than hiving that off to his chancellor.
任何关于《大宪章》日期的讨论的出发点都必须是我们已经引用的日期条款：“在被称为Runnymede的草地上，由我们的手给予......六月十五日。值得注意的是，这个证词被轻描淡写地搁置一旁。这里的日期条款绝对是理查一世统治初期皇家宪章中首次引入的典型条款。这当然不仅仅是公式化的。地点和日期不断变化，可以在约翰统治时期显示，以与国王的已知行程相对应。赠送者的名字也经常发生变化，他可能是大臣、大法官官员，有时也可能是国王本人。在 I2I5 中，在 Runnymede 之前的时期，特许状由总理理查德·马什和他的副手拉尔夫·德·内维尔在十个不同的地点颁发。 该条款的确切含义也非常简单。“亲手”授予“宪章就是授权其从最终草案开始全神贯注，并推而广之授权其盖章。因此，自然的假设是，约翰本人授权于6月15日在朗尼米德（Runnymede）签署和封印《大宪章》。他自己颁发了宪章（这是他在1215年颁发的唯一特许状），因为毫不奇怪，男爵们坚持要他为此承担个人责任，而不是将其推给他的大臣。

What on earth, therefore, has led historians (Galbraith being an exception) to reject the 15 June date? One factor was that the is June date seemed to leave an inexplicable 'hiatus' between this date for the Charter and the eventual peace that is firmly fixed by documentary evidence for 19 June. Another factor is that it seemed inconceivable John would issue the Charter before the peace on I9 June, thus making concessions to people who were still in rebellion against him. Since the is June date on the Charter indicated that something had happened on that day, Holt suggested that there was then a solemn and general agreement to accept the Articles as the basis for the Charter. This was taken as 'the authorization' for the Charter, and the date was thus retained in the subsequent drafts during the negotiations between 15 and 19 June, until it finally appeared in the Charter itself.
那么，到底是什么导致历史学家（加尔布雷思是个例外）拒绝接受6月15日的日期呢？ 一个因素是，6月的日期似乎在《宪章》的这一日期与6月19日文件证据确定的最终和平之间留下了莫名其妙的“中断”。另一个因素是，约翰似乎无法想象会在 6 月 9 日的和平之前发布宪章，从而向仍在反抗他的人做出让步。由于《宪章》上的6月日期表明那天发生了一些事情，霍尔特建议当时有一个庄严和普遍的协议，接受这些条款作为宪章的基础。 这被看作是对《宪章》的“授权”，因此，在6月15日至19日的谈判期间，这一日期在随后的草案中得以保留，直到最终出现在《宪章》本身。

There was nothing, therefore, to stop John authorizing the Charter before the peace, as the dating clause shows that he did. There are also clear indications within the Charter itself that, when it was finalized, the peace was still in the future. Thus, in chapter , John promised that 'immediately after the restoration of peace', he would remove all foreign soldiers from the kingdom. Significantly, this passage was added at Runnymede, for it does not appear in the Articles. The 'immediately' was a sop to the barons, but, for the rest, it was John who was behind this clause. He knew there might be a considerable delay between the issuing of the Charter on I 5 June and the conclusion of peace, if indeed there was peace at all. It was thus vital to make clear that until and unless there was peace, he would not disarm by dismissing his mercenary soldiers. That was both a safeguard for his own position and a threat of what would happen if the settlement were not accepted. The issuing of the Charter before the peace also explains why, in the preamble, not a single rebel appears among those on whose advice John said he was acting. It was this same group, although their names were not repeated, who witnessed the Charter. If the Charter had been issued after the peace, then it would have been quite possible for ex-rebels, now once more within the king's allegiance, to have been named within it. Indeed, at Runnymede, on 20 June, six of the greatest rebels, now restored to the king's faith, did indeed witness a royal charter. If Magna Carta itself had been finalized on I9 or 20 June, they could have appeared there too, thus giving it a far more consensual nature..
因此，没有什么可以阻止约翰在和平之前授权宪章，因为日期条款表明他这样做了。《宪章》本身也有明确的迹象，表明在最后确定时，和平仍在将来。因此，在一章 中，约翰应许“在恢复和平之后”，他将立即将所有外国士兵从王国中撤出。值得注意的是，这段话是在Runnymede添加的，因为它没有出现在文章中。“立即”是对男爵们的安慰，但对于其他人来说，约翰是这个条款的幕后推手。他知道，从6月5日《宪章》的发布到和平缔结之间可能会有相当长的延迟，如果真的有和平的话。因此，必须明确指出，除非实现和平，否则他不会通过解雇他的雇佣军士兵来解除武装。这既是对他自己地位的保障，也是对如果不接受解决方案将会发生什么的威胁。在和平之前颁布《宪章》也解释了为什么在序言中，约翰说他要根据建议行事的人中没有一个叛乱者出现。正是这群人，尽管他们的名字没有重复，但见证了《宪章》。如果《宪章》是在和平之后颁布的，那么现在再次效忠国王的前叛乱分子很有可能被列入其中。事实上，6月20日，在朗尼米德，六名最伟大的叛乱分子，现在已经恢复了国王的信仰，确实见证了皇家宪章。如果《大宪章》本身在6月9日或6月20日最终确定，它们也可以出现在那里，从而赋予它更多的共识性质。

John was quickly to be disabused of such hopes. The barons assembled at Runnymede did not make peace and quietly go home. Instead they made clear their dissatisfaction with the deal struck by their negotiators. In the process, they forced John, for all his 'that is that' bluster, into further concessions, although, thanks to the confusion over the chronology, historians have never quite appreciated the fact. It was four days before peace could finally be proclaimed, which of course is the explanation for the 'hiatus' between and I9 June.
约翰很快就被这种希望所打消。聚集在Runnymede的男爵们没有讲和，悄悄地回家了。相反，他们明确表示对谈判代表达成的协议感到不满。在这个过程中，他们迫使约翰，尽管他所有的“就是这样”的咆哮，都做出了进一步的让步，尽管由于年表的混乱，历史学家从未完全理解这一事实。四天后终于可以宣布和平，这当然是6月9日之间 “中断”的解释。

There were reasons for dissatisfaction. The key issue of Henry II's afforestations had been ducked. The baronial relief had not gone down to 100 marks. And then there was the inadequacy of the security clause. It had been weakened by the removal of John's promise not to appeal to the pope, which more or less flagged up that he would do so. The fact that the promise was still there in three copies of the Charter (including the Huntington one) shows how hard it died. There were also attempts to sharpen the phraseology of the clause. Whereas, in the Charter, the twenty-five barons, with 'the commune of all the land', were to 'distrain and distress' the king if he offended, several copies of the Charter all say that they were to 'distrain and go against' him. The Latin here is 'contra nos ibunt', which has a very martial ring. It is reminiscent of John's promise on ro May, when he said that during the negotiations with the barons he would not 'go against them by force or by arms' - 'nec super eos per vim vel per arma ibimus'. It was such open warfare that was envisaged in the rejected draft of the Charter. Another draft of the security clause, one preserved by Roger of Wendover, envisaged a way of controlling the king by getting hold of key castles. Thus the castellans of Northampton, Kenilworth, Nottingham and Scarborough were to take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five. The Anonymous of Béthune even believed that no royal bailiff was to be appointed save through the twenty-five, which would have given them total control over the administration of the country. But, of course, there was nothing like that in Magna Carta. John's castellans, sheriffs and other officials were all left in place, apart from the relations of Gerard d'Athée. The reformers in 1258 did not make the same mistake, or rather were in a better position in terms of power to avoid it. Almost the first thing they did was to get control of the king's castles.
不满意是有原因的。亨利二世植树造林的关键问题被回避了。男爵救济没有下降到100马克。然后是担保条款的不足。约翰不向教皇求助的承诺被取消，教皇或多或少地表示他会这样做，这削弱了它。事实上，这个承诺仍然存在于宪章的三份副本（包括亨廷顿宪章）中，这表明它死得有多难。 还有人试图加强该条款的措辞。然而，在宪章中，二十五位男爵与“所有土地的公社”，如果国王冒犯了他，就要“约束和困扰”国王，而宪章的几份副本都说他们要“约束和反对”他。这里的拉丁语是“contra nos ibunt”，它有一个非常武术的戒指。这让人想起约翰在五月的承诺，当时他说在与男爵的谈判中，他不会“用武力或武器反对他们”——“nec super eos per vim vel per arma ibimus”。被否决的《宪章》草案所设想的正是这种公开的战争。另一份安全条款草案，由温多弗的罗杰（Roger of Wendover）保存，设想了一种通过控制关键城堡来控制国王的方法。因此，北安普顿、凯尼尔沃思、诺丁汉和斯卡伯勒的城堡人要宣誓服从二十五人的命令。贝休恩的匿名者甚至认为，除了二十五人之外，不会任命任何皇家法警，这将使他们完全控制国家的行政管理。 但是，当然，《大宪章》中没有这样的东西。约翰的城堡主、治安官和其他官员都留在了原地，除了杰拉德·达西的亲戚。 1258年的改革者没有犯同样的错误，或者更确切地说，在避免它的权力方面处于更好的位置。他们做的第一件事几乎就是控制国王的城堡。

