[In the first essay below, Edgerton analyzes Floures for Latine Spekynge in terms of what it reveals about Tudor education and as its relationship to Ralph Roister Doister. In the second and third essays, he examines Udall's intentions and style in his translations of Erasmus.]

FLOURES FOR LATINE SPEKYNGE

Floures for Latine Spekynge probably gives a better understanding of what actually was studied by Tudor schoolboys than the much better known Schoolmaster, by Roger Ascham. Floures is not a scolding admonition, by a schoolmaster who never taught in grammar schools, of what should be taught; but a good example of what the Tudor schoolboy actually studied. In fact, a perusal of Floures explains to some extent that love of words and sometimes exhausting prolixity that are characteristic of Tudor writing. The careful scholarship behind the Floures is attested to by the fact that much of the book was used in a famous Latin-English dictionary of 1548: Thomas Cooper's Bibliotheca Eliotae. In a preface to this work (which was re-issued in 1552 and 1559) Cooper wrote “To the learned man Udall, by whose scholarly annotations our labors have been lightened in many places, give deserved praise and gratitude.”¹

Floures has been analyzed in detail, and its place in Tudor (and especially Shakespeare's) education has been carefully spelled out by T. W. Baldwin in his Five-Acte Structure and Small Latine & Lesse Greeke.² Suffice it here to point out briefly that Udall designed the book to accompany the study of spoken Latin and the reading of Terence by furnishing examples of locutions from Terence that it would be useful to memorize and understand. Since the most difficult constructions in Latin, as in most languages, are the idioms, it is not surprising that Udall emphasized the importance of translating Terentian idioms by avoiding meaningless literal translations, and, instead, of searching for the equivalent English idioms. Here, as in his later translations, Udall insisted on the necessity of paying close attention to the sense of the author rather than being satisfied with word-for-word translations.

A good understanding of what Udall was trying to do can be seen in the title page and preface. The title page reads:

Floures for Latine Spekynge selected and gathered out of Terence, and the same translated into Englyeshe, together with the exposition and settynge forthe as welle of such latyne wordes, as were thought nedefull to be annoted, as also of dyvers grammatical rules, very profytable & necessarye for the expedite knowledge in the latine tongue: Compiled by Nicholas Udall

Udall describes his intentions in the Preface:

I have added wherever it seemed necessary certain scholia as it were, in which both the sense of the poet is explained and the words themselves not a little more clearly declared. Where any outstanding or elegant metaphor is used, I have indicated it. Where any figure occurs, I have noted it. Where any fable comes along I am not bored to narrate it rather at length. If anything which would especially contribute to Latinity appears, I have not passed it by in silence. If anything pertains to grammar, I have not been ashamed to explain it. If any proverb is interspersed, I have illustrated it. If any formula appears a little different from the common, vulgar, and usual method of speaking Latin, I have given the reason, examples and testimonies being cited wherever the matter demands it, and quoted from the best and most approved authors. Finally, that I may make an end, whatever has been objected that seems to be able to retard boyish ability and judgement in reading, however humble or light it may be, I have sedulously noted it.

The “certain scholia” which Udall added illustrate how concerned he was with giving a lively Latin phrase its lively English counterpart. For example, Ne ille haud scit quam mihi nunc surdo narret fabulam Udall discusses in this fashion:

In faith, full little knows he how deaf I am, or how ill I can hear now in this side on which he makes all the clattering unto me. Surdo narrare fabulam—to tell a tale to a deaf body—is a proverb to be said of them that labour in vain. And it is the same that we use to speak proverbially, when we hear what we like not, saying thus: I cannot hear in that side; which may be said properly in Latin: Surdo narras fabulam, or Surdo canis. Verg.

(Floures, 128^r)

I tu huic quo dignus es Udall translates like this: “Get thee hence to the devil. The words sound thus: Go hence whither thou art worthy to go (as who should say) whither thou has deserved to go. And because they are used and spoken always in indignation, they may be aptly and well Englished as afore, for that is our most used manner of speaking in English. (Floures, 128^v)

But aside from the interest in Floures because of what it tells us of Tudor education, there is added interest in its foreshadowings of Roister Doister. Naturally, one would expect to find some similarities between Floures and Roister Doister, for they both are drawn largely from Terence, but what is of special interest are those sections of Floures that contain ideas which later germinated into important parts of the play. For example, a characteristic of Roister Doister is Udall's toning down of Merygreeke's activities to make him resemble more a good-natured English Vice than a self-seeking Latin parasite.

