¹ Cf. Bangert, William V., A History of the Society of Jesus (St. Louis, 1972), chap. 6Google Scholar.

² The quotation is from John Carroll et al. to the Rev. Gentlemen of the Southern District, Feb., 1787, as given in Hughes, Thomas, A History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Documents, vol. I, pt. 2 (New York, 1910), p. 605Google Scholar. Ibid., pp. 676–79, establishes the date of this letter. (Hughes' two volumes of documents are continuously paginated and will be cited simply as Documents.) For Carroll's personal reaction to the suppression of the Jesuits, see Brent, John Carroll, Biographical Sketch of the Most Rev. John Carroll (Baltimore, 1843), pp. 25–26Google Scholar; Melville, Annabelle, John Carroll of Baltimore (New York, 1955), pp. 35–37Google Scholar. Guilday, Peter, The Life and Times of John Carroll, 2 vols. (New York, 1922), I: 43–56Google Scholar, describes the suppression as it affected the English Jesuit Province of which Carroll was a member.

³ Cf. Guilday, , Carroll, I, chaps. 10–12Google Scholar.

⁴ Guilday, Carroll, I, chaps. 12, 14, 19; Melville, Carroll, chaps. 6, 8; Daley, John M., Georgetown University: Origin and Early Years (Washington, 1957), pp. 21–35Google Scholar, covers these developments and relates them to Georgetown's beginnings in admirably clear and concise fashion. Hughes', Documents, pp. 601–97Google Scholar, contains a wealth of primary materials, but the organization is difficult to follow.

⁵ See the letters of Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 26, 1783, and Dec. 15, 1785, in The John Carroll Papers, edited by Hanley, Thomas O'Brien. 3 vols. (Notre Dame, 1976), I: 78, 198Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as Carroll Papers.) See Daley, Georgetown, chaps. 2–3, for Carroll's role in Georgetown's founding.

⁶ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Oct. 23, 1789. Carroll Papers, I: 390.

⁷ Cf. Melville, , Carroll, pp. 15–16, 20Google Scholar; Guilday, , Carroll, I: 31Google Scholar.

⁸ Cf. Basset, Bernard, The English Jesuits, from Campion to Martindale (New York, 1968), pp. 288–97, 311Google Scholar.

⁹ Guilday, Peter, The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent 1558–1795 (London, 1914), p. 40Google Scholar, lists some sixty such institutions.

¹⁰ On Douai see Guilday, English Catholic Refugees, chaps. 4, 9; Burton, Edwin H., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1691–1781), 2 vols. (London, 1909)Google Scholar; Beales, A. F. C., Education Under Penalty; English Catholic Education from the Reformation to the Fall of James 11, 1547–1689 (London, 1963)Google Scholar; and especially Harris, P. R., “The English College, Douai, 1750–1794,” Recusant History, 10 (04, 1969), 79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Harris, P. R. (ed.), Douai College Documents, 1639–1794, vol. 63 of Catholic Record Society Publications, Records Series (n. p., 1972)Google Scholar. O'Connell, Marvin R., The Counter Reformation, 1559–1610 (New York, 1974), p. 236Google Scholar, says 440 priests went from Douai to England in Elizabeth's reign.

¹¹ On St. Omers (also spelled St. Omer from the town in Flanders where the school was located) see Guilday, , English Catholic Refugees, pp. 138–45Google Scholar; Beales, , Education Under Penalty, esp. pp. 69–70Google Scholar, for the phrase “picked men”; Chadwick, Hubert, St. Omers to Stonyhurst (London, 1962)Google Scholar, is the fullest account; Gerard, John, Stonyhurst College, Centenary Record (Belfast, 1894)Google Scholar, has some interesting material and illustrations of St. Omers. (St. Omers became Stonyhurst when moved to England in 1794 by revolutionary upheavals in the Low Countries.)

¹² O'Connell, , Counter Reformation, p. 236Google Scholar. Ibid., p. 239, gives 183 as the total number of Catholics executed during Elizabeth's reign, excluding those implicated in plots against the government. Guilday, , English Catholic Refugees, p. 26Google Scholar, says twenty-three Jesuits were executed in England from 1577 to 1681.

¹³ Elliott, B., “Some Notes on Catholic Education Abroad,” Recusant History, 7 (04, 1964), 250, 254Google Scholar.

