Databases Reference
In-Depth Information
plowman. During a discussion of surveying in the text proper, the conversation between
the Master and Scholar becomes topical, touching on the contentious issue of enclosures
and common tillage. In this exchange, the Master and Scholar have determined how
many sheep may be kept on 7,000 acres:
Scholar
I see by this rate he that hath 7000 acres of ground may keep 20,000 sheep, &
thereby I conjecture that many men may keep so many sheep. For many men (as the common
saying is) have so many acres of ground.
Master
That talk is not likely, for so much ground is in compass above 48 3/4 miles. but
leave this talk, & return to your questions, lest your pointing be scarce well taken.
Scholar
Indeed I do remember that the Egyptians did grudge so much against shepherds, till
at length they smarted for it, & yet they were but small sheepmasters to some men that be
now, and the sheep are waxen so fierce now and so mighty, that none can withstand them but
the lion.
Master
I perceive you talk as you hear some other [do], but to the work of your question.
30
These i erce sheep, often known as Cotswold lions, probably originated in Sir Thomas
More ' s
Utopia
(1516): “Your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame and so small
eaters, now, as I hear say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up
and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole
i elds, houses, and cities.
31
In More's text, the conversation develops into an extended
discussion of the evils of enclosure. In Recorde's text, the dialogue form provides the
opportunity for ef ective political commentary within the safety of the indirect exchange.
It is the young scholar who makes the most piercing comments, while it is the experi-
enced master who warns him about being too piercing, and then urges him to get back
to the mathematical matter at hand. As in Tunstall's preface, the economic stakes are
obvious, but the commentary has a richness that dei es reduction to a characterless
instrument of market forces. The stakes are indeed ratcheted up with the comparison
of the contemporary English controversies over enclosure with Egyptian problems with
shepherds, a clumsy and inapt allusion to the Hebrew enslavement by Pharaoh. It is not
clear if the scholar means to align the Egyptians or the Hebrews with the shepherds.
(In More, it is clear that upper-rank enclosers are the villains, hurting lower-rank arable
farmers.) And if the English farmers, pushed of their land by enclosures, are the
aggrieved party, how they are meant to align with either the Egyptians or the Hebrews
is also not clear. In any case, the scholar recovers from this moment to obliquely praise