In Eunuchus, Gnatho describes a parasite's technique like this:

There is a class of men who set up for being the head in everything and aren't. It's them I track; I don't aim at making them laugh at me; no, no, I smile on them and stand agape at their intellects. Whatever they say I praise; if again they say the opposite, I praise that too; if one says no, I say no; if one says yes, I say yes. In fact I have given orders to myself to agree with them in everything. That's the trade that pays for the best nowadays.³

When Udall was interested simply in a prose translation of this passage for schoolboys in his Floures for Latine Spekynge, he translated that passage like this:

Such men do I follow at the tail, and among such persons I do not fashion myself, that they may laugh at me, but, contrary-wise, whatsoever they say or do, I show them a merry countenance of my ownself, and also make a great marvelling at their high wits. Whatsoever they say, I commend it; that if they desire the same again, that also I commend; if a man say nay, I say nay also; if he say yea, I say yea too. And for a conclusion, to be short, I master and rule myself to uphold his yea and nay, and to say as he says, in all manner of things, for that is the next way nowadays to get money enough.

(Floures, pp. 67^r-67^v)

Udall borrows the same passage for Roister Doister, but he plays down the parasite's greediness and has Merrygreeke put it this way:

Then must I sooth it, whatever it is,
For what he saith and doeth cannot be amiss;
Hold up his yea and nay, be his nown white son,
Praise and rouse him well, and you have his heart won,
For so well liketh he his own fond fashions
That he taketh pride of false commendations.
But such sport have I with him, as I would not lese [lose]
Though I should be bound to live with bread and cheese.

(Scheurweghs, I, i, 49-55)

Another foreshadowing of Roister Doister can be seen in an earnest grammatical discussion in which Udall provides a kind of rough sketch for the character of Christian Custance.

Non auderet hec facere uiduae mulieri, quae in me fecit. He durst not haue doone unto a wydowe, or a lone womanne, that he hathe done ageynste me. Vidua, duae is a lone woman and a wydowe, whose husbande is decesed: and bicause women (especially such as haue no husbandes to help & defende them, from iniures and wronges) for the mooste parte be nothynge sette by, but had in contempte, which no man careth for, nor fereth to delude and mocke, therefore he useth here that comparison and example.

(Floures, 193^r)

Although much of the comedy in Roister Doister depends on the stout-heartedness of Christian Custance, yet her appeal to the audience stems principally from the sympathy she evokes as a misused widow. For instance, at one point (IV, iii, 1477-82) Christian shows a moment of panic and calls for her page to run for help against the blustering of Roister Doister. When Tristram Trustie comes in answer to her appeal he finds Christian in tears. After explaining how Ralph Roister Doister has threatened her, Christian says

Have I so many years lived a sober life,
And showed myself honest, maid, widow, and wife,
And now to be abused in such a vile sort;
Ye see how widows live all void of comfort.

(ll. 1581-85)

Even more than isolated passages can indicate, the appeal of Christian Custance lies in her situation as a “vidua … a lone woman and a wydowe … which no man feareth to delude and mocke.” Her helplessness as a vidua emphasizes the cowardice of Ralph Roister Doister.

Even if we did not know that Udall wrote Roister Doister, a close reading of Floures for Latine Spekynge would make us suspect strongly that the same man wrote both the book and the play.

APOPHTHEGMES

Udall's Apophthegmes is a translation of twelve of the oral sayings of the ancients collected by Erasmus in his Apophthegemeta. Eight of the twelve names selected are Greek, the other four Roman. Udall adds many notes, and he even differs from Erasmus at times. Another humanist, Richard Taverner, had translated parts of the same book by Erasmus two years before, but Udall's is an independent work. He did, however, make use of a French translation, particularly in showing the value of Classic coins in current terms. His book is a typical Humanist attempt to bring the wisdom and humor of the ancients to a contemporary audience.⁴

In his preface, Udall emphasizes the importance of avoiding a word-for-word translation but, at the same time, of “keeping and following the sense” of Erasmus. He explains that he designed his book especially for “young scholars and students,” although he hopes that both the learned and unlearned reader will enjoy and profit from it. In the extracts from the preface that follow, we should note how he expresses the typical Humanist desire that his translation take the place of popular books, referring perhaps to such romances as those of Guy of Warwick, Bevis of Hampton, and Robin Hood. We note, too, that he concludes his preface with a long note that suggests how carefully he and Richard Grafton, the printer, had worked to make the book accurate.

