The almost universal reverence with which William Camden was regarded by his contemporaries needs hardly to be mentioned among students of his period. The praises of Spenser and Ben Jonson are well known; the commendatory verses of his fellow antiquarians, written for the most part in Greek and Latin, adorn his works; his funeral was “honored (besides much other goode and choice companie) with the presence” of Lord Keeper Williams, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, and Bishop William Laud.¹ But the respect, not to say the extreme admiration, which Camden generally inspired confronts us with the obvious question: what qualities in his work won him the respect of minds as unlike as these? What did his whole age, consciously or unconsciously, find to admire in him? From the point of view of a modern reader, Camden is less theoretical, less interested in ideas than any subsequent historian of equal fame: how did a compiler of mere annals and antiquities become the outstanding scholar of his time?

If we confine ourselves to the Britannia, the most popular of Camden's works, there is an obvious answer: he was not afraid to choose a subject of outstanding interest to Elizabethans of the most diverse interests. For Spenser the national antiquities were a source of rapturous reflection. For the government the study of British history provided themes which could be turned to well calculated political uses; and it is significant that the first four editions of the Britannia were dedicated to Burghley, the most influential member of Elizabeth's government. At the same time, the geographical organization of his material, for which Camden had found a model in earlier English writers as well as Pausanias, served to popularize the Britannia in every hamlet which it mentioned. Both national and local patriotism were involved in its success.

But the obvious popularity of Camden's subject may easily be overemphasized at the expense of his other qualities, especially, I think, at the expense of his regard for historical truth. In an age which was not critical in ascertaining facts Camden went to the greatest trouble to secure the most recent information, and he usually, if not always, gave an unbiased report of what he had discovered. English historians, to take only one example, commonly held that the British race owed its name and its separate existence to Brutus, the descendant of Aeneas; in spite of, or perhaps because of foreign attacks on this theory Elizabethan writers continued to defend it as a point of national honor; yet Camden conspicuously questions the truth of the Brutus legend.² On this important issue, in other words, his patriotism did not defeat his scholarship. And it is significant that, while the patriotic subject of the Britannia was the basis of its popularity, Camden was likewise respected as an unusually reliable scholar: “What name, what skill, what faith hast thou in things!” writes Jonson, and another contemporary calls Camden “veritatis Antistes,” high priest of truth.³ His regard for truth, in fact, gives a peculiar importance to the wide influence he exerted on an age generally far less critical of truth than he.

The painstaking honesty of Camden's scholarship may eventually be demonstrated by an intensive study of the whole Britannia; but it is possible to learn something about his scholarship from a study of a single section of the work, a section which, while appealing only in an indirect way to Elizabethan patriotism, clarifies his methods as an historian and a geographer. It may be helpful, I believe, to summarize the evidence supplied by the early texts of the Britannia in that portion of it which is devoted to Ireland.

Camden's interest in Ireland had probably begun some time before he wrote on the subject, and it continued down to the end of his life. At Westminster School he converted several Irish scholars to Protestantism; at some date, probably after the suppression of Tyrone's Rebellion, he composed a Latin poem, in sixty-four hexameter lines, describing Ireland as a newly pacified country; and during his last years he corresponded with a number of Dublin antiquaries.⁴ These details suggest that drawing up an account of Ireland must have been more than a perfunctory, ungrateful task for him; but the extent of his interest is placed beyond doubt by a comparison of the six editions of the Latin Britannia published during his lifetime.

The first, that of 1586, devotes some thirty-five pages to a crowded description of the seas around Ireland, of its four provinces, and of the customs of its people. The edition of 1587 corrects certain mistakes and adds a fair amount of new material. This text is republished, with only a few changes, in 1590; in 1594, however, considerable additions are made for a second time. In 1600 the evidences of reworking are slighter again. But the edition of 1607, the last for which Camden was directly responsible, undergoes a transformation so drastic that we are practically faced with another work.⁵ Thus the account of Ireland is most thoroughly revised in the second, fourth, and sixth—particularly the sixth—editions. The amount of revision in each case, moreover, is not proportionate to the number of years since a previous edition; therefore, it seems probable that Camden made a more deliberate effort to improve the second and fourth editions than to improve the third and fifth; the sixth, we can be sure, was rewritten in what he intended to be a definitive form.⁶

