One question of chief interest respecting the volume here printed is—who was the author? We know that his name was “Mayster Fitzherbarde” (see p. 125), and the question that has to be settled is simply this—may we identify him with Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, judge of the Common Pleas, the author of the Grand Abridgment of the Common Law, the New Natura Brevium, and other legal works?

The question has been frequently discussed, and, as far as I have been able to discover, the more usual verdict of the critics is in favour of the supposed identity; and certainly all the evidence tends very strongly in that direction, as will, I think, presently appear.

Indeed, when we come to investigate the grounds on which the objections to the usually received theory rest, they appear to be exceedingly trivial; nor have I been very successful in discovering the opposed arguments. Bohn’s edition of Lowndes’ Bibliographer’s Manual merely tells us that “the treatises on Husbandry and Surveying are by some attributed to the famous lawyer Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, by others to his brother John Fitzherbert.”

In the Catalogue of the Huth Library, we find this note: “The Rev. Joseph Hunter was the first person to point out that the author of this work [Fitzherbert’s Husbandry] and the book on Surveying was a different person from the judge of the same name.” It will be at once observed that this note is practically worthless, from the absence of the reference. After considerable search, I have been unable to discover where Hunter’s statement is to be found, so that the nature of his objections can only be guessed at.

In Walter Harte’s Essays on Husbandry (ii. 77) we read—“How Fitzherbert could be a practitioner of the art of agriculture for 40 years, as he himself says in 1534, is pretty extraordinary. I suppose it was his country amusement in the periodical recesses between the terms.” We are here presented with a definite objection, grounded, as is alleged, upon the author’s own words; and it is most probable that Harte is here stating the objection which has weighed most strongly with those who (like Hunter) have objected to the current opinion. The answer to the objection is, I think, not a little remarkable, viz. that the alleged statement is not the author’s at all. By turning to p. 125, it will be seen that it was Thomas Berthelet the printer who said that the author “had exercysed husbandry, with greate experyence, xl. years.” But the author’s own statement, on p. 124, is differently worded; and the difference is material. He says: “and, as touchynge the poyntes of husbandry, and of other artycles conteyned in this present boke, I wyll not saye that it is the beste waye and wyll serue beste in all places, but I saye it is the best way that euer I coude proue by experyence, the whiche haue ben an housholder this xl. yeres and more, and haue assaied many and dyuers wayes, and done my dyligence to proue by experyence which shuld be the beste waye.” The more we weigh these words, the more we see a divergence between them and the construction which might readily be put upon the words of Berthelet; a construction which, in all probability, Berthelet did not specially intend. Any reader who hastily glances at Berthelet’s statement would probably deduce from it that the author was a farmer merely, who had had forty years’ experience in farming. But this is not what we should deduce from the more careful statement of the author. We should rather notice these points.

1. The author does not speak of husbandry only, but of other points. The other points are the breeding of horses (not a necessary part of a farmer’s business), the selling of wood and timber, grafting of trees, a long discourse upon prodigality, remarks upon gaming, a discussion of “what is riches,” and a treatise upon practical religion, illustrated by Latin quotations from the fathers, and occupying no small portion of the work. This is not the work of a practical farmer, in the narrow acceptation of the term, meaning thereby one who farms to live; but it is clearly the work of a country gentleman, rich in horses and in timber, acquainted with the extravagant mode of life often adopted by the wealthy, and at the same time given to scholarly pursuits and to learned and devout reading. Indeed, the prominence given to religious teaching can hardly fail to surprise a reader who expects to find in the volume nothing more than hints upon practical agriculture. One chapter has a very suggestive heading, viz. “A lesson made in Englysshe verses, that a gentylmans seruaunte shall forget none of his gere in his inne behynde hym” (p. 7). This is obviously the composition of a gentleman himself, and of one accustomed to take long journeys upon horseback, and to stay at various inns on the way.[1]

2. Again he says, “it is the best way that euer I coude proue by experyence, the whiche ... haue assaied many and dyuers wayes, and done my dyligence to proue by experyence which shuld be the beste waye.” Certainly this is not the language of one who farmed for profit, but of the experimental farmer, the man who could afford to lose if things went wrong, one to whom farming was an amusement and a recreation, and who delighted in trying various modes that he might benefit those who, unlike himself, could not afford to try any way but that which had long been known.