If, however, the barons could not alter the Charter, they could demand further concessions outside it. It was that which happened. John had hoped that the Charter would be an end. It was not. The barons made it absolutely clear that if he wanted peace he must give more, and John complied. He thus removed the hated Peter des Roches from the justiciarship, and replaced him with Hubert de Burgh. Hubert was English and a younger son from a Norfolk knightly family. He had gallantly defended Chinon in I205, and, good at self-publicity, had (so he said) once saved John's nephew, Arthur, from blinding and emasculation - a scene of course made famous by Shakespeare. Hubert was cautious, flexible and, like Geoffrey fitzPeter, very keen to be accepted into the ranks of the high nobility. He eventually became earl of Kent. He was the antithesis of Peter des Roches and the two were to become deadly enemies. According to Hubert's later recollection, which must have been burnt into his mind, John made him justiciar at Runnymede. That, however, was certainly after Magna Carta, for there he is still 'seneschal of Poitou' rather than 'our justiciar', the title he bore in the Charter of I216. To be sure, des Roches himself, in the 12 Is Charter, appears simply as bishop of Winchester, but that does not show he had ceased to be justiciar, because he
但是，如果男爵们不能改变宪章，他们可以要求在宪章之外做出进一步的让步。事情就是这样发生的。约翰曾希望《宪章》能就此结束。事实并非如此。男爵们明确表示，如果他想要和平，他必须付出更多，约翰服从了。因此，他将令人讨厌的彼得·德·罗什（Peter des Roches）从司法职位上撤职，并用休伯特·德·伯格（Hubert de Burgh）取而代之。休伯特是英国人，是诺福克骑士家庭的小儿子。他曾在 I205 年英勇地为希农辩护，并且善于自我宣传，（他是这么说的）曾经拯救过约翰的侄子亚瑟免于失明和阉割——这一幕当然因莎士比亚而闻名。 休伯特谨慎、灵活，和杰弗里·菲茨彼得一样，非常渴望被接纳进入高级贵族的行列。他最终成为肯特伯爵。他是彼得·德·罗什的对立面，两人将成为致命的敌人。根据休伯特后来的回忆，约翰让他在朗尼米德担任法官，这肯定已经深深地烙印在他的脑海中。然而，这肯定是在《大宪章》之后，因为在那里他仍然是“普瓦图的元老”，而不是“我们的司法官”，这是他在 I216 宪章中拥有的头衔。可以肯定的是，德罗什本人在《12 Is 宪章》中只是以温彻斯特主教的身份出现，但这并不表明他已经不再是司法官，因为他
rarely used the title. His removal was clearly a concession made by John in an effort to contain the discontent swirling around Runnymede. Langton himself, anxious to see peace established, had something to do with it, for, as Hubert also remembered, he was present at the appointment.
很少使用标题。 他的撤职显然是约翰为了遏制围绕朗尼米德的不满情绪而做出的让步。兰顿本人急于看到和平的建立，与此有关，因为休伯特也记得，他在约会时在场。

Much more serious for John than the making of a new justiciar was his concession over London. It was the fall of London in May I2I that had forced the king into serious negotiations. Having now issued the Charter, he must have hoped that the barons would vacate the city, and everything would return to normal. There was nothing in the Charter to say anything to the contrary. How wrong John was! He was now forced into a thoroughly disagreeable agreement over the city. The official text of this survives but is undated, and some historians have placed it in late July. It seems almost certain, however, that the agreement was struck at Runnymede shortly before the peace on I9 June. Indeed, in effect, it was a condition of the peace. In the agreement, Robert fitzWalter is described as 'marshal of the army of God and of holy church in England'. This is a title that could not possibly have been countenanced by the king in an official document after the peace on I9 June, when the rebellion was supposed to be over and the baronial army disbanded. This date is confirmed by a newly discovered letter discussed in the next chapter that almost certainly dates from around 19 June. It was issued in the name of five barons who are identical with, and appear in the same order as, the first five barons listed in the treaty over London.
对约翰来说，比制定新的法官更严重的是他在伦敦的让步。I2I 年 5 月伦敦沦陷迫使国王进行了认真的谈判。现在颁布了宪章，他一定希望男爵们能撤离这座城市，一切都会恢复正常。《宪章》中没有任何相反的说法。约翰大错特错！他现在被迫就这座城市达成了一项完全不愉快的协议。该书的正式文本幸存下来，但未注明日期，一些历史学家将其置于 7 月下旬。然而，几乎可以肯定的是，该协议是在6月9日和平前不久在朗尼米德达成的。事实上，这实际上是和平的条件。在协议中，罗伯特·菲茨沃尔特被描述为“上帝军队和英格兰神圣教会的元帅”。这个头衔不可能在 I9 6 月 9 日和平之后的官方文件中得到国王的支持，当时叛乱应该结束，男爵军队解散了。下一章讨论的一封新发现的信件证实了这一日期，几乎可以肯定该信件的日期是 6 月 19 日左右。它是以五位男爵的名义签发的，他们与伦敦条约中列出的前五位男爵相同，并以相同的顺序出现。

The London agreement refers to, and is coterminous with, John's letters of 19 June that set in motion the taking of the oaths and the work of the twelve knights in each county. These can likewise be seen as a new concession forced out of John as a condition of the peace. Chapter 48 had said that local abuses were immediately to be inquired into by elected knights and abolished within forty days, provided the king or the justiciar was informed first, but gave no indication as to how and when the elections were to take place. Doubtless John hoped that the inquiry might be long delayed, if it ever took place at all. In the same way, in the security clause, there was no indication as to how and when 'the commune of all the land' would take its oath to support the twenty-five. Might this too be stillborn? And there was another point. The Charter itself gave no indication as to how it was to be distributed and publicized, unlike the Golden Bull issued by the king of Hungary in . John certainly wanted everyone to know that he had graciously granted a charter and that it had led to peace, but as for letting anyone know of its poisonous contents, that was another matter. He would give no help to making these widely known; indeed the Charter did not require him to do so.
伦敦协议提及了约翰6月19日的信，并与约翰的信相同，这些信函启动了每个郡的十二名骑士的宣誓和工作。 这些同样可以被看作是约翰强迫的新让步，作为和平的条件。第48章说，如果事先通知国王或司法官，民选骑士将立即调查地方侵权行为，并在四十天内废除，但没有说明选举的方式和时间。毫无疑问，约翰希望调查可能会拖延很长时间，如果它真的发生的话。同样，在担保条款中，没有说明“所有土地的公社”将如何以及何时宣誓支持二十五人。这也可能是胎死腹中吗？还有一点。宪章本身没有说明如何分发和宣传它，这与匈牙利国王在 .约翰当然想让每个人都知道，他慷慨地授予了宪章，并导致了和平，但至于让任何人知道其中的有毒内容，那是另一回事。他不会帮助使这些广为人知;事实上，《宪章》并没有要求他这样做。

