Introduction. xi 



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 Husbandr}^ 



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 tJie very man who helps us to identify our author with 

 the great la\vyer. 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 any- 

 thing, 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. 



