The Book of Husbandry

by Anthony Fitzherbert

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: