CHAPTER I. =Authorship.= Historians and Biographers, together with Librarians and Booksellers, have a natural antipathy to anonymous books; and, wherever they can, are willing to accept the smallest amount of evidence as proof of paternity. It saves much trouble and avoids numerous errors in cataloguing, when a recognised name can be associated with an anonymous work. From this tendency a bad habit has arisen of attributing to particular writers books concerning which the evidence of authorship is doubtful, if not altogether untrustworthy. In this very book we have a striking instance of such erroneous attribution. The three treatises, of which the book is made up, are quite distinct, and to a portion only of one of these is there any author’s name attached. Yet that name, “Dam Julyans Barnes,” altered by degrees to “Dame Juliana Berners,” is now universally received as the name of the authoress of the whole volume. With even less show of reason she is credited with the authorship of a “Treatise on Fishing” for which there is not the shadow of evidence, that treatise having been added ten years later by Wynken de Worde, who, when reprinting the Book of St. Albans, thought that the subject of Fishing would complete the work as a Gentleman’s Vade Mecum. There are really four distinct tractates in the Book of St. Albans, although the two last being on Heraldry are generally counted as one. The first is on Hawking; to this no name of the author is attached, but it has a prologue which no one acquainted with the other writings of the printer can doubt to be his. Of this we shall have more to say anon. The second tractate is on Hunting: it is specially associated with the name of Dame Juliana Berners, and will require a more extended elucidation than the others. Here the evidence of authorship is as good as for most pieces of fifteenth-century production—a period at which literary rights did not exist, and when the scribe, if at all acquainted with the subject upon which the book he was copying treated, did not scruple to interpolate his own ideas, and that without any egotistical vanity, but merely from a feeling that all books being written for the good of men, and not from vanity in the author, it was a duty to improve them where possible. But as improvement mostly meant the addition of something on the same subject taken from another manuscript, we have the constant occurrence of one MS. being a compilation of two or three others, and yet appearing under the name of the last compiler.