¹⁴ On White see Basset, , English Jesuits, pp. 183–84Google Scholar; Chadwick, , St. Omers, p. 21Google Scholar. Beales, , Education Under Penalty, pp. 168–69Google Scholar, reports on Maryland boys at St. Omers and their advancing to the Jesuit novitiate by 1685. Cf. also Foley, Henry, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 7 vols. (London, 1877–1983), III: 394Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Cf. Hughes, Thomas, “Educational Convoys to Europe in the Olden Times,” American Ecclesiastical Review, 29 (1903), 24–39Google Scholar; Hughes, , History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Text, II: 523 n, 524 nGoogle Scholar. For the use of the term “Marylandian” see Charles Carroll to his parents, March 22, 1750, manuscript letter in Maryland Historical Society. These interesting letters which Charles Carroll wrote home to his family while studying at St. Omers, and other continental schools have been published in Maryland Historical Magazine, 10 (1915), 143Google Scholar ff., and subsequent issues.

¹⁶ Hanley, Thomas O'Brien, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (Washington, 1970)Google Scholar, is the fullest discussion of the continental education of the Carrolls and in particular of Charles Carroll of Carrollton.

¹⁷ Daley, Georgetown, chaps. 2–3.

¹⁸ On April 23, 1790, Carroll wrote to the Papal Nuncio in Lisbon: “I have been working for several years to form a college, or rather this school; for I dare not dignify it with the name of College …” (Carroll Papers, I: 438). The term Georgetown College came into use in 1796 or 1797. See Daley, , Georgetown, p. 92Google Scholar; and Shea, John Gilmary, History of Georgetown University (New York, 1891), p. 23Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Ruane, Joseph W., The Beginnings of the Society of St. Sulpice in the United States (1791–1829) (Washington, 1935), pp. 12–36Google Scholar. Father Vincent Eaton of the Sulpician Archives in Baltimore tells me that the name “St. Mary's Seminary” did not come into use until after St. Mary's College (discussed later) was founded in 1799. In this article, I have simply called it the Baltimore Seminary.

²⁰ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 26, 1783, and Oct. 23, 1789. Carroll Papers, I: 78, 390.

²¹ Guilday, Peter, The National Pastorals of the American Hierarchy (1792–1919) (Westminster, Md., 1954 [reprint]), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

²² Carroll to Jean Hubert, Jan. 20, 1792; Carroll to Cardinal Antonelli, April 23, 1792; Carroll to Charles Plowden, April 30, 1792. Carroll Papers, II: 6, 27, 39.

²³ Ruane, , St. Sulpice, p. 25Google Scholar.

²⁴ Cf. Hofstadter, Richard, Anti-intellectualism in American Life (New York, 1963), esp. pp. 72Google Scholar ff., 90, 101 ff., 105–06; Power, Edward J., Catholic Higher Education in America, A History (New York, 1972), pp. 46–54Google Scholar.

²⁵ Daley, , Georgetown, p. 42Google Scholar.

²⁶ Carroll to John Grassi, Oct. 30, 1812. Carroll Papers; III: 204.

²⁷ Carroll to William Strickland, April 2, 1808. Carroll Papers, III: 53.

²⁸ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Feb. 12, 1803. Carroll Papers, II: 409. This letter and other items used in this section are also quoted in Melville, Carroll, pp. 152–55, a perceptive treatment of Carroll's views on education.

²⁹ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Dec. 7, 1804; Carroll to John Dubois, Dec. 22,1811. Carroll Papers, II: 461; III: 165.

³⁰ O'Connell, , Counter Reformation, p. 235Google Scholar.

³¹ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 26, 1783. Carroll Papers, I: 78. (This letter also contains Carroll's reference to “universal toleration …”)

³² Carroll's “Report for the Eminent Cardinal Antonelli Concerning the State of Religion in the United States of America,” dated March 1, 1785, gives the numbers of priests. Text available in Ellis, John Tracy, ed., Documents of American Catholic History (Milwaukee, 1956), pp. 152–54Google Scholar, and Carroll Papers, I: 179–82. Guilday, , Carroll, I: 301–05Google Scholar, identifies these priests of 1785. Ibid., chap. 17, discusses some of Carroll's problems concerning the clergy.

³³ Carroll to Cardinal Antonelli, March 13, 1786. Carroll Papers, I: 209.