John had been outmanoeuvred. By issuing the Charter on Is June, he had indicated that he would give no more. The barons had called his bluff and more he had indeed given. He had dismissed Peter des Roches, made the agreement over London and set in motion the oath to the twenty-five and the work of the knights. In return, John extracted, on his part, some minimal returns. In the presence of Archbishop Langton and fellow bishops, the barons promised that they would give him whatever security he wished (other than surrendering castles and hostages) for the observation of the peace. The fact that this was an oral promise, of which no record was made, shows the weakness of John's position. He also failed to get anything more than oral undertakings in another crucial area. Later he was to claim that, according to the 'reformation of peace', all castles and lands seized during the war were to be returned by 15 August, so by the date laid down in the London treaty. In addition, all prisoners held at the time of the peace were to be released and outstanding ransoms pardoned. These stipulations were clearly important for John's supporters, who had suffered during the war, yet they appear in neither the Charter nor the London treaty. Some echo of John's demands may have reached the Anonymous of Béthune, who believed that the twenty-five were to redress the wrongs that John himself had suffered, but again there was nothing about this in the actual Charter.
约翰被打败了。通过发布《六月宪章》，他表示他不会再给予。男爵们称他为虚张声势，他确实给了更多。他解雇了彼得·德·罗什，在伦敦达成了协议，并启动了对二十五人的宣誓和骑士的工作。作为回报，约翰从中获得了一些最低限度的回报。当着兰顿大主教和其他主教的面，男爵们承诺，他们会给他任何他希望的安全保障（除了交出城堡和人质），以观察和平。 这是一个口头的应许，没有记录，这一事实表明了约翰立场的软弱。在另一个关键领域，他也没有得到除了口头承诺之外的任何东西。后来他声称，根据“和平改革”，所有在战争期间夺取的城堡和土地应在8月15日之前归还，即在伦敦条约规定的日期之前归还。此外，所有在和平时期被关押的囚犯都将被释放，未付的赎金将被赦免。 这些规定对于在战争期间遭受苦难的约翰的支持者来说显然很重要，但它们既没有出现在宪章中，也没有出现在伦敦条约中。约翰的要求可能已经传到了贝休恩的匿名者那里，他们认为这二十五个人是为了纠正约翰自己所遭受的冤屈，但实际的宪章中也没有关于这一点的内容。

Even with John's further concessions, not all were satisfied. The Crowland chronicler states that some of the northerners, 'the magnates across the Humber', left Runnymede and, claiming that they had not been there (and thus not included in the peace), resumed hostilities. The failure to deal with the afforestations of Henry II must have been a particular grievance. Nonetheless, the majority of the barons decided to accept the improved offer and return to the king's peace. Once John was certain of that, which seems to have been by the evening of , he was determined to ensure that the peace went through. It was thus on 18 June itself that he wrote to one of his captains, Stephen Harengod, announcing the making of peace 'on Friday next after the feast of St Trinity at Runnymede' (so on 19 June), which would have been true by the time the letter arrived. Haringod was then warned to do nothing to disturb the peace 'as you love us and our honour and your body'? 65
即使约翰进一步让步，也不是所有人都满意。克罗兰编年史家指出，一些北方人，“亨伯河对岸的权贵”离开了朗尼米德，并声称他们没有去过那里（因此不包括在和平中），恢复了敌对行动。 未能处理亨利二世的植树造林问题，一定是特别的不满。尽管如此，大多数男爵还是决定接受改进的提议，并恢复国王的和平。一旦约翰确定了这一点，这似乎是在那天晚上 ，他决心确保和平得以实现。因此，正是在6月18日，他写信给他的一位船长斯蒂芬·哈伦戈德（Stephen Harengod），宣布“在朗尼米德的圣三一节之后的下一个星期五”（即6月19日）实现和平，这在信到达时是真的。然后，哈林戈德被警告不要做任何扰乱和平的事情，“因为你爱我们，爱我们的荣誉，爱你的身体”？65

