1922.] Wisdom and Folly of Ancient Book-Fahhbbs. 213 



Before the advent of agricultural chemistry, and the estab- 

 lishment of the principles of plant nutrition, the science of 

 manuring was neither studied nor understood in theory. 

 Probably no farmer in the 16th or 17th century could have 

 explained the precise action of the different substances which 

 he applied. But observation of results by individuals had 

 built up an imposing list of suggested manures, some of which 

 had taken their place in the traditional routine of the best 

 farmers. It is interesting to note that, though the theory waa 

 unknown, practical experiment had provided the essential 

 elements of fertility — nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash. 

 All the native resources, except the coprolite deposits, were 

 in fact utilised. Tt is the method of using these native 

 materials, in their portable form, and in the discovery and use 

 of new or imported ingredients, such as guano, phosphatic 

 rock, the Stassfurt deposits of potash, or basic slag, that the 

 increased command of fertilising substances mainly consists. 



The effect of cattle droppings is so obvious that dung must 

 have been employed as a fertiliser in the infancy of agriculture 

 in every country. Its treatment might be and may be 

 improved. But it was sheer improvidence, or stark necessity 

 which urged farmers to waste their one natural and all-round 

 manure by mixing it w T ith straw, kneading it into lumps, dry- 

 ing it, and burning it as fuel. Standish flfill) notices the 

 practice. It was evidently wade-spread, for Lawrence (1727) 

 speaks of it as prevailing in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and 

 considered it important enough to suggest that all leases should 

 contain a restrictive covenant " Cowdung not to be burnt for 

 fuel." Arthur Young (1770) found the practice in Bucking- 

 ham-hire and Northamptonshire. " There cannot," he says, 



be such an application of manure anywhere but among the 

 Hottentots." 



To the Romans the value of marl, lime and chalk were known, 

 not as direct plant food, but as indirect fertilising agencies. 

 There is some evidence that the original home of their use was 

 Britain. But, with the invasion of the Saxons, many practices 

 were temporarily forgotten. The use of these substances may 

 have lingered on in farming tradition: it may have been revive d 

 by ecclesiastical agriculturists from the writings of Pliny. Yarro, 

 Columella, or Palladius; it may have been discovered afresh 

 from their effect on the land when thrown up in digging ditches 

 or foundations. Marl was certainly used in the l^th century in 

 England. But the practice seems to have fallen into disuse. 



