The Book of Husbandry — Context and Discussion

Produced by MWS, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

There were many quite different printings of this Book of Husbandry. As the editor of this printing, Rev. Walter Skeat, notes in his Introduction: “The present volume contains a careful reprint of Berthelet’s edition of 1534” collated throughout “with the curious edition of 1598” that was authored by “I. R.”--his actual name is unknown.

This “careful reprint” retains all the spelling variations and inconsistencies of those original editions, and so does this etext. The Notes and Sidenotes produced by Skeat are of course in modern (1882) English. He has inserted some corrections to the reprinted text; these are shown in [brackets]. Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors in his Notes and Sidenotes have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.

Some minor changes are listed at the end of the book.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of each major section of the book.

The line numbering on each section of the reprinted 1534 text has been retained and is shown as a number (4, 8, 12 etc) on the right side of the etext. Original line-breaks in the 1534 text have been retained.

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.

The 3-star inverted asterism symbol is denoted by ***.

The right-pointing finger symbol is denoted by ==>.

A superscript is denoted by ^n or ^{nn}, for example xxix^{th}.

FITZHERBERT’S BOOK OF HUSBANDRY.

REPRINTED FROM THE EDITION OF 1534,

WITH AN INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND GLOSSARIAL INDEX,

THE REV. WALTER W. SKEAT, M.A.,

ELRINGTON AND BOSWORTH PROFESSOR OF ANGLO-SAXON IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE ENGLISH DIALECT SOCIETY BY TRÜBNER & CO., LUDGATE HILL. 1882.

HERTFORD: PRINTED BY STEPHEN AUSTIN AND SONS.

THE AUTHOR’S PROLOGUE 1

THE TABLE (which see) 3

THE BOOK OF HUSBANDRY 9

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 worthy man / nobly hath done his payne I meane hym / that these sayde bokes[3] dyd deuyse. He sheweth to husbandes / in right fruteful wyse The manyfolde good thynges / in brefe sentence Whiche he hath well proued / by long experyence. ¶ And this[4] I leaue hym / in his good wyll and mynde That he beareth / vnto the publyke weale. Wolde god _noblemen_ / coude in their hertes fynde _After such forme_ / _for the cōmons helth_ to deale; It is a true token / _of hyghe loue and zeale_ Whan _he_ so delyteth / and taketh pleasure By his busy labour / _mens welth to procure_.”

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 argume_n_t 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.