The changes introduced in 1587, only a year after the first edition, reveal a mind which scrupulously questioned details. Certain obvious mistakes are corrected: in the original text, for example, the length of Ireland had been given as “DCCC” miles; this figure is now reduced to “CCCC.”⁷ But Camden, it may well be evidence that he was already interested in heraldry, also corrects the form and the spelling of names: Richard Strongbow, although generally known by that nick-name and as Earl of Strigul, becomes Earl of Pembroke in the version of 1587; Humphrey “Boonensis” becomes “Bohunensis.”⁸ Changes made for the sake of style or a closer approximation to classical usage are few;⁹ the emphasis lies rather on giving information which is accurate and up-to-date. To use only one illustration: in 1586 Camden refers to the eleventh Earl of Kildare as living, although that nobleman had actually died on 16 November, 1585; in the text of 1587 eleventh is corrected to read twelfth.¹⁰

But far more numerous than the corrections are the passages which were added to the second edition. Under each province Camden now includes a list of counties.¹¹ Dublin, he explains, was called “Duffin” by the Saxons, and he adds a brief account of the early magistrates of the city.¹² Waterford, Howth, and Athlone all receive new notice.¹³ He inserts the etymology St. Mary-wick for Smerwick, perhaps borrowing it from the 1586 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles.¹⁴ Along with much else that is included for the first time, he tells us that water stands in marshes on the tops of Irish mountains; that either turf or English coal rather than wood is burned around Dublin; that, according to dependable Irish sources, some of the inhabitants of Ormond are annually turned into wolves; that the island abounds in cattle and sheep, but that all the animals living there, except the greyhounds, are smaller than the same species in England; that the weather causes many colds, for which Irish whiskey is an excellent remedy; that the inhabitants, in spite of what Giraldus Cambrensis says to the contrary, suffer from fevers; and that the climate, just as in England, does not allow grapes to reach maturity.¹⁵ He goes on to quote a description of Ireland, in seventeen Latin hexameters, by Adrian Junius.¹⁶

Several observations, which I shall discuss later, are likewise added to the section on native customs at the end of the historical and geographical account; but to the body of that account a little is added which betrays Camden's feelings about the mere Irish. At two places he inserts disparaging references to the rebellion under the late Earl of Desmond; in another passage he observes that if the natives of Connaught live from hand to mouth, it is because they prefer idleness to labor.¹⁷ To prove that the kings of England had never acknowledged the popes as overlords of Ireland the arguments of Sir Thomas More are now included; but it is significant that More himself was a Catholic and that his reasoning on this point had already been used by Edmund Campion, a Catholic historian.¹⁸ Furthermore, Camden now adds another long passage in praise of the early monasteries.¹⁹ The Britannia of 1587, then, gives less evidence of Anti-Catholic than of anti-Irish feeling. But most of the changes, in any case, reveal that Camden was striving to bring together as much accurate information as was available on Ireland.

During the three years following 1587, however, Ireland can hardly have occupied much of his attention. The Britannia of 1590 contains, in its Irish section, only two new passages of any importance, both centered on short quotations from the Late Latin poet Festus Avienus. One of these supports Camden's belief that the ancient inhabitants of Ireland were British.²⁰ The other supplies evidence for translating Banno, the bardic name for Ireland, as Sacred.²¹ This passage, with its marginalium “Sacra Insula,” is of interest to students of Spenser since he recollects it in his View of the Present State of Ireland.²² The View was written in 1596, and before 1596 the only editions of the Britannia which contain the reference to “Sacra Insula” are those of 1590 and 1594; therefore, in writing the View, Spenser must have used either one or the other of these texts.