³⁴ Carroll to Cardinal Antonelli, Sept. 27, 1790, gives the figure of thirtypriests; Carroll to Francis Beeston, March 22, 1788, refers to “missionary adventurers.” Carroll Papers, I: 468, 292.

³⁵ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Oct. 23, 1789. A few months later (Feb. 24, 1790), Carroll told Plowden that some of the European priests “have proved turbulent, ambitious, interested, and they unite much ignorance with consummate assurance.” Carroll Papers, I: 389, 431.

³⁶ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 3, 1791. In the same letter Carroll wrote: “We really want some good German priests to make amends for the very indifferent cargoes of Friars and Capucins [sic], we have had from that Quarter” (Carroll Papers, I: 517, 516).

³⁷ Carroll used the expression “dreadful want of priests” in a letter to John Grassi, Sept. 25, 1815. This was only three months before his death. Carroll Papers, III: 360.

³⁸ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 24, 1796. Carroll Papers, II: 187.

³⁹ Carroll to John Peemans, June 2, 1807. Carroll Papers, III: 23.

⁴⁰ Carroll to the Trustees at Alexandria, Va., July 5, 1810; Carroll to Charles Neale, Sept. 11, 1810. Carroll Papers, III: 118–19, 120–21. Carroll to Cardinal Litta, July 17, 1815, reports him as being again without a secretary. Carroll Papers, III: 346. For other items referring to Carroll's work load, see his letters to Charles Plowden, Sept. 3, 1791, Sept. 3, 1800, March 12, 1802, and Dec. 7, 1804. Carroll Papers, I: 517; II: 316–17, 382, 460. See alsoCarroll to Matthew Carey, Jan. 19, 1792, and Carroll to Elizabeth Seton, May 23, 1807, which amusingly relates the kind of interruption he sometimes experienced in his letter writing. In this case, two drunken persons “found access to [his] study.” Carroll Papers, II: 5; III: 22.

⁴¹ Melville, , Carroll, pp. 151–52Google Scholar. He was also associated with two other secondary-level schools in Baltimore.

⁴² See, for example, McGucken, William J., The Jesuits and Education (Milwaukee, 1932), p. 63Google Scholar; and Power, , Catholic Higher Education, pp. 16–18Google Scholar. The original source of the error is likely the fact that Carroll mentions this alternative plan in his 1785 report to Cardinal Antonelli, which received early attention in such works as Shea, John Gilmaiy, Life and Times of the Most Rev. John Carroll (New York, 1888), pp. 260–61Google Scholar; and Burns, James A., The Principles, Origin and Establishment of the Catholic School System in the United States (New York, 1912), p. 153Google Scholar. (Burns' volume was first published in 1908.)

⁴³ Carroll to Ferdinand Fanner, Dec, 1784. Carroll Papers, I: 158.

⁴⁴ Ibid.

⁴⁵ Carroll Report to Antonelli, March 1, 1785; Carroll to Joseph Edenshink, April-June, 1785; Carroll to Leonard Neale, June 17, 1785. Carroll Papers, I: 181, 186, 190.

⁴⁶ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Feb. 24, 1790. Carroll Papers, I: 431.

⁴⁷ Carroll to Charles Plowden, June 29, 1785, in which Carroll says he is not going to continue his controversy with Charles Wharton “least [sic] it should add fuel to some sparks of religious animosity, which are visible at present amongst us.” In a letter to Joseph Berington, Sept. 29, 1786, Carroll refers to “sourness,” which he had noted earlier but which had since subsided. Carroll Papers, I: 191, 217.

⁴⁸ This much corrected and interwritten draft is in Carroll's handwriting. It is item 9A N3 in the Archives of the Archiocese of Baltimore. Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 53 ff., 68 ff.Google Scholar, discusses it and dates it about 1788; Hanley dates it in 1791 in Carroll Papers, I: 482–87. For Jesuit use of the term humanities see Chadwick, , St. Omers, p. 72Google Scholar: Beales, , Education Under Penalty, p. 147Google Scholar; Burton, , Challoner, I: 16Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Cf. Farrell, Allen P., The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education (Milwaukee, 1938)Google Scholar, and Ganss, George E., Saint Ignatius' Idea of a Jesuit University (Milwaukee, 1954)Google Scholar, for detailed scholarly treatment of early Jesuit education.