My only will and desire is to further honest knowledge and to call away (the studious youth in especial) from having delight in reading phantastical trifles which contain in manner nothing but the seninarie [seeds] of pernicious sects and seditious doctrine unto a more fruitful sort of spending good hours, and by inviting the same youth unto the imitation of honest exercise to do good if I may … If any matter depending of some Greek or Roman chronicle has seemed needful to be expounded, if any poetical fable has come in place, if to any obscure proverb or strange history has been made some pretty allusion needful to be declared—all such things, together with the names of the persons here mentioned, you shall find set forth and added of my own noting. …

And to the intent that nothing should lack which to the ease and commodity of the unlearned reader might seem necessary, there is added also a large and plain table in order of the A.B.C. whereby to the name of any person, or to any good matter in the book contained, ready way and recourse may with a wet finger easily be found out. That if any of the premises either the interpreter or else the printer shall be found to have failed, I for my part shall not only think my labours bounteously rewarded, but also acknowledge myself highly bounden to render most hearty thanks if the gentle reader shall of his humanity and honest heart vouchsafe to set his pen and helping hand and to end whatsoever error he shall happen to espy; and in the residue so to accept both our labours as we may thereby be encouraged gladly to sustain further travail in writing and setting forth such authors as may to the reader be both pleasant and profitable.

The ancients included in Udall's Apophthegmes are (in the order in which they appear) Socrates, Aristippus, Diogenes the Cynic, Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great, Antigonus, Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar, Pompey the Great, Phocion, Cicero, and Demosthenes. Although Udall quotes from many authors in his notes, his favorite is Plutarch. A student of Humanism would find much in his references of special interest as to the reading of a learned man at the time; for our purpose it is enough to point out that Udall was obviously widely read in the Classics, especially those of the Greek writers, and, for that matter, may have chosen especially a preponderance of Greeks as part of his feeling, as a true Humanist, that the Greeks were more worth quoting than the Romans (always excepting, of course, Cicero). We have already quoted from this book Udall's remarks about his once having written as a student a defence of drunkenness, and his complaint that horse-keepers get more reward than school-teachers.

Twice Udall politely disagrees with Erasmus. Once, Erasmus, in referring to some words written in sand, suggests that the saying is not properly an Apophthegmes because it was written, but Udall objects: “Words after such sort and for such purpose written may have the force, strength, and place of words with tongue and voice pronounced (218 ^r).” In another place he corrects Erasmus' translation of a Greek word.

When Erasmus mentions Apollodorus, a friend of Socrates, Udall writes: “This Appollodorus was of Athens a poet that wrote comedies; there was another Appollodorus of the same city a teacher of grammar; there were also four more of the same name but of other countries (22 ^r).” In several long notes we get tantalizing suggestions of possible biographical import. For example, a long note on Thersites shows a special interest that would be likely to be found in the author of the play:

“Thersites was one of the Greeks and came among the more [among others] out of the country of Aetolia unto the battlefield of Troy: a great gentleman born, but the worst of feature, of shape, and of favour that possibly might be, and a very coward. Whom Homerus in his second volume of his work entitled Ilias (that is, of the battle of Troy) described both in words and sense, much like as follows:

Among all others, to Troy there came
An evil-favoured guest, called by name
Thersites, a prattler be you sure,
Without all fashion, end, or measure.
Whatsoever came in his foolish brain
Out it should, were it never so vain.
In each man's boat would he have an oar,
But no word to good purpose, less or more.
And without all manner would he presume
With kings and princes to cock and fume.
In feats of arms nought could he do,
Nor had no more heart than a goose thereunto.
All the Greeks did him deride and mock
And had him as their common laughing stock.
Squint-eyed he was, and looked nine ways;
Lame of one leg and limping all his days.
Crump-shouldered and shrunken so ungoodly,
As though he had but half a body.
An head he had at which to jest and scoff,
Copped like a tankard or a sugar loaf.
With a bush pendant underneath his hat,
Three hairs on a side like a drowned rat.

And not long after his arrival to Troy, for that he was so busy of his tongue, so full of chatting and prattling with every king and nobleman of the Greeks, Achilles being moved with his sauciness and importunities, up and gave him such a cuff on the ear that he slew him out of hand with a blow of his fist.”

