Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Renaissance Quarterly
  4. Volume 30
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Volume 30 - Spring 1977

Contents

Page 2 of 7

Research Article

  • Ruggle's Ignoramus and Humanistic Criticism of the Language of the Common Law

  • E. F. J. Tucker
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 November 2018, pp. 341-350

  • According to contemporary observers, George Ruggle's Ignoramus, first staged at Cambridge in March 1614, enjoyed an immense success, or notoriety, both at the university and at “Whitehall while it sent shockwaves through the Inns of Court and infuriated Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench. The comedy was apparently conceived as an attack upon Francis Brackyn, Recorder of Cambridge and constant adversary of the university, but because of its brilliant and merciless satire of legal jargon, the play achieved a universality which aided James I and the civilian lawyers in their jurisdictional struggles against Coke and the common law bench.

Reviews

Other

Research Article

  • George Herbert's Authorship of ‘To the Queene of Bohemia’

  • Kenneth Alan Hovey
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 November 2018, pp. 43-50

  • In 1870 H. Huth printed for the first time a poem evidently written in the early seventeenth century and bearing the title ‘To the Queene of Bohemia.’ The only sign of its authorship was the ‘G.H.’ printed after it. Aside from these initials no support was offered for the editor's statement that the poem was ‘probably from the pen of George Herbert.’ Four years later A. B. Grosart, apparently ignorant of Huth's book, printed the same poem from a different manuscript and ascribed the poem to George Herbert, not only because his manuscript too was initialed ‘G.H.’ but also because, as he argued, the poem's rhythm, form, and use of metaphors were like those found in The Temple? Further evidence for Herbert's authorship was supplied by the next two major editors of Herbert's works.

Reviews

Meeting Report

Reviews

News

  • News and Notes

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 November 2018, pp. 744-746
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Reviews

Other

Reviews

Front matter

  • RQX volume 30 issue 4 Cover and Front matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 November 2018, pp. f1-f3
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Reviews

Page 2 of 7