⁵⁰ Chadwick, , St. Omers, pp. 69 ff.Google Scholar, discusses curriculum; cf. also Gerard, , Stonyhurst, p. 24Google Scholar. Ganss, , St. Ignatius' Idea, pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar, discusses the relation of college and university. At Douai, students could go from humanities all the way through theological studies in the same institution. The same was also possible in some of the Jesuit institutions to judge from Dury's, John 1645 “Description of a Transmarine School” in Corcoran, T., Studies in the History of Classical Teaching, Irish and Continental, 1500–1700 (New York, 1911), p. 236Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Ellis, , Documents, pp. 172–73Google Scholar, reproduces this prospectus and dates it 1789; Daley, , Georgetown, p. 35Google Scholar quotes from it, but dates it about 1786 (see p. 322, index under heading “Prospectus of 1786”). Carroll's remarks, quoted above at footnote 46, also indicate that Georgetown was designed for “Grammar education,” or humanities, as a preparation for “higher studies,” or university studies, in law, medicine etc.

⁵² The following discussion is based on Carroll's organizational plan (see footnote 48) which will not be cited further.

⁵³ Beales, , Education Under Penalty, p. 172Google Scholar, calls the practice of having the teacher move up with his class the core of the Jesuit system.

⁵⁴ Cf. Farrell, , Jesuit Code, pp. 365–76Google Scholar; de Dainville, François, “L'Enseignement de l'histoire et de la geographie et le Ratio Studiorum,” Analecta Gregoriana, 70 (1954), 123–56Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ The Jesuit historian Thomas Hughes called prelection the “typical form of Jesuit instruction” (Hughes, , Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits [New York, 1901], p. 232)Google Scholar. Cf. also Ganss, , St. Ignatius' Idea, pp. 100–101 n., on prelectionGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁶ The formula beginning “Quod felix faustumque sit …” was suggested in the early 1560's by Father Jerome Nadal. See Farrell, , Jesuit Code, p. 84Google Scholar. Chadwick, , St. Omers, p. 133Google Scholar, says “this well-known formula” survived at Stonyhurst until after 1900.

⁵⁷ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Jan. 22-Feb. 28, 1787. Carroll Papers, I: 241.

⁵⁸ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 55, 89Google Scholar, for Georgetown's uniform; Chadwick, , St. Omers, pp. 233–39Google Scholar, for a discussion which describes the uniform used at Douai also. Cf. ibid., pp. 85–86, for reference to “the excessive surveillance” at St. Omers. For t he strict discipline at Douai, see Harris, , Douai Documents, pp. 165–69Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ For example, Carroll to Charles Plowden, Jan. 22-Feb. 28, 1787. Carroll Papers, I: 241. For use of theology students as teachers at Douai, see Harris, , Douai Documents, p. 139Google Scholar; and Burton, , Challoner, I: 33, 35Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 68, 93Google Scholar: Ruane, , St. Sulpice, p. 40Google Scholar; cf. also Souvenirs D'Edouard de Mondésir (Baltimore, 1942)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Presuppression Jesuit colleges “were in the very great majority day schools,” according to Padberg, John W., Colleges in Controversy; the Jesuit Schools in France from Revival to Suppression, 1815–1880 (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), p. 126Google Scholar. Cf. also Farrell, , Jesuit Code, p. 60Google Scholar. For the transition to boarding schools, see Ariès, Philippe, Centuries of Childhood (Vintage, 1965), pp. 269–85Google Scholar.

⁶² Cf. McGucken, , Jesuits and Education, p. 78Google Scholar; Donahue, John W., Jesuit Education (New York, 1963), pp. 34 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶³ Harvard, and other American colleges, “followed the English universities in enriching the Arts curriculum [i.e., the undergraduate program] at the expense of the higher faculties, and making the last three years of the Arts course in effect a professional course in Theology” (Morison, Samuel Eliot, The Founding of Harvard College [Cambridge, Mass., 1935], p. 146)Google Scholar. Cf. ibid., pp. 60–62, 144–46, for the ages of students, the number of years in the college course, and a comparison with continental universities.

⁶⁴ Carroll asked Cardinal Antonelli (March 13, 1786) for a plan of studies for the college and seminary that Carroll hoped to create in America. (See Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 32–33Google Scholar, and Carroll Papers, I: 209.) No plan was sent, however (see Daley, , Georgetown, p. 44)Google Scholar; hence there is no justification for the conclusion drawn by Power, , Catholic Higher Education, pp. 53–54Google Scholar, that Roman influence affected Georgetown and, through it, other Catholic colleges.

