William Welwod's treatises on maritime law

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

William Welwod's The Sea-Law of Scotland (1590), An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes (1613) and De dominio maris (1616) are widely known and equally widely understood to have grown out of each other, the 1616 treatise from a chapter of the 1613 treatise, and the 1613 treatise from the central chapters of the 1590 treatise. Less widely known – indeed, entirely neglected – is a fourth treatise, surviving in a single manuscript, which is clearly related to the three that were printed but in a way that casts doubt on the usual understanding of how they were related to each other. This article begins by examining the structure, style and sources of the four treatises, goes on to reconsider the relationship between them, and ends by identifying various contexts in which the treatises will need to be located if they are to be read in a historically sensitive manner.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)172-210
Number of pages39
JournalJournal of Legal History
Volume34
Issue number2
Early online date26 Jul 2013
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2013

Fingerprint

maritime law
Law
Treatise
Maritime Law

Cite this

William Welwod's treatises on maritime law. / Ford, J. D. .

In: Journal of Legal History, Vol. 34, No. 2, 08.2013, p. 172-210.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d814ac8067bf49a1baebcf136a5e80ab,
title = "William Welwod's treatises on maritime law",
abstract = "William Welwod's The Sea-Law of Scotland (1590), An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes (1613) and De dominio maris (1616) are widely known and equally widely understood to have grown out of each other, the 1616 treatise from a chapter of the 1613 treatise, and the 1613 treatise from the central chapters of the 1590 treatise. Less widely known – indeed, entirely neglected – is a fourth treatise, surviving in a single manuscript, which is clearly related to the three that were printed but in a way that casts doubt on the usual understanding of how they were related to each other. This article begins by examining the structure, style and sources of the four treatises, goes on to reconsider the relationship between them, and ends by identifying various contexts in which the treatises will need to be located if they are to be read in a historically sensitive manner.",
author = "Ford, {J. D.}",
year = "2013",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1080/01440365.2013.810380",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "172--210",
journal = "Journal of Legal History",
issn = "0144-0365",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - William Welwod's treatises on maritime law

AU - Ford, J. D.

PY - 2013/8

Y1 - 2013/8

N2 - William Welwod's The Sea-Law of Scotland (1590), An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes (1613) and De dominio maris (1616) are widely known and equally widely understood to have grown out of each other, the 1616 treatise from a chapter of the 1613 treatise, and the 1613 treatise from the central chapters of the 1590 treatise. Less widely known – indeed, entirely neglected – is a fourth treatise, surviving in a single manuscript, which is clearly related to the three that were printed but in a way that casts doubt on the usual understanding of how they were related to each other. This article begins by examining the structure, style and sources of the four treatises, goes on to reconsider the relationship between them, and ends by identifying various contexts in which the treatises will need to be located if they are to be read in a historically sensitive manner.

AB - William Welwod's The Sea-Law of Scotland (1590), An Abridgement of All Sea-Lawes (1613) and De dominio maris (1616) are widely known and equally widely understood to have grown out of each other, the 1616 treatise from a chapter of the 1613 treatise, and the 1613 treatise from the central chapters of the 1590 treatise. Less widely known – indeed, entirely neglected – is a fourth treatise, surviving in a single manuscript, which is clearly related to the three that were printed but in a way that casts doubt on the usual understanding of how they were related to each other. This article begins by examining the structure, style and sources of the four treatises, goes on to reconsider the relationship between them, and ends by identifying various contexts in which the treatises will need to be located if they are to be read in a historically sensitive manner.

U2 - 10.1080/01440365.2013.810380

DO - 10.1080/01440365.2013.810380

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 172

EP - 210

JO - Journal of Legal History

JF - Journal of Legal History

SN - 0144-0365

IS - 2

ER -