(180^r-180^v)

Another note seems to refer to his disgrace at Eton, although the connection is obviously conjectural:

Neither did Socrates suppose that person worthy to be called a crafty beguiler of men, who of some foolish body (persuaded thereunto) did receive and take either money or some piece of plate which he was not able to repay; but much rather those persons he pronounced worthy to be accounted deceitful robbers of men which by fraud and guile did make each man to take upon them the rule and governance of the whole world; whereas indeed they are but villains and slaves nothing worthy to be had in estimation. This saying much nearer touches Christian princes, officers, and bishops, than the gentles [gentlefolk] of infidels.

(6^r)

In addition to other notes that reflect the life of the author, there are fascinating references to stage plays and interludes. One allusion, for example, shows clearly that interludes were not put on between courses in a banquet: “‘By Jupiter,’ saith he again [Socrates] ‘it grieves my stomach nothing at all if I be snapped at and bitten with merry taunts at the stage where interludes are played; no more than if it were at a great dinner or banquet where were many guests.’” Erasmus comments: “This custom and usage even yet still endures among certain of the Germans [(yea and in England also) writes Udall] that in feasts of greater resort, there is brought in for the nonce some jesting fellow that may scoff and jest upon the guests as they sit at the table; with the which jesting to be stirred to anger is accounted a thing much contrary to all courtesy and good manners” (34^r).

THE PARAPHRASE OF ERASMUS

When Udall began translating the paraphrases of Erasmus in 1543, they had already been printed in seven Latin editions since 1521, and some of them had been translated into German and French.⁵ These paraphrases owed their popularity to their being, as Udall described them, “a treasury, and in a manner a full library of all good divinity books.” In good Humanist fashion Erasmus had digested and turned into popular form the scholarly annotations of generations of learned commentators on the New Testament. The result was a running commentary, devoid of scholarly apparatus and schoolmen's phrases, by the most famous scholar of the day upon the most important book of the time. Translations of his commentary offered to the vast new audience of the English Bibles that were then being published interesting and enlightening glosses on difficult places in Scripture. Erasmus also offered the new Protestant clergy—woefully inept sometimes, and often possessed of more zeal than learning—a storehouse of materials for sermons. These translations also furnished reformers with propaganda because of Erasmus' none-too veiled criticisms of the Roman church.

A typical paraphrase is Erasmus' commentary on Luke 2:8-14 [I have modernized the Great Bible text, inserted by Udall, and his translation of the commentary by Erasmus]:

And there were in the same region, shepherds watching their flocks by night. And lo! the Angel of the Lord stood hard by them, and the brightness of the Lord shone round about them, and they were sore afraid. And the Angel said unto them: “Be not afraid, for behold! I bring you tidings of great joy that shall come to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord. And take this for a sign: ye shall find the child wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger.” And straightway there was with the Angel a multitude of heavenly soldiers praising God and saying: “Glory to God on high, and peace on the earth and unto men a good will.”

The paraphrase of Erasmus, as Englished by Udall, reads:

Hearken now in what sort this humble poorness of birth is altogether full of princely royalty. There was a tower not far from Bethlehem called in the Hebrew tongue the Tower of Ader (as if you should say in English, the Tower of the Flock), and it was so named because, by reason of the good pasture ground that lay in those parts, there was a very great store of sheep and other cattle pastured. And, indeed, of this Tower of Ader the Prophet Micheas also makes mention, as he does of Bethlehem. There were therefore in those quarters divers shepherds that watched abroad in the night season for safeguard of their flocks. Verily even of the thingself giving a good lesson, what bishops ought of their bounden duty to do for the health of the people committed to their spiritual charge, if they will follow the example or steps of Christ the Prince and Head of all shepherds. And in the night time was that same most bright son of righteousness born, which should on every side put away the darkness of the world. And His pleasure was first of all to have his birth known rather to men of low degree, because He was born after a poor sort, and to shepherds, because he himself was a ghostly pastor, rather than to emperors, to kings, to rulers or deputies of countries, to Pharisees, to Scribes, to Bishops. And lo! suddenly the Angel Gabriel stood on high directly over their heads, and beside him also a strange light suddenly flushed and shone round about the shepherds, which was neither the light of the sun, nor of the moon, nor of any candle.