For all this, John had accepted the Charter and then made further concessions. His immediate aim was simply to end the civil war. He saw Magna Carta as a peace treaty, hence the way that 'peace and liberties' were linked together in the security clause. The first was to be paid for by the second. John's hope was that everyone, having achieved the Charter, would lay down their arms and go home. Whether they would then manage to implement the concessions remained to be seen. John, after all, still retained control of his castles (other than the Tower) and was still able to appoint whom he liked to local office. There were also elements in Magna Carta to exploit. John could insist that magnates obey the Charter in their dealings with their men, as chapter 60 said they should. He might give justice to everyone, or at least everyone who was free, by developing the common law. The Charter also left significant royal powers intact. John could tallage the towns and tax the Jews at will. He retained the royal forest as it had been under Henry II. He could appoint whomever he liked as his ministers, both at the centre and in the localities, providing that they knew the law of the kingdom, whatever that meant. He could also still give patronage, and reward his servants, as he liked. In terms of what he had to give, he retained his rights over wardships (even if they were not to be pillaged) and over the marriages of heirs (even
对于这一切，约翰接受了宪章，然后做出了进一步的让步。他的直接目标只是结束内战。他认为《大宪章》是一项和平条约，因此在安全条款中将“和平与自由”联系在一起。第一个是由第二个支付的。约翰的希望是，每个人在获得宪章后，都会放下武器回家。他们是否会设法实施这些让步还有待观察。毕竟，约翰仍然保留着对他的城堡（塔楼除外）的控制权，并且仍然能够任命他喜欢的人担任地方公职。《大宪章》中也有一些元素可以利用。约翰可以坚持要求权贵在与人打交道时遵守宪章，正如第60章所说的那样。 他可能会通过发展普通法来为每个人，或者至少是每个自由的人伸张正义。《宪章》还保留了重要的王权。约翰可以随意占领城镇并向犹太人征税。他保留了亨利二世统治时期的皇家森林。他可以任命任何他喜欢的人作为他的大臣，无论是在中央还是在地方，只要他们知道王国的法律，无论这意味着什么。他仍然可以随心所欲地给予赞助和奖励他的仆人。就他必须给予的东西而言，他保留了对监护权（即使它们不会被掠夺）和继承人婚姻的权利（甚至
if they were not to be disparaged). He could still expect a flow of land into his hands through forfeitures and escheats. Provided the Charter was not rigorously enforced, it was not impossible that he could live with it over the longer term.
如果他们不被贬低）。他仍然可以期待通过没收和代管将土地流入他的手中。只要《宪章》没有得到严格执行，他就不可能长期忍受《宪章》。

Both John and his opponents, therefore, decided to make peace. Friday, I9 June was the day of the ceremony. In what perhaps was a procession, like that at a coronation, the barons did homage to the king, renewed their oaths of fealty and received a kiss of peace - something Henry II had conspicuously denied Becket at their last meeting. John then sealed the reconciliation with a great feast, just as he had done on his papal absolution in 1213 . His demeanour was calm and jovial. On 20 June, at Runnymede, four members of the twenty-five - the earl of Clare, William de Mowbray, Eustace de Vesci and Roger de Montbegon - and another major rebel, Gilbert de Gant, witnessed a royal charter alongside loyalist barons. had welcomed them back into the circle of the court. Whatever his real intentions, the king had every reason for pretending he was born again in spirit. This would make it all the more likely that the rebellion would end and less likely that the Charter would be enforced.
因此，约翰和他的反对者都决定媾和。6月9日星期五是仪式的日子。在加冕典礼上的游行中，男爵们向国王致敬，重新宣誓效忠，并接受了和平之吻——亨利二世在最后一次会面时明显否认了贝克特。约翰随后用一场盛大的宴会结束了和解，就像他在 1213 年赦免教皇时所做的那样。他的举止平静而愉快。 6 月 20 日，在朗尼米德，25 人中的四名成员——克莱尔伯爵、威廉·德·莫布雷、尤斯塔斯·德·韦西和罗杰·德·蒙贝贡——以及另一位主要叛乱者吉尔伯特·德·甘特与忠诚的男爵一起见证了皇家宪章。 欢迎他们回到宫廷的圈子里。无论他的真实意图是什么，国王完全有理由假装他在精神上重生了。这将使叛乱更有可能结束，而《宪章》得到执行的可能性更小。

As John feasted with the barons on I9 June, both sides knew that a contest over the Charter was about to begin. John wanted it to bring peace, which meant the disbanding of rebel armies and the restoration of royal authority in the localities. In his mind, the precise details of the Charter were best forgotten, if indeed they ever became known. John's opponents, on the other hand, wanted the Charter rigorously enforced. Some wanted to go beyond it. That these divergent ambitions would lead to the failure of the Charter and the renewal of civil war was always likely, but not inevitable, or at least it did not seem so at the time. Sometime in the month following Magna Carta, Alan Basset took out a nine-month lease that was to run from 20 July 'next after the concord made between the king and his barons at Runnymede'. Alan was one of the counsellors on whose advice John had granted the Charter. He was a man in the know. Yet he evidently did not think the concord was about to collapse. In the cause of peace, John himself was prepared to implement certain aspects of the Charter. Thus at Runnymede on 23 June, he issued orders sending home the foreign knights and serjeants who had arrived at Dover. This was to fulfil the Charter's chapter , under which immediately after the peace he was to remove the foreign soldiers who had come 'to the harm of the kingdom'. John doubtless hoped that in return the barons would disarm too.
当约翰在6月9日与男爵们共进晚餐时，双方都知道关于宪章的较量即将开始。约翰希望它带来和平，这意味着解散叛军并恢复当地的王室权威。在他看来，《宪章》的确切细节最好被遗忘，如果它们真的为人所知的话。另一方面，约翰的反对者希望宪章得到严格执行。有些人想超越它。这些不同的野心将导致《宪章》的失败和内战的重新开始，这总是可能的，但不是不可避免的，或者至少在当时似乎不是这样。在《大宪章》颁布后的一个月里，艾伦·巴塞特（Alan Basset）签订了一份为期九个月的租约，该租约将从7月20日开始，“在国王和他的男爵们在朗尼米德达成和解之后”。 艾伦是约翰根据他的建议授予宪章的顾问之一。他是一个知情的人。然而，他显然不认为和谐即将崩溃。在和平事业中，约翰本人准备执行《宪章》的某些方面。因此，6 月 23 日，他在朗尼米德发布命令，将抵达多佛尔的外国骑士和军士送回国。 这是为了履行《宪章》的一章，根据该章 ，在和平之后，他将立即驱逐那些“伤害王国”的外国士兵。约翰无疑希望作为回报，男爵们也会解除武装。