3. We must note the language in which he describes himself. He does not say that he had “exercised husbandry” for forty years, but that he had “been a householder” during that period. The two things are widely different. His knowledge of agriculture was, so to speak, accidental; his real employment had been to manage a household, or, as we should rather now say, to “keep house.” This, again, naturally assigns to him the status of a country gentleman, who chose to superintend everything for himself, and to gain a practical acquaintance with everything upon his estate, viz. his lands, his cattle, his horses, his bees, his trees, his felled timber, and the rest; not forgetting his duties as a man of rank in setting a good example, discouraging waste, giving attention to prayer and almsgiving, and to his necessary studies. “He that can rede and vnderstande latyne, let hym take his booke in his hande, and looke stedfastely vppon the same thynge that he readeth and seeth, that is no trouble to hym,” etc. (p. 115). Are we to suppose that it could be said generally, of farmers in the time of Henry VIII., that Latin was “no trouble to them”? If so, things must have greatly changed.

I have spoken of the above matter at some length, because I much suspect that the words used by Berthelet are the very words which have biassed, entirely in the wrong direction, the minds of such critics as have found a difficulty where little exists. It ought to be particularly borne in mind that Berthelet’s expression, though likely to mislead now, was not calculated to do so at the time, when the authorship of the book was doubtless well known. And we shall see presently that Berthelet himself entirely believed Sir Anthony to have been the author of this Book on Husbandry.

Another objection that has been raised is founded upon the apparent strangeness of the title “Mayster Fitz-herbarde” as applied to a judge. The answer is most direct and explicit, viz. that the printer who uses this title did so wittingly, for he is the very man who helps us to identify our author with the great lawyer. It is therefore simply impossible that he could have seen any incongruity in it, and any objection founded upon it must be wholly futile. The title of master was used in those days very differently to what it is now. Foxe, in his Actes and Monuments, ed. 1583, p. 1770, tells us how “maister Latymer” encouraged “maister Ridley,” when both were at the stake; and, chancing to open Holinshed’s History (ed. 1808, iii. 754), I find a discourse between Wolsey and Sir William Kingston, Constable of the Tower, in which the latter is called “master Kingston” throughout.

I cannot find that there is any reason for assigning the composition of the Book of Husbandry to John Fitzherbert, Sir Anthony’s brother. It is a mere guess, founded only upon the knowledge that Sir Anthony had such a brother. It looks as though the critics who wish to deprive Sir Anthony of the honour of the authorship think they must concede somewhat, and therefore suggest his brother’s name by way of compensation.

We have no proof that John Fitzherbert ever wrote anything, whilst Sir Anthony was a well-known author. All experience shows that a man who writes one book is likely to write another.

When we leave these vague surmises and come to consider the direct evidence, nearly all difficulties cease. And first, as to external evidence.

The author of the Book of Husbandry was also author of the Book of Surveying, as has always been seen and acknowledged.[2] The first piece of distinct evidence on the subject is the statement of Thomas Berthelet. He prefixed some verses to Pynson’s edition of the Book of Surveying (1523), addressing the reader as follows:

This cannot well be mistaken. It is obvious that Berthelet believed the author to be a nobleman, one who “shewed things to husbands” which he had gained by his own “long experience;” one who wrote out of the “good will and mind that he bare unto the public weal,” thereby proving his “high love and zeal,” in that he delighted “to procure men’s wealth,” i.e. the welfare of others, not his own riches, by means of his “busy labour.” We hence conclude that Berthelet knew perfectly well who the author was; and indeed it would have been strange if he did not, since he was writing in 1523 (while the author was still alive), and subsequently printed both the books of which he is here speaking. He plainly tells us that the author was a nobleman, and merely wrote to benefit others out of pure love and zeal.