Udall gives a glimpse of his theory of translating when he describes his method of working on the paraphrases. In his Preface to Luke, addressed to Queen Catherine Parr and dated 1545, Udall writes:

And forasmuch as I consider it to be a paraphrase; that is to say, a plain setting forth of the sense of the text with as many words as the circumstances thereof for the better linking of one sentence to another requires, I have not so precisely bound myself to every word and syllable of the letter, but I have taken more respect to the explanation and declaring of the sense, than to the number of the Latin syllables. In translating of the very text I think it requisite to use some scrupulosity (and if the translators were not altogether so precise as they are, but had some more regard to expressing of the sense I think in my judgment they should do better), but in a paraphrase, which of itself is a kind of exposition and commentary, I think it nothing needful to be so precise in the words, so the sense be kept. And this I dare avouch, that if an interpreter should in some place be as brief in the English translation as the author is in the Latin, he should make thereof but a dark piece of work.

The first tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the New Testament bears on the title page the date January, 1548, but the calendar year date is January, 1549. Normally printers in the sixteenth century dated books according to the calendar year, beginning January 1, rather than the legal year, beginning March 25; but legal, religious, and learned works seem to have been exceptions.⁶The second tome or volume of the Paraphrase of Erasmus upon the New Testament appeared in April, 1549. This second volume was chiefly the work of Miles Coverdale (who translated an early edition of the Bible, and whose versions of the Psalms are still part of the Book of Common Prayer), John Olde, Leonard Coxe, and Edmund Allen. (Since Erasmus had not paraphrased Revelations, a paraphrase by Leo Jude was translated by Allen “out of the high Douche.”)

The first volume, however, was largely Udall's work. It included the Gospels and Acts. He finished translating Luke, the longest paraphrase by Erasmus, in 1545, and translated Matthew and the Acts later. Thomas Key translated Mark, and Princess Mary (later Queen Mary) began translating John, but early turned the task over to her chaplain, Dr. Francis Malet. In Udall's preface to Matthew he defended the paraphrases against such detractors as Stephen Gardiner. “And truly whomsoever I perceive to be an eager adversary to Erasmus' writings, I (as my poor judgement leadeth me) cannot but suppose the same to be an indurate enemy to the Gospel, which Erasmus doth according to the measure and portion of his talent faithfully labour to set forth and promote.”

A second edition of The Paraphrase of Erasmus bears the date on the title page “January, 1551.” Udall, however, after describing how he worked on the new edition during the preceding summer, dates his preface “according to the common reckoning” January, 1552.

Even before the work was completed, the royal injunctions of 1547 directed “that every parson, vicar, curate, chantry-priest, and stipendiary, being under the degree of a bachelor of divinity, shall provide and have of his own, within three months after this visitation, the New Testament both in Latin and English, with the Paraphrase upon the same of Erasmus, and diligently study the same, conferring the one with the other. … Also, that they shall provide … within one twelve months next after the said visitation, the Paraphrasis [sic] of Erasmus also in English upon the Gospels, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that they have care of, whereas their parishioners may most commodiously resort unto the same.”⁷ This admonition was repeated in the royal injunctions of 1559.

There is abundant evidence to prove that the royal injunctions providing for a Paraphrase of Erasmus in every parish were generally complied with. A Dutch traveller in 1551 recorded in his journal that “the regular church service usually consists of a chapter or two from the English Bible and the Paraphrase of Erasmus in English translation.”⁸ An inventory taken in 1552 of property owned by London churches shows that fifty of the eighty-four parishes whose records are extant reported owning a copy of the Paraphrases. Many of the thirty-four not reporting the work may have owned it, but their reports are either illegible or obviously perfunctory.⁹

What happened to the Paraphrases in the churches during Mary's Catholic reign we do not know; but, as mentioned above, the royal injunctions of 1559 repeated the 1547 injunctions concerning their purchase and use in every parish. Visitation articles and injunctions throughout Elizabeth's reign continued to insist that the clergy procure for themselves and their parishioners a copy of the Paraphrase.¹⁰ In 1569 Archbishop Parker's visitation articles enjoined the procurement of the Paraphrase, and his example was followed by visitation authorities in other dioceses in the years 1577, 1581, 1582, 1583, 1584, 1585, 1586, and 1599.¹¹ In 1610 the Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned in a letter—as a precedent for urging parishes to buy a copy of Bishop Jewel's works—the fact that “in the late queen's time of worthy memory, every parish was driven to buy Erasmus Paraphrase upon the New Testament.”¹² There can be little doubt but that, as W. P. M. Kennedy writes in Parish Life under Queen Elizabeth, “side by side in the churches lay a copy of the English Bible, of the prayer book, and the Paraphrase of Erasmus.”¹³ As late as 1843 a copy of the Paraphrase of Erasmus was still chained in two churches in England.¹⁴