If the Charter was to be enforced, its contents had obviously to be made known. In Hungary, the Golden Bull itself declared that
如果要执行《宪章》，显然必须公布其内容。在匈牙利，金牛本身宣称
there were to be seven engrossments, and went on to stipulate who should receive them. One was to go to the pope to be copied into his Register. Magna Carta, by contrast, gave no clue as to the destination of its engrossments. John's letters of ig June seem to be more informative, although, as we will see, misleadingly so. In the letters, issued to the sheriffs in each county, John informed them of the peace 'as you can hear and see from our charter, which we have caused to be made, which also wehave ordered to be publicly read through all your hailiwick and firmly held'. The sheriffs were also instructectro obey and enforce the Charter. Not unnaturally, this has led many historians)te assume that the Charter was sent to the sheriff and thus there was one for each county. Indeed, Ralph of Coggeshall states that the form of peace was set out in a charter, in such manner that each county had its own charter authenticated by the royal seal'. There are good reasons, however, for thinking this was not exactly the case. Coggeshall's own statement may be no more than a deduction from the r9 June letters, of which he evidently had k6owledge. The letters of I9 June said the sheriffs were to heat and obey the Charter, certainly, but not that they would receive it or should themselves proclaim it. Indeed, the letters gave no indication at all about the mechanics of distribution and proclamation. All this was strikingly different from the procedure in February 12I 8 when the sheriffs were sent the new version of the Charter and told to have it read in their fully attended county courts. Nothing like that happened in I2I 5 . In part, this was by John's deliberate design. The last thing he wanted was for everyone to know the precise details of the Charter. He was damned if he would tell the sheriffs to proclaim it.
有七次全神贯注，并继续规定谁应该接受它们。一个是去教皇那里抄写到他的登记册上。 相比之下，《大宪章》没有给出任何关于其全神贯注的目的地的线索。约翰在 ig June 的信件似乎信息量更大，尽管正如我们将看到的那样，具有误导性。在发给每个县的治安官的信中，约翰告诉他们和平，“正如你们从我们的宪章中听到和看到的那样，我们已经制定了宪章，我们也下令公开宣读你们所有的海利威克并牢牢持有”。治安官也被指示服从和执行宪章。这并非不自然地导致许多历史学家认为宪章是送给治安官的，因此每个县都有一个。事实上，Coggeshall的拉尔夫（Ralph of Coggeshall）指出，和平的形式是在宪章中规定的，每个县都有自己的宪章，并由皇家印章认证。 然而，有充分的理由认为情况并非如此。Coggeshall自己的陈述可能只不过是从r9 June信件中推导出来的，他显然有k6owledge。I9 June的信中说，治安官们当然要热情并遵守宪章，但不是说他们会接受它或应该自己宣布它。事实上，这些信件根本没有说明分发和宣告的机制。所有这一切都与 12I 8 年 2 月的程序截然不同，当时治安官收到了新版宪章，并被告知在他们完全出席的县法院宣读它。 I2I 5 中没有发生过这样的事情。在某种程度上，这是约翰故意设计的。 他最不想看到的就是让每个人都知道《宪章》的确切细节。如果他告诉治安官宣布它，他就会被诅咒。

In being reluctant to send the Charter to the sheriffs, John was, however, of one mind with the barons, although for different reasons. The last thing the barons wanted was to rely on the sheriffs for the Charter's preservation and proclamation, given that the sheriffs were the very people under the Charter's attack. The baronial problem here lay in their failure to assert control over local appointments. John remained free to choose whom he liked as his sheriffs and castellans. Indeed he staged a reshuffle in the week after the peace.7 The only local officials the Charter sought to remove were the relations of Gerard d'Athée. Here slowly and grudgingly between 2 and 20 July, John complied, moving Geoffrey de Martigny, Engelard de Cigogné, and Andrew and Peter de
然而，由于不愿意将宪章送给治安官，约翰与男爵们意见一致，尽管原因不同。男爵们最不想看到的就是依靠治安官来维护和宣告宪章，因为治安官正是受到宪章攻击的人。这里的男爵问题在于他们未能控制地方任命。约翰仍然可以自由选择他喜欢的人作为他的治安官和城堡主。事实上，他在和平之后的一周内进行了一次改组，7宪章试图罢免的唯一地方官员是杰拉德·达西的关系。7 月 2 日至 20 日，约翰在这里缓慢而勉强地服从了，将杰弗里·德·马蒂尼、恩杰拉德·德·西戈涅、安德鲁和彼得·德
Chanceaux out of their castles and counties. But if their replacements were more acceptable (one was Hubert de Burgh), they were just as loyal to King John. John never obeyed the Charter when it came to removing Philip Marc from Nottingham castle and the sheriffdom of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.
Chanceaux 走出了他们的城堡和县城。但是，如果他们的替代者更容易被接受（其中一位是休伯特·德·伯格），他们同样忠于约翰国王。 约翰在将菲利普·马克从诺丁汉城堡以及诺丁汉郡和德比郡的治安官领地驱逐时从未遵守宪章。