But this is not Berthelet’s only allusion to these books. In an edition of the Book of Surveying, printed by Berthelet,[5] there are some remarks by him at the back of the title-page to the following effect. “To the reder. Whan I had printed the boke longyng to a Justice of the peace, togither with other small bokes very necessary, I bethought me vpon this boke of Surueyenge, compyled sometyme by master Fitzherbarde, how good and howe profitable it is for all states, that be lordes and possessioners of landes, ... or tenauntes of the same, ... also how well it agreeth with the argument of the other small bokes, as court-baron, court-hundred, and chartuary, I went in hande and printed it in the same volume that the other be, to binde them al-togither. And haue amended it in many places.”

The mention of “the boke longyng to a Justice of the peace” is interesting, as bringing us back again to Sir Anthony Fitzherbert. “In 1538,” says Mr. Wallis,[6] Robert Redman printed “The newe Boke of Justices of the Peas, by A. F. K. [Anthony Fitzherbert, Knight], lately translated out of French into English, In the yere of our Lord God, M.D.xxxviii. The 29 day of December, Cum priuilegio.”[7] Mr. Hobson’s list (Hist. Ashborne, p. 234) mentions this as “the first work on the subject ever printed,” but this is not the case. Wynkyn de Worde and Copland both printed, as early as 1515, “The Boke of Justices of the Peas, the charge, with al the proces of the Cessyons, Warrants, Superseders, wyth al that longyth to ony justice, &c.” It is not pretended that this was our author’s work; but he improved upon it, as he did also upon the Natura Brevium. In his preface to La Novel Natura Brevium (Berthelet, 1534), he says that the original book was written by a learned man, whom he does not name: and that it was esteemed as a fundamental book for understanding the law. In the course of its translations, and of the alteration of the laws, many things had been retained which were unnecessary, and much desirable matter was omitted. This was what induced him to compose the new one.

Upon this I have to remark, that it is incredible that Berthelet should mention a work which he knew to be by Sir Anthony Fitzherbert in one line, and in the next should proceed to speak of “Master Fitzherbarde” without a word of warning that he was speaking of a different person. The obvious inference is that the author of the Book on Surveying was, in his belief, the same person as the “A. F. K.” who wrote “the boke longyng to a Justice of the peace.” As it is, he takes no trouble about the matter; for he could hardly foresee that any difficulty would thence arise. It is remarkable how frequently writers just stop short of being explicit, because they think that, at the moment of writing, a fact is too notorious to be worth mentioning.

Here the direct external evidence ceases. We now come to consider the internal evidence, which is interesting enough.

In the first place, the author of the Book of Husbandry was also the author of the Book of Surveying, as he tells us explicitly in his prologue to the latter book. But whoever wrote the Book of Surveying must have been a considerable lawyer. It is of a far more learned and technical character than the Book on Husbandry, and abounds with quotations from Latin statutes, which the author translates and explains. In Chap. 1 he says of a certain statute, that, in his opinion, it was made soon after the Battle of Evesham, in the time of Henry III.; and he frequently interprets statutes with the air of one whose opinion was worth having. In Chap, xi., he enlarges upon the mistakes made by lords, knights, squires, and gentlemen who know but little of the law. “They come to the court or sende their clerkes, that can [know] as litle law as their maister or lasse, but that he vnderstandeth a lytell latyn.” At the end of the same chapter, he is deep in law-terms, court-roll, fee simple, fee tayle, franke tenement, and all the rest of it. He then gives numerous forms, all in Latin, to be used by owners who wish to lease, grant, or surrender lands; but only a good lawyer would venture to recommend forms suitable for such important purposes.

Some other points of internal evidence have already been incidentally noticed, such as the author’s familiarity with the mode of life of the rich; his lesson made for “a gentylmans seruaunte”; his readiness to try many ways of farming as an experimentalist who could afford to lose money; and his statement that Latin was no trouble to him. I proceed to notice a few more.

