Reexamining the Evidence Regarding Adam Pinkhurst, Scrivener
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10778450 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Linne R Mooney (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 99 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 697-712 |
| Publication date | 2024-07-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Speculum (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0038-7134 • E-ISSN: 2040-8072 |
| Publisher | University of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1086/730614 |
| OpenAlex | W4400073842 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
Jane Roberts and more recently Lawrence Warner have questioned whether the script of Adam Pinkhurst’s oath in the Scriveners’ Common Paper is a match for the hand of major literary manuscripts Ian Doyle and Malcolm Parkes attributed to their “scribe B.” This article offers a new analysis of the features of the oath, with Doyle and Parkes’s own descriptions of “scribe B’s” hand as comparison. Roberts and Warner have also raised the question of whether the scrivener Adam Pinkhurst could have copied literary manuscripts in London after 1400 on the basis of a petition to King Henry IV asking that his annuity might henceforth be collected not at the Exchequer in London but from the shrieval farm for the counties of Sussex and Surrey. This article addresses this claim and finds that this petition in no way demonstrates that Pinkhurst had retired or intended to retire to Surrey and therefore that he would have been available for copying in London after 1400
Art · Literature · Colonialism, slavery, and trade · History
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |