tive to the Study of the Law [1600], Plowden's Commentaries, Dyer's Reports and the first volume of Coke's Reports [1600]. This represents a great advance. Already Fulbecke in his curious book (which was reprinted as still useful in 1829) attempts a review of English legal literature: a critical estimate of Dyer, Plowden, Staundford, Perkins and other writers. Lambard's revelation of the Anglo-Saxon laws was not unimportant, for a basis was thus laid for national boasts; and, but for the publication of Glanvill, Bracton and Britton, the work that was done by Coke would have been impossible.
Were any books about Roman law printed in England before 1600, except a few of Gentili's?
The Court of Requests.63 See Mr Leadam's Introduction to Select Pleas in the Court of Requests (Seld. Soc.) and Dict. Nat. Biog. s.n. Caesar, Sir Julius.
Cowell's ‘Interpreter.’64 See Gardiner, Hist. England, 1603—1642, vol. II., pp. 66—68. E. C. Clark, Cambridge Legal Studies, pp. 74—75. Cowell's Institutions (less known than the Interpreter) are an attempt, 'in the main very able,' so Dr Clark says, to bring English materials under Roman rubrics. It is a book which might have played a part in a Reception; but it came too late.
Roman-Dutch law.65 There can now be few, if any, countries outside law - the British Empire in which a rule of law is enforced because it is (or is deemed to be) a rule of Roman