Something further can be inferred from the author’s mention of places. He speaks of so many counties, as Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, that we can at first obtain no definite result. But there is an express allusion to “the peeke countreye” at p. 44; whilst at p. 81 he alludes to the parts about London by using the adverb “there,” as if it were not his home. Yet that he was perfectly familiar with London is obvious from his allusions to it in chap. xix. of the Book on Surveying. But there are two more explicit references which are worth notice. At p. 27, he speaks of “the farther syde of Darbyshyre, called Scaresdale, Halomshyre, and so northewarde towarde Yorke and Ryppon.” Now Scarsdale is one of the six “hundreds” of Derbyshire, and includes the country about Dronfield and Chesterfield; whilst Hallamshire is a name given to a part of Yorkshire lying round and including Sheffield. We hence fairly deduce the inference that the author lived on the western side of Derbyshire, in the neighbourhood of Ashborne, so that he looked upon Chesterfield as lying on the farther side of the country, and at the same time northward, which is precisely the fact. We are thus led to locate the author in the very neighbourhood of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s home.

Again, at p. 65, he says that if he were to say too much about the faults of horses, he would break the promise that he made “at Grombalde brydge,” the first time that he went to Ripon to buy colts. After some search as to the place here intended, I found, in Allen’s History of Yorkshire, that one of the bridges over the Nidd near Knaresborough is called “Grimbald bridge;”[8] and, seeing that Knaresborough is exactly due south of Ripon, it follows that the author came from the south of Knaresborough. We seem, in fact, to trace the general direction of his first ride to Ripon, viz. from his home to the farther side of Derbyshire, through the northwest corner of Scarsdale to Sheffield, and “so northward” through Leeds and Knaresborough. Nothing can be more satisfactory.

A very interesting point is the author’s love of farming and of horses. As to horses, he tells us how he first went to Ripon to buy colts (p. 65); how many secrets of horse-dealing he could tell; how, in buying horses, he had been beguiled a hundred times and more (p. 63); how he used to say to his customers that, if ever they ventured to trust any horse-dealer, they had better trust himself (p. 73); and how he had in his possession at one time as many as sixty mares, and five or six horses (p. 60). In this connection, it becomes interesting to inquire if Sir Anthony Fitzherbert was fond of horses likewise.

It so happens that this question can certainly be answered in the affirmative; and I have here to acknowledge, with pleasure and gratitude, the assistance which I have received from one of the family,[9] the Rev. Reginald Fitzherbert, of Somersal Herbert, Derbyshire. He has been at the trouble of transcribing Sir Anthony’s will, a complete copy of which he contributed to “The Reliquary,” No. 84, vol. xxi. April, 1881, p. 234. I here insert, by his kind permission, his remarks upon the subject, together with such extracts from the will as seem most material for our present purpose.

“The following will of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, of Norbury, is transcribed from the Office Copy at Somerset House (Dingley, fol. 20), and is now printed, as I believe, for the first time. The contractions have been written out in extenso.

“Sir Anthony married, secondly, the co-heir of Richard Cotton, and with her he acquired the estate of Hampstall Ridware, which he probably kept in his own hands, and farmed himself. He succeeded his brother John at Norbury in 1531, and died there in 1538, aged 68.

“Fuller, in his Worthies, says that Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s books are ‘monuments which will longer continue his Memory than the flat blew marble stone in Norbury Church under which he lieth interred.’ Camden (Gibson’s ed. 1753, vol. i. p. 271) calls him Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; but Thoroton (Notts., ed. 1677, p. 344) says, ‘I do not find that Anthony Fitzherbert was ever Chief Justice;’ and it does not appear that he was more than, as he describes himself, ‘oon of the kings Justices.’”

The will was proved at Lichfield, August 26, 1538.

I may add that the will mentions his wife dame Maude, his son Thomas, his three younger sons John, Richard, and William, and his daughter Kateryn; also his cousin Richard Coton and his wife Alice. Thomas Fitzherbert married the daughter of Sir Arthur Eyre.

