Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. The Cambridge Law Journal
  4. Content listing
Journal Home

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals: Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies: Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

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
×

9363 results in The Cambridge Law Journal

Page 187 of 469

  • John Bryt's Reports (1410–1411) and the Year Books of Henry IV

  • J. H. Baker
  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 48 / Issue 1 / March 1989
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. 98-114
    Print publication:
    March 1989

  • The anonymity of the year books has puzzled historians for over a century, and generated an extensive literature. Contemporary users of the year books cannot have been much interested in the identity of their authors; and this in itself is a historical fact of some interest. By 1600 there was an obvious difference in quality and authority between the reports of judges, or distinguished lawyers such as Plowden, and the scrappy notes of students below the bar. Both kinds of report circulated in manuscript, but their users were well aware of their relative merits and took notice of the reporters' identities. Why, then, did the medieval lawyer not show the same interest in names? Was it because the production of year books was so much a collaborative effort that identification of individual reporters would have been meaningless? Or was it, on the contrary, because so few reporters were involved that everyone knew who they were? Or was there simply no notion of authority, either legal or historical, to which the reporters' qualities might be relevant? In other words, were the reports evaluated solely on their intrinsic merits as books of potential arguments and procedural moves?

  • CLJ volume 48 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

  • Journal:
    The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 48 / Issue 1 / March 1989
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 January 2009, pp. f1-f2
    Print publication:
    March 1989
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Page 187 of 469