⁶⁶ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Jan. 22-Feb. 28, 1787. Carroll Papers, I: 242.

⁶⁶ This arrangement is outlined in Carroll's organizational plan cited above at note 48. Cf. also Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 54–55Google Scholar. The Resolves of the Chapter, or the Select Body of the Clergy, Nov. 13–22, 1786, at which the decision was formally taken to establish Georgetown, provided for the appointment from the Clergy of five Directors who were to supervise the enterprise, appoint a president, masters, tutors, and so on. Cf. Hughes, , Documents, pp. 665–66Google Scholar. For later deliberation on the same points, see ibid., p. 695.

⁶⁷ Cf. Herbst, Jurgen, “The First Three American Colleges: Schools of the Reformation,” Perspectives in American History, 8 (1974), 7–52Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Ellis, , Documents, p. 172Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ The fifth heading of Carroll's organizational plan for Georgetown (see note 48) reads: “The special duties of and the attention to be given to Cat. students in their religious instruction.” This page was left blank, but the fact that Carroll included it as a supplement to the earlier section dealing with “The duties and discipline to be observed by all scholars” indicates he assumed that the Catholic students would be a special subgroup within the student body.

⁷⁰ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Oct. 13, 1815. Carroll Papers, III: 368.

⁷¹ Carroll to Charles Plowden, March 12, 1802; Carroll to William Strickland, April 2, 1808. Carroll Papers, II: 383; III: 53. In 1815 Carroll remarked in a different context that the European Jesuits at Georgetown, although “good religious men,” too often lacked the discernment “to estimate the difference between the American character and that of the Countries which they left” (Carroll to Charles Plowden, June 25-July 24, 1815, Carroll Papers, III: 338). Cf. Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 113–15, 149Google Scholar.

⁷² Daley, , Georgetown, chaps. 4–8; p. 135Google Scholar, for the proposal to close the college. In 1797, for example, the president of Georgetown appealed to Carroll to transfer a priest from his present assignment to the college. In this case, Carroll did not comply. See William DuBourg to John Carroll, May 22, 1797, in Archives of Georgetown University.

⁷³ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 28 ff., 39–43, 121–53, 187–88Google Scholar, is indispensable for the following account. Hughes, , Documents, pp. 665–85Google Scholar, 744–63, 849–53, contains valuable material but it is difficult to use. Cf. also Melville, , Carroll, esp. pp. 249–58Google Scholar, and Guilday, , Carroll, II, chap. 27Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ On this point see Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 122, 128, 132, 146–47Google Scholar. Cf. also Carroll to Robert Plowden, Dec. 12, 1813; Carroll to Marmaduke Stone, Jan. 31, 1814. Carroll Papers, III: 248–50, 255–56.

⁷⁵ Daley, Although, Georgetown, pp. 120Google Scholar, 132, indicates that Georgetown became a Jesuit institution in 1806, the Jesuit president, John Grassi, was still asking for complete control of the school in 1813, and didn't seem to get it until 1815 (ibid., p. 184). Carroll stated in a letter to John Grassi Oct. 27, 1811, that Georgetown was “in no sense, a property, or house of the Society.” And to the Jesuit general in 1814 he wrote: “For since the college is a new foundation, it never belonged to the Society; nor could it be handed over to the Society under the circumstances … [because the Society] has no corporate existence; and it cannot have one till the Holy See officially abrogates the Brief [of suppression] of Clement XIV which had full effect in this country.” Carroll to Thaddeus Brzozowski, Jan. 28, 1814. Carroll to John Grassi, July 9, 1812, maintains the Jesuit general had no authority to appoint Grassi president of Georgetown. Carroll Papers, III: 158, 253, 185.

⁷⁶ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 152–53Google Scholar, and chap. 8. Curran, Francis X., “The Jesuit Colony in New York, 1808–1817,” Historical Records and Studies, 43 (1954), 51–97Google Scholar, is the best account of Kohlmann's first years in America.

⁷⁷ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 174–79, 181Google Scholar; Carroll to Robert Molyneaux, May 22, 1807. Carroll Papers, III: 20–21.

