Chauncy, in 1700 (History of Hertfordshire), restored her sex to the lady, and then set to work upon making a family history for her. His first discovery was that, being a “Dame,” she was of noble blood. Finding also that the family name of Lord Berners was, in olden time, spelt occasionally Barnes, he soon supplied a father for our authoress, in the person of Sir James Berners. And so the game of making history went on merrily up to the time of Joseph Haslewood, who, in 1810, reprinted Wynken de Worde’s edition of the Book of St. Albans, and supplied a full-blown biography of the authoress, giving particulars of her birth and education, the occupations of her youthful days, and a most imposing pedigree. Let us quote Haslewood’s own words: “Julyans, or Juliana, Barnes, otherwise Berners, who has been generally designated as the authoress of the present volume, is supposed to have been born, towards the latter end of the fourteenth century, at Roding-Berners, in the county of Essex. The received report is that she was the daughter of Sir James Berners, whose son was created Baron Berners, temp. Henry IV., and that she once held the situation of Prioress of Sopwell Nunnery, in Hertfordshire.” He then attributes to her the authorship of all four works in the Book of St. Albans. The difficulty of accounting for a lady so placed writing upon such subjects, is cleverly, if not satisfactorily settled by assuming that she passed her teens at court, partaking of the amusements of the field, and writing for her own use a commonplace book on various subjects. Then retiring through disappointment (doubtless a love affair) to a cloister, her rank raised her to the position of prioress. There in her seclusion, writing amidst the solitude of listless hours and vain regrets, she versified the general rules of sport from her own pleasant recollection, and from the diaries of her youthful happiness, which fortunately she had preserved. If we remember the mania which seized all classes for diary-keeping at the beginning of this century, when Haslewood wrote this, it will deepen our sense of humour to note that he attributes private diary-keeping to a young lady who lived _ante_ 1450. But enough of such sham biography; let us return to facts. The word “Dame” did not in the fifteenth century, as it does now, imply any connection with a titled family, it meant simply Mistress or Mrs. Chaucer speaks of Dame Partlet in this sense; and had the Dame Julyans Barnes of the fifteenth century lived now, she would have been just “Mrs. Barnes.” Similarity of name in history, like similarity of sound in philology is a will-o’-the-wisp which has led many a writer into a bog. Allowing that Lord Berners’ name was sometimes spelt Barnes, is that sufficient reason for making our authoress a member of his family? I think not.