It hence appears that Sir Anthony had no less than three farms, one at Castleton in the Peak, one at Caldon in Staffordshire, near Dove Dale, and a farm which he held of the King; besides the How Grange and some land at Whittington near Lichfield, as also some purchased lands and tenements in the counties of Stafford, Northampton, and Warwick, mentioned in a part of the will which I have not quoted. There was also the estate of Hampstall Ridware in Staffordshire, to which he attached considerable importance, directing his heir-looms to be kept there. He also makes mention, in all, of six horses (including a stallion and two geldings), twelve mares, three colts, one bull, four bullocks, five heifers, eight oxen, and ten cows, though it is obvious that these by no means include all his stock, but merely a selection from it. All this precisely agrees with the statements in the Book of Husbandry.

I do not think it necessary to pursue the subject further, but a word must be added as to the chronology. Not having seen the first edition of the Book of Husbandry printed by Pynson in 1523, I cannot certainly say whether the statement that the author had “been a householder for 40 years” occurs there. It occurs, however, in an undated edition by Peter Treuerys,[13] which is certainly the second edition, and printed between 1521 and 1531, as Treuerys is only known to have printed books during that period. Now this edition professes to have corrections and additions, the title being—“Here bygynneth a newe tracte or treatis moost profytable for all husbande men / and very [frutefu]ll for all other persones to rede / newly cor[rected] & amended by the auctour with to dyuerse other thynges added thervnto;” and it agrees very closely with the copy here printed. The date assigned for Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s birth is 1470. If we suppose him to have begun housekeeping at 21, a period of 40 years will bring us to 1531, which is not inconsistent with his statement, if such be the date of the copy above mentioned. If, however, it should appear that the statement exists even in the first edition printed in 1523, then the “forty years” would lead us to suppose that, if the assigned date of his birth be correct, Sir Anthony began to be a householder, in his own estimation, at the early age of twelve or thirteen. This is of course a difficulty, but not an insuperable one, for the phrase “have been a householder” is somewhat vague, and the phrase “forty years or more” has rather the air of a rhetorical flourish.

It may here be noticed that Berthelet’s first edition (here reprinted) has nothing on the title-page but the words “The Boke of Hvsbandry,” with the date 1534 below. Later reprints which follow Berthelet have accordingly no statement as to the book being “newly corrected and amended by the auctour,” etc.; whilst those which follow Treuerys naturally copy it. This accounts for the fact that the later editions are, to the best of my belief, all very much the same, and that the claim to possess “corrections and amendments” means practically nothing, except with reference to the first edition only.

Of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert, one of the best accounts seems to be that given in the Biographia Britannica, 1750, vol. iii. p. 1935, where Camden’s statement as to his being “Chief Justice” is refuted. Briefly recapitulated, this account tells us that he was born in 1470, and was the younger son of Ralph Fitzherbert, Esq., of Norbury in Derbyshire; that he went to Oxford, and thence to the Inns of Court; was made a serjeant-at-law, Nov. 18, 1511; was knighted in 1516; was made one of his majesty’s serjeants-at-law, and finally one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas in 1523. He died May 27, 1538, and was buried at Norbury. “Two things are mentioned in reference to his conduct; first, that, without fear of his power, he openly opposed Cardinal Wolsey in the heighth of his favour; the other, that, when he came to lie upon his death-bed, foreseeing the changes that were like to happen in the Church as well as State, he pressed his children in very strong terms to promise him solemnly, neither to accept grants, nor to make purchases of abbey-lands; which it is said they did, and adhered constantly to that promise, though much to their own loss.” The authorities referred to are Pits, De Illustribus AngliÆ Scriptoribus, p. 707; Wood, AthenÆ Oxonienses, i. col. 50; Fuller, Worthies, Derbyshire, p. 233; Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, p. 283; Chronica Juridicialia, pp. 153, 155., etc.

The number of editions of the Book of Husbandry is so large, and many of these are nevertheless so scarce, that I do not suppose the list here subjoined is exhaustive; nor have I much information about some of them. I merely mention what I have found, with some authorities.

