[AP ROBERT, John].
THE BRITWELL COPY
The Younger Brother his Apologie, or a Father’s Free Power Disputed, for the disposition of his Lands.
Oxford, Printed by John Lichfield for Edward Forrest, \"1624\" [colophon: 1634]£1,950.00
4to. pp. (x) “60” [i.e. 56] (ii). Roman and italic letter. Large woodcut arms of the University of Oxford to final verso. Woodcut initials, head- and tailpieces, typographical ornamentation to t-p and to final recto, with a ludic typographical arrangement of the author’s initials (with other letters of unknown significance). The Britwell copy, modern limp vellum by Rivière with monogram supralibros, gilt, of William Henry Miller. Fox Pointe bookplate. A few light smudges, small paper flaw to F3 and repair to H2, each affecting couple of letters, a very good copy.
Second edition, first issue; first published 1618. A pamphlet against primogeniture, with a prefatory letter to the ‘Fathers and Sons of Worthy Families.’ Ap Robert’s chief gripe with primogeniture stems from what he perceives to be moral decay arising among heirs apparent, i.e. eldest sons, which he calls the ‘insociable inheritors’ while referring to their ‘extreme vices.’ Why should these inherit, he asks, while their younger brothers are left penniless? Ap Robert appeals to natural law to justify the omission of written biblical laws advancing primogeniture; to Roman civil law as an example of a reasonable law concerning inheritance, in which all inherited equally; and, finally, to English common law, as having the power to overrule what he sees as a pernicious custom. Strangely, however, he makes no reference to the English customary law of “gavelkind,” a Kentish law which allowed land to be divided equally among all the testator’s sons, and which technically remained in force in Kent until 1925, when the Administration of Estates Act effectively ended primogeniture and, additionally, allowed women to inherit on the same terms as men. Ap Robert’s omission of this customary law is probably due to his argument that a father should be still able to choose only one of his sons to inherit, if he should so wish, but to determine precedence according to merit rather than age.
ESTC S100213; STC 716; Madan I, p. 174; Lincoln’s Inn Catalogue of Pamphlets, 243.In stock