The Book of Husbandry. Anthony Fitzherbert
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 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