1. A newe tracte or treatyse moost profytable for all Husbandemen, and very frutefull for all other persons to rede. London: by Rycharde Pynson. 4to. (1523). See Typographical Antiquities, by Ames and Herbert, ed. Dibdin, ii. 503. This is the first edition, and very rare. It was described by Dibdin from Heber’s copy, supposed to be unique. See Heber’s Catalogue, part ix. p. 61. The note in Hazlitt that a copy of this edition is in the Bodleian Library is a mistake, as I have ascertained. It is not dated, but the Book on Surveying, printed just afterwards, is dated 1523; and there is no doubt as to the date. It is remarkable for an engraving upon the title-page, representing two oxen drawing a plough, with drivers.

2. “Here begynneth a newe tracte,” etc. (See p. xx.) London, Southwark; by P. Treuerys, 4to. (No date; but between 1521 and 1531). In the Camb. Univ. Library. This is the only other edition which (as far as I know) has the picture of ploughing upon the title-page.[14]

3. By Thomas Berthelet, in 1532 (Lowndes). It is “12mo in size, but in eights by signatures,” and therefore 8vo. (A. Wallis; Derby Mercury, Nov. 1869).

4. By Thomas Berthelet; 8vo.; the edition here reprinted from the copy in the Cambridge University Library. There are also two copies of it in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. The title-page has merely the words: “The " Boke of " Hvs- " bandry;” printed within a border bearing the date 1534. The reverse of the title-page is blank. On the second leaf, marked A ij, begins “The aucthors prologue.” The rest of sheet A (which contains in all only six leaves) is occupied with the Prologue and “the Table;” and is not foliated. Then follow sheets B to M, all of eight leaves, and sheet N, of two leaves only. Sheets B to H have the folios numbered from 1 to 56; sheets I, K, L have the folios numbered from 51 to 75; and sheets M and N, from 81 to 90. Thus the six numbers 51–56 occur twice over, and the five numbers 76–80 do not occur at all. It is not quite certain that the apparent date is also the real one; for at the end of Berthelet’s print of Xenophon’s treatise of Housholde, which has 1534 within the same border upon the title-page, there is a colophon giving the date as 1537. This border was evidently in use for at least three years. See Dibdin, iii. 287.

5. By Berthelet; 1546. This edition also contains the Treatise on Surveying. (Lowndes; compare Dibdin, iii. 348.)

6. By Berthelet; 1548. (Lowndes; Dibdin, iii. 334, where it is described as 12mo.) A copy of this is noticed in the Catalogue of the Huth Library.

7. By Thomas Marshe; (1560). This edition is said to be “newly corrected and amended by the author, Fitzherbarde;” but is, of course, a mere reprint. See remarks upon this above. (Lowndes; Dibdin, iv. 534.) In Arber’s Transcript of the Stationers’ Registers, i. 128, we find—“Recevyd of Thomas Marshe for his lycense for pryntinge of a boke Called the boke of husbondry, graunted the xx of June [1560] ... iiij. d.” Hence the date, which is not given, may be inferred.

8. By John Awdeley; 16mo. 1562; “wyth diuers addicions put ther-vnto.” (Dibdin, iv. 566.)

9. By John Awdeley; 8vo. 1576; “with diuers additions put therunto.” (Dibdin, iv. 568.)

10. Fitzharbert’s " Booke of " Husbandrie. " Devided Into foure seuerall Bookes, very ne " cessary and profitable for all sorts " of people. And now newlie corrected, amended, and reduced into a more pleasing forme of English then before. Ecclesiast. 10. ver. 28. Better is he that laboureth, and hath plentiousnesse of all thinges, then hee that is gorgious " and wanteth bread. At London, " Printed by J. R. for Edward White, and are " to be sold at his shoppe, at the little North doore of Paules Church, at the signe of the Gunne. " Anno Dom. 1598. Dedicated “To the Worshipfull Maister Henrie Iackman Esquire” ... by “Your Worships in affection I. R.” Of this book I shall say more below. I have used the copy in the Douce Collection in the Bodleian Library.[15]

11. etc. There are numerous other editions. Hazlitt mentions one by R. Kele (no date), “newlye corrected and amended by the auctor Fitzherbarde, with dyuers additions put therunto.” Lowndes says: “London, by Richard Kele, 16mo. There are two editions, one containing H, the other I, in eights.” Dibdin (iii. 533) mentions one by John Wayland, 8vo. (no date), Lowndes mentions an edition printed at London “in the Hovs of Tho. Berthelet,” 16mo.; eighty leaves; also—another edition, slightly differing in orthography, and having at the end “Cum privilegio;” also another “in the House of Thomas Berthelet,” 16mo. A, 6 leaves, B—M, in eights, N, 2 leaves, with the date of 1534 on the title-page; but this can be nothing else than the very book here reprinted, and it is not clear why he mentions it again. Lowndes also notices undated editions by John Walley, Robert Toye, Jugge, and Myddylton.

