| Sammanfattning: | <p>This thesis provides the first scholarly edition of a landmark treatise on the Elizabethan succession, written in 1567 by the eminent common lawyer, Edmund Plowden. In it, Plowden set out to prove that Mary Queen of Scots’ foreign birth did not invalidate her hereditary claim to the English throne, as her Protestant opponents in England had alleged. Circulating widely in manuscript, Plowden’s treatise proved highly influential in the fierce legal and political debates of the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. Although multiple scribal copies survive, Plowden’s treatise has never appeared in print, nor has it received a proper critical edition. Due to its relative inaccessibility, the significance of Plowden’s treatise has been largely overlooked and underexplored. This thesis therefore offers a timely, authoritative edition, based on a thorough collation of all known manuscript witnesses of the treatise, as well as a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study of Plowden’s arguments.</p>
<p>The thesis comprises two volumes. Following a contextual analysis of the debate over the Elizabethan succession in the mid-1560s, the first volume explores Plowden’s legal, constitutional, and historical arguments in defence of the Stewart succession. Throughout this analysis, I demonstrate the integral function of the doctrine of the king’s two bodies in Plowden’s refutation of the legal ignoramuses who had previously intervened in the succession debate. The first volume concludes by attesting to the lasting impact of Plowden’s arguments in the half-century following its initial composition.</p>
<p>The second volume contains an editorial introduction — in which I justify my editorial principles, describe the various manuscript witnesses of Plowden’s treatise, and elucidate the order of composition and relationships among the scribal copies — followed by the edition proper. Ultimately, this thesis aims to stimulate further research and exploration of Plowden’s influential treatise, not only by legal scholars but also by historians and literary critics.</p>
|
|---|