⁷⁸ Daley, , Georgetown, p. 111Google Scholar. Cf. also Charles Sewall to John Carroll, Dec. 15, 1800, Archives of the Archdiocese of Baltimore. Note Carroll's comment on this letter. Carroll Papers, II: 332.

⁷⁹ Cf. Ruane, , St. Sulpice, esp. pp. 40–43Google Scholar. The two priests at Georgetown were William DuBourg and Benedict J. Flaget. Cf. John, M. Tessier's “Epoques du Seminaire de Baltimore,” given as an appendix in Kortendick, James J., “The History of St. Mary's College, Baltimore, 1799–1852” (M. A. thesis, Catholic University of America, 1942), pp. 145–46, 147Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Ruane, , St. Sulpice, pp. 40–43Google Scholar, gives a list of the seminary's students which shows that before 1800 none came from Georgetown, although five seminarians taught there. Ruane's work (chaps. 2–3) is the best source for this whole episode, Cf. also Hughes, , Documents, pp. 744–68Google Scholar, for pertinent materials and a different viewpoint.

⁸¹ Annabelle Melville is presently at work on a much needed biography of DuBourg. He was associated not only with Georgetown and St. Mary's College, but also with Mother Seton's school at Emmitsburg, with Mount St. Mary's College, and with the beginnings of St. Louis University; he also brought to this country the first Vincentian fathers who established a number of seminaries and colleges.

⁸² Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 24, 1796, and Jan. 10, 1808. Carroll Papers, II: 189; III: 37. Carroll to Charles Plowden, Dec. 12, 1813, describes DuBourg as “A priest of great talent, but delighting more in brilliancy than solidity” (Carroll Papers, III: 247). Cf. also Hughes, , Documents, pp. 754, 799, 801Google Scholar.

⁸³ Hughes, , Documents, p. 537 n., for debtGoogle Scholar; ibid., p. 753, for alleged plan to take over Georgetown. Shea, , Life of Carroll, p. 670Google Scholar, says rather harshly that DuBourg, although a brilliant and learned man, “lacked courage and firmness.” DuBourg's vacillations in his career in Louisiana are treated critically in Faherty, William Barnaby, Dream by the River, Two Centuries of Saint Louis Catholicism, 1766–1967 (St. Louis, 1973), pp. 13–32Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Dec. 11, 1798. Carroll Papers, II: 248. Cf. Hughes, , Documents, p. 754Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Carroll noted on the back of a letter he received in 1796 that it contained “anecdotes respecting the appointment of Mr. DuBourg to the presidencyof G. T. College” (Carroll Papers, II: 190). Melville, , Carroll, pp. 145–47Google Scholar, stresses the anti-French feeling stemming from the XYZ Affair and the Quasi-War with France.

⁸⁶ Daley, , Georgetown, pp. 100Google Scholar–01; Tessier's, “Epoques” in , Kortendick, “St. Mary's College,” p. 147Google Scholar, and in Hughes, , Documents, p. 765Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ See Ruane, , St. Sulpice, pp. 68–85, 225–31Google Scholar, for this tangled matter.

⁸⁸ Ibid., pp. 99–104.

⁸⁹ Ibid., pp. 104 ff.; precis of letter Carroll to James Emery, Aug. 1800, Carroll Papers, II: 313–14; Hughes, , Documents, pp. 797, 777Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Carroll to Charles Plowden, Sept. 3, 1800. Carroll Papers, II: 318–19. The relevant passages of this letter are also reproduced in Hughes, , Documents, pp. 757–60, with fuller annotationGoogle Scholar.

⁹¹ Ruane, , St. Sulpice, pp. 50–51, 114Google Scholar.

⁹² Carroll to James Emery, Sept., 1801, in Ruane, , St. Sulpice, p. 49Google Scholar, and in Carroll Papers, II: 358.

⁹³ Ruane, , St. Sulpice, pp. 87, 114–21Google Scholar; Hughes, , Documents, pp. 793–95Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Carroll told Charles Plowden, Dec. 7, 1804, that Emery had “not behaved well to me” in recalling his subject of France. Writing to Robert Molyneaux, Feb. 25, 1807, he accused the Sulpicians of being too devoted to their own establishments and not having sufficient regard for “the general cause of religion” (Carroll Papers, II: 461; III: 10).

⁹⁵ See the list given in Ruane, , St. Sulpice, pp. 55–66Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Knowles, David, The Historian and Character (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.