It hence appears that the book was frequently reprinted between 1523 and 1598, but the last of these editions was such as to destroy its popularity, and I am not aware that it was ever again reprinted except in 1767, when the Books on Husbandry and Surveying were reprinted together[16] in a form strongly resembling the edition of 1534.[17] The title of this book is—“Certain Ancient Tracts concerning the management of Landed Property reprinted. London, printed for C. Bathurst and J. Newbery; 1767.” This is a fairly good reprint, with the old spelling carefully preserved; but has neither note nor comment of any kind. A copy of it kindly lent me by Mr. Furnivall has proved very useful.

The editions of the Book on Surveying are almost as numerous as those of the Book on Husbandry, though this was hardly to be expected, considering its more learned and technical character. It is not necessary to speak here particularly of Sir Anthony Fitzherbert’s acknowledged works. The most important are the Grand Abridgment of the Common Law (1514, folio), Office of Justices of the Peace (1538), Diversity of Courts (1539), and the New Natura Brevium, of which the ninth edition, with a commentary by Lord Hale, appeared in 1794. The first edition of the Grand Abridgment was printed by Pynson, who was also the printer of the first edition of the Book of Husbandry. The New Natura Brevium was printed in 1534 by Berthelet, who reprinted the Book of Husbandry in the same year. In a bookseller’s catalogue, March, 1880, I chanced to see the following. “Early English Printing; Black Letter; Law Books in Latin and Norman-French (1543–51). Natura Brevium; newely and most trewely corrected with diverse additions of statutes bokes cases plees in abatements, etc.; London, Wyllyam Powel, 1551.—Articuli ad Narrationes novas; London, W. Powel, 1547.—Diuersite de courtz et lour jurisdiccions, et alia necessaria et utilia, London, W. Myddylton, 1543. The three works in 1 vol., sm. 8vo., old calf neat, quite perfect and very rare, 21s.”

The present volume contains a careful reprint of Berthelet’s edition of 1534, which is a fairly good one. I have collated it throughout with the curious edition of 1598, which abounds with “corrections,” some of them no improvements, and with additional articles. It is a very curious book, and I have given all the more interesting variations in the notes, with a description of the additions. The author, who only gives his initials “I. R.” (by which initials I have been often obliged to quote him[18]) has the effrontery to tell us that he has reduced Fitzherbert’s work “into a more pleasing forme of English then before;” and says that he has “labored to purge the same from the barbarisme of the former times.” Again he addresses the reader, saying—“Gentle Reader, being vrged by the consideration of the necessitie of this worke, and finding it almost cast into perpetuall obliuion, I haue purged it from the first forme of missounding termes to our daintie eares.” This means, of course, that he has altered terms which he did not understand, and occasionally turns sense into nonsense; yet he seems to have taken considerable pains with his author, and his additions are frequently to the point. Whether his discourses upon the keeping of poultry (p. 145, note to sect. 144) were really due to his “owne experience in byrds and foules,” or whether he copied much of it from some of his predecessors, I have not been curious to discover. His references to Virgil, to the fable of Cynthia and Endymion, the Cinyphian goats, and the rest, are in the worst possible taste, and he was evidently far too staunch a Protestant to be able to accept all Fitzherbert’s religious views, though modestly and unobtrusively introduced. After carefully reading his production, I infinitely prefer Fitzherbert’s “barbarisme” to I. R.’s pedantic mannerism, and I find the patronising tone of his occasionally stupid amendments to be almost insufferable; but he may be forgiven for his zeal. The art of sinking in poetry has rarely been so well exemplified as in the verses which are printed at pp. 145 and 148.

