This much Cameransse left out This much Camerans left out of in his book aforesaid with other his book ... with other things things, more for displeasure more for displeasure than any than any truth to tell, the truth to tell, the cause before cause afore doth testifie. God do testifie, God forgive them all. forgive them all. This much that This much that is in this book is in this book more than more than Camerans did writ of Camerans did write of was was translated by the Primet translated by the Primate Dowdall in the yere of o^r Lord Doudall in the year of our God 1551 out of a Latin book Lord 1551 out of a Latin book into English, which was found into English, which was found with O’Neil in Armaghe. with O’Nell in Armaghe. Nothing can be more clear than this reference to the interlarded portions, which can all, I may add, be identified and separated from the ‘Giraldus’ portion. But Carew carelessly wrote, in the margin on fo. 6, that the _whole_ narrative “was translated out of an old book of O’Neale’s written in Latin, and put into English by Dowdall, Primate of Ardmaghe, beginning in anno 1167.” Though Professor Brewer had the words of the original before him, and though he could not but admit that Bray “follows closely the footsteps of Giraldus,” yet he was so misled by Carew’s unlucky slip as to assert that the MS. E. 3, 31 was “nothing more than a translation of the Latin chronicle once in O’Neil’s possession, which Carew calls ‘the Conquest of Ireland, written by Thomas Bray’” (p. xxiii.). These, on the contrary, are precisely the versions which have no interpolations from that source. The Armagh book was devoted to the deeds of John de Courcy, Conqueror of Ulster, though, by a crowning error, Professor Brewer was careful to distinguish it from “A Chronicle of the Gests or Doings of John de Courcey, Earl of Ulster.” Apart from the interest of its contents, the “book” has a special importance from a significant allusion by Giraldus, when closing his chapter on John, who was never, by the way, “Earl of Ulster”: Sed hæc de Johanne summatim, et quasi sub epilogo commemorantes, grandiaque ejusdem gesta suis explicanda scriptoribus relinquentes, etc., etc. Having now cleared up all this confusion, I need not dwell on Professor Brewer’s further failure to detect the share taken by Christopher lord of Howth in the compilation of the book that bears the name of his house, but will resume our discussion of the Anglo-Norman poem.