Richard Topcliffe was the most infamous torturer of Elizabethan England. He was also a professional reader. Historians of the book are interested in how repressive regimes read the books of their enemies. This essay identifies a number of books that contain Topcliffe's marginalia and have not previously been studied by scholars. It argues that Topcliffe's reading was forensic in nature, and was utilized directly by the Elizabethan regime in its campaign against Catholicism. This investigation reveals the connection between racking and reading, and demonstrates the ways in which Topcliffe's reading legitimated state-authorized violence. offered valuable assistance. 1 I give dates in New Style, expand abbreviations and supply conjectural emendations using square brackets, and omit the abbreviation "sig." in signature references. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. 2 J. A. Morris, 2.Renaissance Quarterly 72 (2019): 492-536

Early Stuart history plays by William Shakespeare and Samuel Rowley join an ongoing debate over the continued cultural relevance of Henry VIII to the Stuart Court. In anachronistic representations of the Tudor king, both playwrights lodge typological arguments designed to flatter the perceived interests and agendas of their respective patrons, King James and Prince Henry Frederick. This evidence raises larger implications concerning the potential of Shakespearean-era plays to offer royal counsel and shape opinion. At stake are competing narratives of the Henrician Reformation that could legitimate differing ideological commitments concerning history and English Protestant orthodoxy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract