793 
Tusser, Thomas (cont*) 
Mavor continues in a foot-note: ’’There is 
some evidence, though certainly inconclusive, 
for believing that the book of Huswifery was 
originally printed by itself. See Register of 
the Stationers’ Company. No copy of this date is 
known to be extant though it is mentioned both 
in Weston’s and King’s Catalogue; and the exis¬ 
tence of an edition of Tusser, of this date, 
(1562), seems to me to be unquestionable.” 
The Short-title Cat. entry for the 1570 ed. 
(no.24373) says: ”Ent. 1561-62.” If this means 
that it was entered then in the Stationers’ Reg¬ 
ister but not published until 1570, the exis¬ 
tence of a 1562 ed. seems doubtful, Graesse 
I.C., however, says that 1561, 1562, and 1570 
are all different. 
-- 1564. (not located) 
Lowndes, 5:2728, gives entry for this; it is 
also noted by Graesse, 6(2);216, as a distinct 
reprint of the original edition of 1557, Mavor 
in the 1812 ed,, p.l8, says: ’’The existence of 
an edition of this date rests on the authority 
of Otridge’s Catalogue, 1794, It is probably a 
misprint for 1562,” 
-- [Londini] In aedibus Richardi Tottylli, 1570, 
(Huntington Lib,) 
Ent, 1561-62, according to the Short-title 
Cat,, 24373, 
Mavor, in the 1812 ed,, p,19, has this foot¬ 
note :’’Mr, Park, who had this copy in his pos¬ 
session lately, and considers it to be no less 
rare than the edition of 1557, favoured me with 
the particulars of its contents, which essen¬ 
tially differ from the preceding as well as the 
subsequent editions, containing more than the 
former, and less than the latter,” 
- London, In aedibus Richardi Tottelli, 1571. 
43 ff, (Brit. Mus.) 