The reader can best understand what I. R. conceives to be elegance of style by comparing the following extract with section 1 at p. 9.

“Chapter 2. ¶ By what a Husbandman cheefely liueth.

The most generall and commonest experienst liuing that the toyle-imbracing Husbandman liueth by, is either by plowing and sowing of his Corne, or by rearing and breeding of Cattell, and not the one without the other, because they be adjuncts, and may not be disceuered. Then sithens that the Plough is the first good instrument, by which the Husband-men rips from the Earths wombe a well-pleasing liuing, I thinke it is most conuenient first to speake of the forme, fashion, and making therof.”

The words italicised (except in the title) are all his own.

The Glossarial Index, a very full one, was almost entirely prepared, in the first instance, by my eldest daughter, though I have since added a few explanations in some cases, and have revised the whole, at the same time verifying the references. As to the meaning of a few terms, I am still uncertain.

Fitzherbert’s general style is plain, simple, and direct, and he evidently has the welfare of his reader at heart, to whom he offers kindly advice in a manner least calculated to give offence. He is in general grave and practical, but there are a few touches of quiet humour in his remarks upon horse-dealing. “Howe be it I saye to my customers, and those that bye any horses of me, and [if] euer they wil trust any hors-master or corser whyle they lyue, truste me.” I would have trusted him implicitly.

The difficulties of his language arise almost entirely from the presence of numerous technical terms; and it is, indeed, this fact that renders his book one of considerable philological interest, and adapts it for publication by the English Dialect Society. By way of a small contribution to English etymology, I beg leave to take a single instance, and to consider what he has to tell us about the word peruse.

The whole difficulty as to the etymology of this word arises from the change of sense; it is now used in such a way that the derivation from per- and use is not obvious; nor does it commend itself to such as are unacquainted with historical method. For this reason, some etymologists, including Webster, have imagined that it arose from peruise = pervise to see thoroughly, the i being dropped, and the u (really v) being mistaken for the vowel. This is one of those wholly unscrupulous fictions to which but too many incline, as if the cause of truth could ever be helped forward by means of deliberate invention. But there is no such word as peruise, nor any French perviser. Fitzherbert is one of the earliest authorities for peruse, though it also occurs in Skelton, Philip Sparrow, l. 814. Investigation will show that, at the commencement of the sixteenth century, there was a fashion of using words compounded with per-, a number of which I have given in my Dictionary, s. v. peruse. The old sense was ‘to use up, to go through thoroughly, to attend to one by one;’ and the word was sometimes spelt with a v, because vse (use) was generally so spelt. Examples are:—

“Let hym [i.e. the husbandman who wants to reckon the tithe of his corn] goo to the ende of his lande, and begynne and tell [i.e. count] .ix. sheues, and let hym caste out the .x. shefe in the name of god, and so to pervse from lande to lande, tyll he have trewely tythed all his corne;” sect. 30, l. 4.

“And thus [let the shepherd] peruse them all tyll he haue doone;” sect. 40, l. 23.

“Than [let the surveyor who is surveying property go] to the second howse on the same east side in lyke maner, and so to peruse from house to house tyll he come to St. Magnus churche;” Book of Surveying (1767), chap. xix.

“Begyn to plowe a forowe in the middes of the side of the land, and cast it downe as yf thou shulde falowe it, and so peruse both sydes tyl the rygge be cast down,” etc.; Book of Surveying (1767); chap. xxiv.

The special application to a book may be seen in Baret’s Alvearie: “To ouerlooke and peruse a booke againe, Retractare librum.” And accordingly it need not surprise us that Levins, in 1570, translated to peruse by peruti.

There is just one more suggestion which I venture to make, though I fear, like most conjectures which are made with respect to Shakespeare, it is probably valueless. When King Lear appears, in Act iv. sc. 4—

“Crowned with rank fumiter and furrow-weeds,

With hor-docks, hemlock, nettles, cuckoo-flowers,

Darnel, and all the idle weeds that grow

In our sustaining corn”—