The barons, therefore, had to make their own arrangements for the publication of the Charter. They had doubtless acquired some engrossments at Runnymede itself, but they needed many more for distribution around the country. The trouble was that only John and his chancery could issue authentic engrossments validated by the royal seal. Here, then, the barons were completely in John's hands. They were not easy hands to be in. There was firstly the practical problem that each Charter took hours to write out. After that, it needed to be sealed, which could produce more delay. A big effort was needed to produce large numbers of Charters in one go, and John had no intention of galvanizing the chancery into making it. The process of extracting engrossments from him became like extracting teeth.
因此，男爵们必须为《宪章》的出版做出自己的安排。毫无疑问，他们在Runnymede本身获得了一些全神贯注，但他们需要更多才能在全国范围内分发。麻烦的是，只有约翰和他的大法官才能签发由皇家印章验证的真实全神贯注。那么，在这里，男爵们完全掌握在约翰的手中。他们不是容易进入的人。首先是实际问题，即每个宪章都需要几个小时才能写出来。 之后，它需要密封，这可能会产生更多的延迟。要一口气制作出大量的宪章，需要付出巨大的努力，而约翰无意激励大法官们去制作它。从他身上拔出全神贯注的过程变得像拔牙一样。

Adding up, we have here thirteen Charters in all. What were the two bishops and Elyas of Dereham to do with them? Here the distribution list is of no help. Whereas, with the 19 June letters, it both cites the recipients and then the counties for which the letters were destined, with the Charters it just cites the recipients. The reason for that is clear. Since the letters were addressed to the king's
加起来，我们这里总共有13个宪章。两位主教和迪勒姆的伊利亚斯与他们有什么关系？在这里，通讯组列表没有帮助。然而，在6月19日的信件中，它既引用了收件人，又引用了信件的目的地县，而在宪章中，它只引用了收件人。原因很清楚。由于这些信是写给国王的
ministers in each county, they each had a county destination indicated at their start. The Charters, with their general address, did not have a county destination and so could go anywhere. They could, of course, have gone to the counties but we may be fairly sure that did not happen, at least not immediately. Their destination instead was the bishop and the diocese. It was Ivor Rowlands who first came up with this idea, pointing out that the thirteen Charters in the list corresponded exactly to the number of dioceses with bistrops in post in 1215. The annals of Dunstable, moreover, state specificatty that the etharters were 'deposited through each bishopric in safe places'. The safe places almost certainly were the cathedral churches, where the Charters would be accessible to anyone who wanted to inspect them. Three Charters, the list shows, went specifically to bishops, one to the bishop of Worcester and two to the bishop of Lincoln. The fact that the bishop of Lincoln also received the letters of I9 June for Oxfordshire and Bedfordshire has led to the suggestion that his two Charters were intended for those counties, both of which were within his diocese. But the two entries, although consecutive, are clearly separated, that about the Charters being a new 'item'. A perfectly plausible hypothesis is that one Charter was for the diocese of Lincoln while the other was for the diocese of Bath and Glastonbury, where the bishop, Jocelyn of Wells, was the brother of the bishop of Lincoln, Hugh of Wells. The tincolndiocesan destination fits perfectly with Lincoln cathedral's having been the home of one of the engrossments apparently from the start. The Lincoln engrossment has 'LINCOLNIA' written twice in capital letters on the back, almost certainly by the scribe of the Charter itself. Evidently, he knew its destination, which could easily have been the case if it was one of the two taken by the bishop.
每个县的部长们，他们每个人都在开始时标明了一个县的目的地。宪章的一般地址没有县级目的地，因此可以去任何地方。当然，他们本可以去各县，但我们可以相当肯定这没有发生，至少不会立即发生。相反，他们的目的地是主教和教区。艾弗·罗兰兹（Ivor Rowlands）首先提出了这个想法，他指出，列表中的13个宪章与1215年在职的教区数量完全一致。此外，邓斯特布尔的编年史明确指出，埃萨特人“通过每个主教区存放在安全的地方”。 几乎可以肯定，安全的地方是大教堂教堂，任何想要检查它们的人都可以访问宪章。名单显示，有三份宪章专门发给主教，一份给伍斯特主教，两份给林肯主教。林肯主教也收到了牛津郡和贝德福德郡的 I9 June 信件，这一事实导致人们认为他的两份宪章是针对这两个县的，这两个县都在他的教区内。但是，这两个条目虽然是连续的，但显然是分开的，即宪章是一个新“项目”。一个完全合理的假设是，一份宪章是针对林肯教区的，而另一份是针对巴斯和格拉斯顿伯里教区的，那里的主教威尔斯的乔斯林是林肯主教威尔斯的休的兄弟。锡哥伦布教区的目的地与林肯大教堂完美契合，显然从一开始就是其中一个全神贯注的所在地。 林肯全神贯注的背面用大写字母写了两次“LINCOLNIA”，几乎可以肯定是宪章本身的抄写员写的。显然，他知道它的目的地，如果它是主教带走的两艘船之一，情况很容易就如此。