The influence of this work on the thought and language of the Elizabethans is incalculable, but it must have been important. It is possible, for instance, that a re-examination of Shakespeare's Bible knowledge will show that much of his familiarity with the Bible may be traced to Udall's Paraphrase of Erasmus. In one small emendation I have been able to trace “‘It is as hard to come as for a camel / To thread the postern of a small needle's eye.’” [Richard II V, iii, 16-17] to a paraphrase of the Biblical passage in the Paraphrase of Erasmus.

The subject-matter of the Paraphrase of Erasmus must have been part of many Elizabethans' stock of knowledge concerning the Bible. Just as the knowledge of any widely known book of this period is important for an understanding of the language and ideas of the Elizabethans, so must students of the period take into account this almost forgotten work on which Udall's reputation, both in his lifetime and after, was largely based.

Notes

1. See DeWitt T. Starnes, Renaissance Dictionaries (Austin, Texas, 1954), p. 71

2. See T. W. Baldwin's William Shakespeare's Five Act Structure (Urbana, Ill., 1947), especially p. 380; but both that book and his Small Latine, in passim. I have used his translation of Udall's preface (“Epistle”) from Small Latine, I, 744-45.

3. See “Eunuchus” in Terence, translation by John Sargeaunt, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1921), I, 257-59.

4. This book was published in 1542 and again in 1564. In 1877, R. Roberts, of Boston, Lancashire, published a reprint: The Apophthegmes of Erasmus, translated into English by N. Udall. Literally reprinted from the edition of 1564. See Charles R. Baskervill, “Taverner's Garden of Wisdom and the Apophthegemeta of Erasmus,” Studies in Philology XXIX (1932), 155, n. 10. Udall quotes the French translation on p. 61^v. See Les Apophthegmes … translatez … par … Macault (Paris, 1540), 99^v.

5. See P. S. Allen and H. M. Allen, Opvs Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, Tom. III (Oxford, 1913), 136-7; also Helmuth Flexner, Des Einfluss des Erasmus auf die englische Bildungsidee (Berlin, 1939), p. 87. The German translations had appeared in 1523 and 1530; the French version of the Paraphrase of the Epistles was published in 1543.

6. See my “The Calendar Year in Sixteenth-Century Printing;” Journal of English and Germanic Philology LIX (1960), 439-49. Note also that in his Preface to Matthew addressed to King Edward, Udall refers to “Quene Katerine late wife of your moste noble father, and now of your ryghte dere beloued unkle Syr Thomas Seimour knight, Lorde Seimour of Sudley and high admiral of your Seaes.” Catherine married Seymour sometime between the third and seventeenth of March, 1548, and died September 7, 1548; therefore the book could not have come out on January 1548 according to the calendar year.

7. Walter H. Frere Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Period of the Reformation (Vols. II and III edited with the assistance of W. P. M. Kennedy) (London, 1910), III, 10. The 1559 injunctions appear on the same page.

8. W. D. Hobson-Scott, “Josua Maler's Visit to England in 1551,” Modern Language Review, XLV (1950), 348.

9. H. B. Walters, London Churches at the Reformation, With an Account of Their Contents, S.P.C.K. (London and New York, 1939). See pages 77-78; 87; 94; 101; 111; 115; 121; 136; 140; 147; 152; 162; 179; 189; 199; 205; 213; 222; 237; 268; 286; 293; 298; 319; 328; 333; 349; 350; 361; 368; 387; 400; 427; 430; 437; 456; 459; 463; 469; 475; 486; 488; 508; 514; 520; 525; 536; 541; 546; 560; 573; 600; 613; 624.

10. Edward Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England (Oxford, 1839), I, 320.

11. W. P. M. Kennedy Elizabethan Episcopal Administration (London, 1924). II, 57, 111, 125, III, 147, 150, 162, 188, 210, 237, 318.

12. Cardwell, II, 126.

13. (London, 1914), p. 58.

14. “Volumes in Fetters,” Book-Lore, VI (June-November 1887), 47-8.