When we turn to the changes made in the Britannia of 1594, we find that the development which began in 1587 and lapsed in 1590 is now resumed; Camden again increases and corrects his knowledge of Ireland. The corrections, to be sure, are few and almost too minute for illustration: the name of the rebel Earl of Desmond is emended from James to Gerald; “Castelenot” and “Mac Conlan” become respectively “Castelcnok” and “Mac Coghlan.”²³ But the very minuteness of such changes is the best evidence of Camden's thoroughness, and with them go far more frequent and extensive additions.

For the first time he rounds out his angular style by adding whole sentences of a purely rhetorical nature. The description of Ireland opens with the new statement: “I have run, rather than wandered, through all Britain, namely those two flourishing kingdoms of England and Scotland; but since it is necessary for me to cross the water in order to reach Ireland and the other islands, I hope that I shall not unduly lengthen my journey if I say a few words on the British Ocean first of all.”²⁴ Rhetorical additions, however, are subordinated to additions of fact. The wind Caurus, we are now told, arises near Ireland, as Caesar and Scaliger say, although Lucan writes otherwise; and several learned quotations are inserted in a passage concerning the pearls found in the British Ocean.²⁵ Camden brings his description of Dublin up to date by referring to Trinity College, which had been founded only three years earlier.²⁶ On the other hand, his researches have gone back into the obscurities of native Irish history: among the causes of the Anglo-Norman invasion in the twelfth century he now includes the rape of the wife of O'Rourk, King of Meath; and he adds a short account of how the O'Moores, O'Tooles, and O'Byrnes usurped parts of Leinster in the reign of Edward the Second.²⁷ But the most extensive group of additions reveals a new familiarity with the histories of the Anglo-Irish nobility. Camden mentions, among others, the Flemings of Slane, the Tyrells of Castleknock, the Mesets of Delvin; he describes how Sir John Bermingham was created Earl of Louth for defeating Edward Bruce in 1317; and in several passage he traces the Lacy family of Ulster and, at even greater length, the descendants of Richard Strongbow, Earl of Pembroke.²⁸ This genealogical development, which comes three years before Camden's preferment to the College of Heralds, is the most striking change in the text of 1594.

The changes made in the Britannia of 1600 are scattered and unimportant by comparison. The first of them is perhaps the most interesting: the dedication to Sir Edward Hoby which had headed the section on Ireland in the previous four editions is now omitted. Although Hoby was still alive in 1600, the omission was hardly intended to be a slight. In the previous editions the whole of the Britannia had been dedicated to Burghley, who was Hoby's uncle; Burghley had died in 1598, and in 1600 Elizabeth became the patron of the work; therefore, since the pendant dedication to Burghley's nephew was no longer suitable, Camden omitted it. At the same time he included a rude map of ancient Ireland, early evidence of the tendency to make the Britannia into a kind of atlas.²⁹ The only other addition of significance is a sentence referring to the kingdom of Cork and the present inheritor of that region, Sir George Carew, who had been a fellow student of Camden's at Pembroke College, Oxford, and for whose assistance in supplying information on Ireland he was later to express his gratitude.³⁰ A few corrections should also be mentioned because they reveal an invariable desire for accuracy: the first Earl of Essex was Marshall of Ireland, not merely of Ulster; the Butlers were actually relatives of Thomas à Becket, not merely reported to be such.³¹ But these changes, if taken together, do not reveal that Camden made any large effort to revise the text of 1600.

The contrast presented by the edition of 1607 is startling. At a glance it can be seen that the section on Ireland has been tremendously increased in length. In the original edition of 1586 it fills some 35 small pages; in the edition of 1600 it fills what is equivalent at most to 50 pages of the same size; in the edition of 1607 it fills 115 folio pages. Nor is it difficult to see where much of this final increase occurs. The small map of the 1600 text is replaced by a two-page map of contemporary Ireland; and Camden adds two long sections which are entirely new, an account of Tyrone's late rebellion, as well as of the origin of the O'Neills, and the text of two chronicles covering Irish history from 1162 to 1421.³² Less conspicuously he inserts, along with a complete list of the counties and bishoprics of Ireland, a new description of her form of government.³³

But the thoroughness of the revision appears not so much in the large separate units which are entirely new as in the extension and development of old material. In the first five editions the description of Ireland is divided according to provinces; in the sixth it is further subdivided according to counties. Not only does this improvement necessitate a considerable reorganization, but Camden makes other improvements in the order of details; single sentences from the previous texts may, therefore, turn up in the most unexpected places. And at the same time the old material is intermingled with at least twice as much new material as had been added in all four of the previous editions. The number and complexity of the changes defy any thorough description.