What then of the ten Charters received by Elyas of Dereham? Elyas was the steward of Archbishop Langton, and was close to other bishops. It woutdseem, then, highly likely that he passed to the bishops the Charters which he had obtained. This would explain again how two more of the sufviving originals were both preserved, probably from the start, at cathedrals, namely Salisbury and Canterbury. The Salisbury Magna Carta is written in a much more format hand than the other three originals, which seem typical chancery products, and it may be that Dereham, imperuning for Châters, persuaded the chancery to accept outside help in writing them. As for the engrossment now shown to have been kept at Canterbury cathedral, Dereham, with Archbishop Langton's approval, probably sent it there direct. That it was the Charter intended for the diocese and not for Langton personally is shown by the fact that it was kept at the cathedral as opposed to Lambeth palace or the archbishop's treasury at the priory of St Gregory at Canterbury.
那么，Dereham 的 Elyas 收到的十个宪章中有什么呢？伊利亚斯是兰顿大主教的管家，与其他主教关系密切。 因此，他极有可能将他获得的宪章交给了主教们。这将再次解释为什么另外两件幸存的原件可能从一开始就保存在大教堂，即索尔兹伯里和坎特伯雷。索尔兹伯里大宪章的格式比其他三份原件要多得多，这似乎是典型的大法官产品，可能是迪勒姆为了不为查特斯而说服大法官接受外部帮助来撰写它们。至于现在被证明保存在坎特伯雷大教堂的全神贯注，迪勒姆在兰顿大主教的批准下，可能直接把它送到了那里。它是为教区而不是兰顿个人准备的宪章，这一事实表明它被保存在大教堂而不是兰贝斯宫或坎特伯雷圣格雷戈里修道院的大主教宝库中。

For the baronial party, the bishops and their cathedrals were far safer custodians of the Charter than were the sheriffs and their castles, from which the Charter might never again emerge. The brothers Hugh and Jocelyn of Wells, the bishops of Lincoln and Bath and Glastonbury, were former chancery clerks of King John, but they had defied him during the Interdict and gone into exile. Hugh's views on Gerard d'Athée's kin must have paralleled Langton's. In his will, drawn up in 1212 while in exile, Hugh left 40 marks to an unnamed Nottinghamshire knight whose daughter Gerard 'wished to have' for his son. One suspects this was the amount the knight handed over to rescue his daughter from the marriage. Later, in 1219 , heading the judges on eyre in Lincolnshire, Hugh and his colleagues wrote a magisterial letter setting out their duty to give justice to all, rich and poor alike, and explaining how the whole county court had rallied behind Gilbert de Gant in support of the 'common liberty of all the kingdom conceded and sworn', a clear reference to the Charter. The bishop of Worcester, Walter de Grey, had been John's chancellor, but he had bought the position for its profits and played little part in day-to-day government. The bishop's positive attitude to the Charter can be judged from the way he took possession both of an engrossment and the i9 June letter for Worcestershire. Perhaps the only bishop who might be suspected of evil designs on the Charter was Peter des Roches of Winchester. Indeed, the Charter had effectively cost him his job as justiciar. Perhaps, in this case, Elyas of Dereham sent the Charter for the Winchester diocese direct to the monks of Winchester cathedral, with whom des Roches was frequently at odds.
对于男爵党来说，主教和他们的大教堂是宪章的守护者，比治安官和他们的城堡要安全得多，宪章可能永远不会再出现。威尔斯的休和乔斯林兄弟，林肯、巴斯和格拉斯顿伯里的主教，曾是约翰国王的大法官，但他们在禁制期间违抗他并流亡。休对杰拉德·达·阿瑟（Gerard d'Athée）亲属的看法一定与兰顿（Langton）相似。在1212年流亡期间起草的遗嘱中，休将40马克留给了一位不知名的诺丁汉郡骑士，他的女儿杰拉德“希望”他的儿子拥有。有人怀疑这是骑士为了从婚姻中解救女儿而交出的金额。 后来，在1219年，休和他的同事们在林肯郡领导法官，写了一封治安信，阐述了他们为所有人伸张正义的职责，无论贫富，并解释了整个县法院如何团结在吉尔伯特·德·甘特身后，支持“所有王国的共同自由”。 明确提及《宪章》。 伍斯特主教沃尔特·德·格雷（Walter de Grey）曾是约翰的财政大臣，但他为了利润而购买了这个职位，在日常政府中几乎没有发挥什么作用。主教对《宪章》的积极态度可以从他全神贯注和6月9日写给伍斯特郡的信函中判断出来。也许唯一可能被怀疑在宪章上有邪恶设计的主教是温彻斯特的彼得·德·罗什。事实上，《宪章》实际上使他失去了司法官的工作。也许，在这种情况下，迪勒姆的伊利亚斯将温彻斯特教区的宪章直接发送给温彻斯特大教堂的僧侣，德罗什经常与他们发生争执。

Once the Charters of the Charter were safely housed at the cathedrals, the intention was not for them to remain there treasured in magnificent obscurity. Rather they were to be inspected and copied. Both engrossments and copies could also be circulated in the surrounding country. That, of course, was the more necessary since dioceses usually embraced several counties. Lincoln's indeed
一旦《宪章》的宪章被安全地安置在大教堂中，其目的并不是让它们留在宏伟的默默无闻中。相反，它们将被检查和复制。 全神贯注和副本也可以在周边国家流通。当然，这是更必要的，因为教区通常包括几个县。林肯的确实