This thesis presents a series of studies in early modern manuscript culture based on Chetham’s Library MS A.4.15 (MC15). These studies develop an understanding of the reception of texts in manuscripts through an analysis of their copying, dissemination and collection: concepts which are linked by their treatment of manuscripts collections as texts whose processes of production are indelibly registered in their physical form. Chapter 1 reviews the methods by which scholars have engaged with manuscript collections, and proposes that a series of ‘object studies’ based on texts from MC15 is a strong way of engaging with the collection, allowing ready comparisons of diverse material characteristics. Chapter 2 extends these arguments through close analysis of the processes of production of several manuscript collections, culminating in an extended critical description of MC15. Chapters 3 to 6 read a series of texts of MC15 in comparison with other copies. Chapter 3 argues that handwriting analysis gives essential evidence for different modes of copying epigrams, and suggests the ways in which they are significant. Chapter 4 presents an account of a verse libel that was copied many times in the seventeenth century; building on the work of the previous chapter, it argues that the material dimension of manuscript libels have a great deal to offer more general narratives of early Stuart history. Chapter 5 concerns letters of the second Earl of Essex, whose reception in various combinations of material in manuscript collections are best contextualised through readings found in print. Chapter 6, a study of metrical psalms, contextualizes the very limited dissemination of metrical psalms by amateur and professional scribes within a ‘psalm culture’ dominated by print. Taken collectively, the chapters of this thesis attest to the heterogeneity of MC15 as a collection; through their attention to processes of copying, dissemination and collection, they demonstrate some of the most characteristic features of early modern manuscripts.

Despite Carl Gustav Jung’s acknowledgement of Albert Einstein’s influence on his thinking, and despite the significant number of studies into Jung’s interest in physics – and his collaboration with the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli – so far there has been no thorough investigation into the connection between Jung and Einstein. This thesis researches the historical context of the relationship between Jung and Einstein, and the extent of Einstein’s influence on Jung’s concepts and system of psychology, and thereby redresses the balance of the theoretical argument about the intellectual influences on Jung from the field of physics. First, it explores the dynamics and importance of the relationship between the two men, and reconstructs the narrative of this connection. It identifies other key figures who played a mediating role between Jung and Einstein and investigates their involvement in conveying Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity to Jung as well as their part in the formation and subsequent deterioration of the relationship between Jung and Einstein. Secondly, this thesis analyses Einstein’s influence on Jung's reconceptualization of libido as psychic energy, and Jung’s employment of the theory of relativity in his writings, which culminates in his conception of the ‘psychic relativity of space and time’, the idea that underpins his theory of synchronicity.

This research is concerned with aspects of the long running debate about 'What is History?' It focuses on the recent postmodern sceptical challenge to traditional historiography by Keith Jenkins, Alun Munslow and Beverley Southgate and the rebuttal of that challenge by empirical historians such as Richard Evans, Arthur Marwick and Perez Zagorin. The problem with this controversy is that its grounds are narrow. The exchanges have polarised around a particular postmodern treatment of scepticism, arguing for and against whether present empirical methods are capable of providing adequate explanations of the past. What I hope to contribute to this debate is a broadening of its frame of reference to a more general question of how historians might respond to wider questions about the nature of knowledge in the face of apparent epistemological uncertainty. I am using the concept of 'aporia' to express this sense of ultimate uncertainty about the possibility of true, objective, knowledge. The study takes seriously the scepticism of both positions - empirical as well as postmodern - and it does this in two ways. First, it places contemporary empiricism into an historical context that includes the empiricism of sophists and pyrrhonists of the ancient world, of Hume in the enlightenment, of Comte and J. S. Mill in the nineteenth century and more recently the radical empiricism of American pragmatism. This part of the study concludes that empiricism has long been associated with philosophical scepticism to the extent that it can be regarded as a legitimate and traditional, if sometimes unselfconscious, response to aporia. Thus scepticism can be thought to be integral to this approach to knowledge, not corrosive of it. Attempts by contemporary empirical historians to overcome the postmodern challenge by arguing for objective certainty in history, are therefore unnecessary and inappropriate. Similarly, postmodern critiques of empirical historiography that simply direct attention to the existence of aporia, rather than discuss forms of response to it, demonstrate a weakness in their analysis of empiricism. Second, the study contextualises this controversy within a broader debate about how other groups of historians are currently responding to issues of aporia. It notes how some contemporary Marxist historians, for example Patrick Joyce, are opening a fruitful dialogue with poststructural linguistic theorists, developing interpretative concepts of a cultural kind that are thought to function more flexibly than traditional ones. Overall the research concludes that the negativity of the postmodern critique, which seems to suffuse much discussion of historical theory and methods, is not a necessary outcome of such explorations. A broader view, taking into account how empiricism has functioned in the past, and how it is evolving in branches of the discipline, shows the possibility of more positive, reflexive approaches to scepticism and to the role of interpretation in the making of historical knowledge.

This study investigates the effect of the application of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia on the finality of arbitral awards on the basis of questions of law and public policy. International arbitration laws tend to circumvent the two issues by limiting the scope of their applicability. Based on the need to retain a degree of authority over enforcement of arbitral awards and other internationally issued legal determinations, this study finds that the Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 Act has some positive features and moves closer to international law in comparison to the Old Saudi Law, specifically on the issue of finality. The study finds that although not on a par with international law, it is a step in the right direction for Saudi Law to work more flexibly in the international sphere with issues involving finality. Where in the past, issues would not have been resolved due to the refusal to enforce arbitral awards, a more facilitating scenario comes about and the scope of enforcement of finality is set to rise due to the New Saudi Law. In addition, this study finds that the Saudi 2012 Act demonstrates the willingness of the Kingdom to cooperate with international laws. Although this is a breakthrough in dealing with finality, a fundamental principle of Saudi law is that the new Saudi law Act conforms to Sharia and the Kingdom’s public policy. However, with a lack of empirical cases specifically involving the New Saudi Law, it is yet to be established that it has achieved the positive impact intended. This study supports continued efforts and ultimately recommends the decision to work towards the amendment of Saudi law to better aid the achievement of finality without undue subjection to unnecessary scrutiny based on public policy requirements and also to realign Saudi public policy with international standards while maintaining fidelity to the values and principles of Sharia law.