In 1556, Robert Recorde (1510?-1558) provided the English reading public with the first significant reference to the heliocentric theories of Nicholas Copernicus. In a brief passage in his elementary text on astronomy, The Castle of Knowledge, Recorde introduced the fact that Copernicus

hathe renewed the opinion of Aristarchus Samius, and
affirmeth that the earthe not only moueth circularlye
about his owne centre, but also may be, yea and is,
continually out of the precise cētre of the world 38
hundredth thousand miles:

This statement, preceded by a review of other ancient astronomers who held similar views, and followed by a promise to the reader that the subject would be examined later in greater detail, constituted the complete reference to Copernicus and his theories. It was neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the revolutionary theories advanced by Copernicus. Given his reputation as a competent and thorough scholar, one may legitimately ask, first, why did Recorde limit himself to such a short statement? and, second, how can his attitude toward the heliocentric theories be established with greater certainty? Because Recorde elected not to commit himself further in The Castle of Knowledge, any discussion of his attitude toward the new theories must be based on indirect evidence. The point to be demonstrated is that Recorde was influenced by a particular philosophy that enabled him to view favorably the theories advanced in Copernicus's great work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium. The first part of this study examines some probable causes for Recorde's reluctance to expand upon his reference to Copernicus, while the remainder examines his philosophical views.

It has long been accepted as fact that Raleigh was an important figure in a coterie of maverick intellectuals, generally referred to as the School of Night. The assumptions are that this coterie was a structured group; that it concerned itself with iconoclastic attitudes toward religion and philosophy, politics, literature, and the sciences; and that the Raleigh coterie was in active opposition to a rival group, the members of which included the Earl of Essex, the Earl of Southampton, and William Shakespeare. However, two concerns need clarification to evaluate the evidence that Raleigh was a member of such a group: were the attacks on him as an atheist justified, and what were his attitudes toward intellectual pursuits ? It would then be most practical to ascertain on what evidence the School of Night theory is based, how it is presented and interpreted by twentieth century scholars, and whether or not earlier accounts of Raleigh ascribe to such theories, examining along the way what Raleigh's beliefs were as can be determined by his writings and what contemporary attitudes were toward Raleigh and his associates. It may then be possible to judge if there is justification for asserting that Raleigh was a leader--or even a member--of such a group, and indeed, if any such group is likely to have existed.

In 1592, in answer to Elizabeth's proclamation against the Jesuits, Father Robert Parsons published his Responsio in which he deplored the notion that Raleigh might become a privy councilor and thus introduce an atheistic policy into England, through the agency of his conjurer, usually taken to be Thomas Hariot. An Advertisment, the English summary of the Responsio, repeated the charge but did not speculate on Raleigh's appointment to the Privy Council. “Of Sir Walter Raleigh's school of atheism by the way, and of the conjurer that is M[aster] thereof, and of the diligence used to get young gentlemen to this school, wherein both Moses and our Savior, the Old and New Testament are jested at, and the scholars taught among other things to spell God backward”.

On the morning of 4 December 1514, a certain London merchant-tailor, Richard Hunne by name, was found hanging in his cell in the Lollards' Tower at St. Paul's. On the surface this event might seem to be of little concern to anyone except Hunne. However, the death of this moderately well-to-do London businessman became caught up in the agitation against the clergy which presaged the Reformation in England. Indeed, Richard Hunne's case has become, as well, the focal point of a major and long-lasting historical controversy over the responsibility for Hunne's death. This controversy arises out of contradictory and confusing reports of the circumstances surrounding the event and the peculiar actions of the authorities, both royal and clerical, over an attempt to fix the responsibility for the death. One major body of source material, particularly the writings of Sir Thomas More, holds that Hunne had committed suicide and is supported by the decision of a royal court which found those accused of Hunne's death to be innocent. The other, which includes several Protestant chroniclers and writers, holds that Hunne was murdered by the ecclesiastical authorities of London and is supported by depositions from a coroner's inquest into the matter.

The alleged facts of Hunne's death, minor event though it may have been, served to fan a wave of excitement in London, particularly since the event fell upon thoroughly receptive ears. The current anticlericalism received a major stimulus from Hunne's death.

It is difficult to document the extent to which anticlericalism was present in London, let alone England at large, in the early years of the sixteenth century, but there was a dispute between the parishioners of London and their rectors over such matters as tithes, offerings and mortuary fees.3 In addition there had been some action, in an official sense, against the greatly abused benefit of clergy.

Francis Drake's circumnavigation of the world (1577-1581) marks the first certain approach of Europeans to what later became known as the Northwest Coast of America. Historical research on this voyage has stemmed from Great Britain and the United States. British scholars concerned with the subject as part of English maritime activity have included Richard Hakluyt, James Anthony Froude, E. G. R. Taylor, James A. Williamson and A. L. Rowse. The latest British scholar to inquire into the motives and events of the great voyage is Kenneth R. Andrews. These writers have generally given little space to Drake's experiences on the Northwest Coast. However, the late California scholar Henry Raup Wagner published a monumental study of the subject in 1926. This work and two volumes published by the Hakluyt Society provide most of the documents relating to the voyage.

The pertinent passages describing Drake's activities in the North Pacific are as follows:

From Guatulco [a village near Acapulco on the Mexican
west coast] we departed the day following, viz. April 16.
setting our course directly into the sea: whereon we sayled
500. leagues in longitude, to get a winde: and between that
and June 3. 1400. leagues in all, till we came into 42. deg.
of North latitude. ….