Certain tendencies, however, may be briefly indicated. There are, for example, a few changes which seem to have been made out of deference to the new monarch of both England and Scotland: at the very beginning of the Irish section “Britannia nostra” becomes “Britannia,” “nobis Anglis” simply “Anglis”; and the name of James Cheyne, a Scotch Catholic whose authority had been cited in earlier editions, is now discreetly omitted.³⁴ The colonizing policy of the new reign probably motivates a long insertion describing the fertility of the country, while several sharp reflections are also added on the Irish character.³⁵ But these tendentious passages, it is significant of Camden's mind and method, are completely over-shadowed by his endeavor to supply as much correct information as possible. Every kind of evidence which the previous editions had used is greatly increased. Among the ancients he cites additional matter from Libanius, St. Ambrose, Solinus, Pliny, Bede, Tertullian, Tacitus, Mela, Martian, Strabo, Einhard, Silius Italicus, and Horace; at greater length he reconsiders his former identifications of the tribes and places named by Ptolemy.³⁶ His knowledge of Irish geography has been expanded from contemporary sources also, perhaps from the more accurate maps which were beginning to appear at this time: he again reduces his estimate of Ireland's dimensions, from 400 by 200 to 300 by 120 miles; and it is interesting that he chiefly improves the description of Ulster and northern Connaught, regions of which cartographers had just begun to give a recognizable picture.³⁷ He has increased his information about every past period of Irish history: the Milesian, the Roman, the Early Christian, the Danish, the Norman, the Tudor; and for his facts he now mentions such sources as a manuscript belonging to the Baron of Howth, Roger of Hoveden, and the close rolls for the reign of King John.³⁸ At the same time he brings the historical account up to date by new references to Sir Henry Sidney, Thomas Stuckley, Sir John Perrot, Sir William FitzWilliam, Colonel Henry Dowcra, and Roderic O'Donell, whom King James had recently created Earl of Tirconell in succession to his rebellious brother.³⁹ Camden, moreover, adds not only the names of the chief English families settled in each county but more of the genealogical material which had distinguished the edition of 1594 from those which preceded it.⁴⁰

The number and variety of all the changes made in the text of 1607 can only be suggested; but in the case of a few passages it is possible, as well as worthwhile, to take a more detailed view of Camden's methods. His long account of Tyrone's Rebellion, for example, opens with the statement that he has written it in fulfillment of a promise made to a good friend who is now dead; we know that in February, 1606, his friend, the French historian Jacques Auguste De Thou, who did not die until 1617, had asked him for just such an account; it is clear, in any case, that at this point a personal factor played a part in the development of the Britannia.⁴¹ The prompting of another scholar, James Ussher, who was later to be the outstanding figure of the English Church in Ireland, led Camden to include the long mediaeval chronicle which now goes by the name of Christopher Pembridge.⁴² But Ussher assisted Camden far more directly. On 30 October, 1606, he writes to him from Dublin:

Sir,

The 10^th of October I received your Letter, which brought unto me the welcom news of your pains lately taken in adorning this poor Country [i. e., Ireland]. I am sorry I understood no sooner of your purpose: but seeing the forwardness of your Press is such, as cannot afford any longer time of deliberation, I will endeavor to give some slender satisfaction unto those points, which you have propounded.⁴³

In the long letter which follows he generously gives much information which Camden later wove into the text of 1607. In one case Ussher corrects a mistake which his own uncle, Richard Stanihurst, had made in Holinshed's Chronicles.⁴⁴ The most important passage of his letter, however, is a two-page Latin description of Dublin, “the City of mine own birth,” written because, as he remarks, “you desire to have a Topographical description thereof set down in mine own words.”⁴⁵ In the Britannia Camden prints the entire passage almost verbatim, making only minor stylistic changes and a few additions of fact; he concludes, “Most of these observations on Dublin I acknowledge that I owe to the diligence and learning of James Ussher, Chancellor of St. Patrick's Catherdral, whose judgment and manifold erudition far surpass his years.”⁴⁶ The acknowledgment, although it suggests a smaller debt than quotation marks would have betrayed, is hardly ungenerous for the Renaissance; by 1607 the Britannia already confesses itself to be the work of more than one author.

Thus far I have endeavored to illustrate the steps in the development of the Britannia by citing the evidence which the early texts of the portion devoted to Ireland supply. This portion of the book, if the changes made in each of the first six editions are considered in turn, reveals the painstaking thoroughness of Camden's scholarship, and reveals it most fully in the editions of 1587, of 1594, and of 1607. From an analysis of each edition separately considered it is convenient to turn aside, however, in order to discuss one last, not unimportant point.

All of the six earliest editions contain a long, connected description of the ancient and modern customs of the Irish.⁴⁷ This description receives a title of its own in 1594; certain passages are added to it in 1587 and 1607; but its essential features remain unchanged throughout all the texts. It opens with three quotations from classical writers who portray the barbarity of the ancient Irish; the body of it is a valuable seven-page account of the Irish in the sixteenth century. We are told how they put their children out to foster; how they delight in idleness and thievery; how they blaspheme and take their oaths; how they easily make and easily dissolve their marriages; how they associate many superstitions with animals, particularly with the horse; how they shout in battle; and how their women keen for the dead, whose souls they imagine to have gone to dwell among their mythological heroes. The picture as a whole is not an engaging one nor do later additions soften its sharp outlines. In 1587, to be sure, it is added that the Irish delight in music; but we are also told that murderers and incendiaries boast, “Christ will not allow His blood to have been shed in vain for me,” and that when an Irish priest dies, his daughters are reduced to beggary or prostitution.⁴⁸ In 1607 new material is inserted on native clothes and the custom of scattering salt in fields which are to be sowed, but not all the changes are so innocuous; it is also added that Irish thieves say it is a sin to let slip the opportunity to steal, that the concubines and children of the priests make riot in the churches, that altars, services, and vestments are either foul or deficient in some way, and that the incumbents of many parishes are men of no learning, served by unsalaried curates.⁴⁹ These additions, virulent as they may be, are in keeping with the first and shorter form of the description.

We may well wonder from what source Camden secured all this provocative material. In the original text of 1586 he explains that his account of recent Irish customs is written in the very words, although the order has been changed, of a learned man who aims only at the truth, not at calumny, in describing the back-country Irish; and just below, in the margin, he adds, “A certain Jesuit, as far as I can discover, is the author of these observations.”⁵⁰ The marginal reference to “A certain Jesuit” is omitted in all the succeeding editions, perhaps to avoid the then dangerous implication that a Jesuit could give a fair picture of anything; but the statement that the picture is a fair one remains, and, as we have seen, additional material of the same kind appears in 1587 and 1607. The next reference to the matter occurs in Ussher's long letter, already cited, of 30 October, 1606: “I would wish,” he writes, “that the little Treatise, De Moribus Hibern. which you told me was written by Good the Jesuit, should be printed entirely without any alteration, and that in his own name; for so it will be far better taken by his Countrey-men, and the envy wholly derived from you unto him, to whom it more properly belongeth.”⁵¹ This Machiavellian advice is followed by Camden in the edition of 1607. After the reference to his learned source he adds, “His name, as I ascertain, was I. Good, who received his education at Oxford, who was a priest by profession, and who taught school in Limerick about the year 1566”; and Camden carefully encloses in quotation marks all but the last sentence of the original description and all the additions to which I have referred.⁵² Before and after this long passage in quotes he now inserts some more material, which is presumably of his own selection; but the consistent nature of the material within quotes and Ussher's private advice to print his source entirely and without alteration make it almost certain that Camden has given us the substance of Good's little treatise.

A precise identification of Good is obstructed by two difficulties. First, Ussher implies that he was an Irishman, but no Irish Jesuit named Good can be traced at this period. Secondly, Camden gives the initial of Good's first name as I, i. e., either I or J; but, while there were English Catholics named John and James Good, no recorded priest or Jesuit named Good has the initial I or J at the time with which we are concerned.⁵³ Camden's statements that his author was educated at Oxford, became a priest, and taught school at Limerick about 1566, point rather to the English Jesuit, William Good. This by no means unknown Catholic priest was born at Glastonbury in 1527; was admitted to Corpus Christi College, Oxford, in 1545 or 1546; held a benefice in Somerset under Mary; withdrew to Tournay at the accession of Elizabeth; became one of the first English Jesuits in 1562; went with Archbishop Creagh to Ireland in 1564; opened a school at Limerick in the same year; returned to the Continent after remaining in Ireland either four or six years; introduced Robert Parsons to the spiritual exercises of Loyola in 1574; eventually became confessor of the new English College in Rome; and died at Naples, 5 July, 1586.⁵⁴ One biographer reports an interesting experience that befell Good: during his stay in Ireland he was attacked by robbers who carried off a bundle he had with him; finding that it contained altar furniture and surmising that he must be a priest, they returned to him; since he did not understand their language, one of them took Good's hand, made the sign of the Cross with it upon the other robbers, and had them do the same upon himself, as if absolution were given all of them for their offense; then, gathering up the valuable altar furniture, they departed with it.⁵⁵ The priest who had this experience may very well have written the description of Irish manners in the Britannia. It is safe, in any case, to conjecture that William Good was probably the author of that description, as well as of the two or three other works which have been associated with his name.⁵⁶

But the publication of Good's little treatise in the Britannia is likewise important for the light it throws on Camden's scholarship. His honesty and thoroughness are as apparent here as in the body of the Irish section: additional details, it is true, are found in the later versions of the treatise; but all its essential features are included from the first, and there is no evidence that Good is made responsible for additions that are really Camden's. The omission of the marginalium referring to “A certain Jesuit” is politic but not unscholarly. The presence, rather, of this marginalium in 1586 and the final decision, on the advice of Ussher, to give Good full and specific credit for his very unflattering account of Irish customs betray a point of view which goes beyond objective scholarship. Camden, like most Elizabethans, felt a strong aversion to the native Irish. His feelings seem, in fact, to have been much rather anti-Irish than anti-Catholic; and the use he makes of Good reminds us of those passages in Holinshed which cite another not too friendly work on Ireland by another English Catholic, Edmund Campion. But Camden's racial bias, even mingled as it is with a certain religious impartiality, is not typical of the Britannia; it represents his age rather than what distinguishes him in his age. For his unique importance as a scholar lies, not in his feelings or ideas, but in the scrupulous care with which he edits and compiles the facts.

Notes

1. The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Norman Egbert McClure (Philadelphia, 1939), 2. 527.

2. Britannia, ed. 1590, pp. 6-8.

3. Jonson, epigram no. 14; Camden's Annales (London, 1615-1627), verses by Raphael Thorius under portrait facing title page.

4. Epistolae, ed. Thomas Smith (London, 1691), Part 1, p. 247; Part 2, pp. 100-101; Part 1, pp. 76 ff., 86, 218, 235-239, 257, 284.

5. Camden, of course, oversaw Philemon Holland's English translation of the Britannia (London, 1610).

6. On Camden's changes in general, see Edmund Gibson's English edition of the Britannia (London, 1695), sig. b2^v.

7. 1586, p. 492; 1587, p. 566.

8. 1586, pp. 496, 497, 502; 1587, pp. 572, 574, 580. See also the transformation of “Genuillos” (1586, p. 509) into “Ienuillos” (1587, p. 588), into “Ieneuillos” (1600, p. 777), into “Geneuillos” (1607, p. 754).

9. See “corui oculos” (1586, p. 503); “cornicis oculos” (1587, p. 581), the regular form of the Latin proverb.

10. 1586, p. 507; 1587, p. 585.

11. 1587, pp. 576, 580, 589, 592.

12. 1587, p. 585.

13. 1587, pp. 580, 586, 588.

14. Vol. II, “The Supplie of the Irish Chronicles,” p. 154; Britannia, 1587, p. 577.

15. 1587, pp. 567, 585, 581, 567.

16. 1587, p. 568.

17. 1587, pp. 576, 579, 589.

18. The Historie of Ireland (Dublin, 1633), p. 75; Britannia, 1587, p. 573; further addition in 1607, p. 731.

19. 1587, p. 571.

20. 1590, p. 682.

21. 1590, p. 678.

22. View, ed. W. L. Renwick (London, 1934), p. 120; F. F. Covington, Jr., “Spenser's Use of Irish History in the Veue of the Present State of Ireland,” University of Texas Bulletin, Studies in English 4 (1924), 33-34.

23. 1590, pp. 690, 700, 701; 1594, pp. 653, 662, 663.

24. 1594, p. 639.

25. 1594, p. 640.

26. 1594, p. 661.

27. 1594, pp. 649, 658.

28. 1594, pp. 659, 661-662, 663, 667, 663-664, 671, 650, 658, 660-661.

29. 1600, “Hibernia Antiqva,” opposite p. 755.

30. 1600, p. 768; 1607, pp. 739-740. Epistolae, p. iv.

31. 1590, pp. 711, 694; 1600, pp. 785, 770.

32. 1607, “Hiberniae,” pp. 724-725 (a map which, though large, is inaccurate; e. g., see “Bolerant” for Buttevant); pp. 774-787, 794-836.

33. 1607, pp. 733-736.

34. 1590, pp. 675, 677; 1607, pp. 720, 726. The whole Britannia is dedicated to King James in 1607.

35. 1607, pp. 773, 742, 746, 749, 754.

36. 1607, pp. 720, 721, 722, 726, 727, 731, 755-756, 736, 737, 738, 744, 748, 759.

37. 1590, pp. 679, 702, 703, 704, 708, 709, 710; 1607, pp. 727, 755, 757, 770, 763, 771.

38. 1607, pp. 728, 729, 730, 766, 767, 750, 731, 732, 761.

39. 1607, pp. 760, 768, 752, 760, 762, 764, 772.

40. See particularly 1607, pp. 743 (the Butlers), 772-773 (the Lacys and Burkes), 747 (the Earls of Kildare), 736-738 (the Earls of Desmond).

41. 1607, p. 774; Epistolae, Part 1, pp. 68-69.

42. Epistolae, Part 1, p. 78; Britannia, 1607, pp. 794-832. See Robert Dunlop's article on Pembridge in DNB.

43. Epistolae, Part 1, p. 76.

44. Epistolae, Part 1, p. 82.

45. Epistolae, Part 1, pp. 80-82.

46. 1607, pp. 751-752.

47. 1590, pp. 711-719.

48. 1587, pp. 599, 600.

49. 1607, pp. 790, 791, 790.

50. 1587, p. 518.

51. Epistolae, Part 1, p. 78.

52. 1607, pp. 788, 789-792.

53. Anthony à Wood, Fasti (in Athenae Oxoniensis, London, 1721), vol. 1, col. 89; Henry Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (London, 1877-1882), 4. 17 and 6. 249.

54. Anthony à Wood, Athenae Oxoniensis (London, 1721), vol. 1, cols. 225-226; Thompson Cooper, article on William Good in DNB; Joseph Gillow, A Literary and Bibliographical History … of the English Catholics (London, n. d.), article on William Good; Louis Delplace, L'Angleterre et la Compagnie de Jésus avant le Martyre du B. Edmond Campion (Brussels, 1890), pp. 44-45; Myles V. Ronan, The Reformation of Ireland under Elizabeth, 1558-1580 (London, 1930), p. 418.

55. Foley, 4.479 (quoted from Father More's Hist. Prov. Angl., p. 13).

56. See Cooper; Gillow; Leo Hicks, “The English College, Rome and Vocations to the Society of Jesus. March, 1579-July, 1595,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 3, 8n.