Cowell, John, 1554-1611.

Cowell's Interpreter : (English Law, 1607)

The Interpreter, 1607

The Interpreter caused quite a scandal after it was published in 1607. In some of his definitions, Cowell supposedly implied his opinions favoring the absolute sovereignty of the monarchy, insinuating that the King was above the law and could suspend it at his pleasure. This infuriated the Parliament; the Commons strongly disapproved of Cowell's definitions of "King," "Parliament," "Prerogative," "Recoveries," and "Subsidies."

The influential Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke, brilliant jurist in the Court of King James I, was already antagonistic toward Cowell. The two had a complicated dispute. Cowell had endorsed French jurist François Hotoman's critical review of Sir Thomas Littleton's Tenures, and it happened that Coke was one of Littleton's greatest admirers. Coke felt that Cowell was being derogatory toward Littleton, and grew very angry. Others suggest that Coke was moved by professional jealousy. It was said that Cowell, a mere civilian, had knowledge of the Common Law that exceeded Coke's own. Coke seethed with hatred for Cowell, and was a powerful enemy.

King James, already facing an unfriendly Parliament and a hostile Sir Edward Coke, tried to placate them by denouncing Dr. Cowell and his book, issuing a suppression order in 1610. Coke immediately came to the fore and was instrumental in having the book suppressed and publicly burned, and Cowell imprisoned. Cowell surely would have been hanged — Coke certainly threatened it — but for the fact that the King didn't share Coke's hatred of Cowell, and didn't want him to be punished severely. In fact, the King personally believed that Cowell's definitions were accurate. The suppression of the work and order for it to be burned did not destroy it, however; the number of extant copies of the 1607 edition shows that not all owners surrendered their Interpreter. The book was reissued in expurgated form in ten editions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Cowley, lxxxiv).

Tarlton's 1607 Interpreter contains an extract from the suppression order of 1610 pasted into the two end flyleaves, which includes: "When Men goe out of their Element, and meddle with Things above their Capacitie, themselves shall not onely goe astray and stumble in Darknesse, but will mislead also divers others with themselves into many Mistakings and Errours.. the Proofe whereof wee have lately had by a Booke written by Docteur Cowell.. by medling in Matters above his reach, he hath fallen in many Things to mistake and deceive himselfe.. in some Poynts very derogatory to the supreme Power of this Crowne; In other Cases mistaking the true State of the Parliament of this Kingdome.."

Despite its opposition, The Interpreter was considered a fine work of scholarship, much preferred over Les Termes de la Ley, though it quotes from and discusses this work frequently. It also references statutes and authorities in several definitions, leaving the dogmatism of Rastell's definitions behind. It remained the standard dictionary of English law for some time. The Interpreter remains a useful gloss to Coke's Commentary on Littleton and other early legal texts.

For more information, see Harold I. Boucher's fascinating work King James's suppression of The Interpreter and denouncement of Dr. Cowell (San Francisco: s. n. , c.1998). Many thanks to Mr. Boucher for his assistance.  See also John D. Cowley, A Bibliography of Abridgments, Digests, Dictionaries and indexes of English Law, to the year 1800. (Quaritch: London, 1932).

Bibliography