ii s. vm. NOV. 29, MS.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
435
BISHOP RICHARD OF BURY'S LIBRARY
(US. viii. 341, 397). I am much beholden
to SIR HERBERT MAXWELL for his timely
correction of my chronological error in the
foot-note to my paper ; in like manner to
MR. J. A. HERBERT of the British .Museum
for a private emendation thereof. I had
unaccountably overlooked the difference
between mediaeval and modern time-keeping.
Dean Kitchin was therefore right in stating
that the ' Philobiblon ' was completed in
January, 1345, though he misrendered the
day of the month, which was the 24th, not
the 14th. Accordingly, three months, not
<{ fifteen," must be read in the second line
of my paper. This amende is due, and is
hereby tendered, to the memory of the
Doan.
pp. 36-7, under the title ' Catalogue of Books
lent to Durham College in 1315,' consisting
of thirty-nine volumes, and says further
(p. 198):-
" In 1400 and 1409 we have lists of books sent to Oxford : in 1400, nineteen MSS, ; in 1407 [sic], four- teenthese were devoted mostly to the study of Scripture."
Final question : Did any of Bury's MSS. find their way into any of our great private libraries ? Those still sheltered in our public ones I have happily traced.
J. B. McGovERN.
St. Stephen's Rectory, C.-on-M., Manchester.
P.S. Since the above was written I have received the appended important rectifica- tion of further inaccuracies (happily not my
corr'genda :
, u rri. ,, a , c , ^ , ,, , ^ . I was away on my holidays when you wrote
The note on the fly-leaf of Royal MS. 13 D iv. [August] inquiring about Bishop Bury's MSS. On
Jl?fT i P n re "^ 18 PT te . d <i ulte 00t J l S? 1 ? m y return MR - STOCKS handed me your letter, but < alter E. C. Thomas) in your foot-note, except that
'Ricardo' should be substituted for 'Richardo,' and * Biry ' for ' Bury.'"
This was
mine.
2. "In my parenthetical
letter to you I did not mean my
'viz., in Jan. -Feb., 1345/6,' to apply
to Bury's death, but to the purchase of Royal
MS. 13 D. iv. from his executors; it was my trans-
lation, in fact, of the words ' Anno Domini millesimo
CCOXLV circa purificationem B.V.' in the note
on the fly leaf of that MS."
It was the collocation of the parenthesis that misled me.
3. " The other MS. which we have from R. de Bury's library is not ' Royal 89,' but ' Royal 8 (4. i.' 1 fear I did not write so distinctly as 1 ought to
unfortunately, before I had time to make further
inquiries, your letter with address was mislaid, and
consequently I was unable to communicate with
Thomas's mistranscription, not you. It was not till your last letter, containing the
printed article, arrived, that I again secured your name and address. I take the earliest opportunity, therefore, of thanking you for your most interest- ing article, and at the same time of pointing out that the information supplied by MR. STOCKS as to our MSS. was incorrect.
" The MS. of the ' Registrum Palatinum Dunel- mense ' is not in the Treasury here, but in the Record Office, London. What we have here is
"(1) 8 leaves of Bury's Register, bound at the beginning of Bishop Hattield's Register, dated 12 Sept., 134325 May, 1344.
"(2) A manuscript by Dr. Hunter of a part of
J _ . _ a _ w . Bury's Register, dated 23 Jan., 1342-13 Aug., 1343.
have done." " The late Dean wrote his preface to the Surtees
I had mistaken the " G " for " 9 " volume a short time before his death, and possibly
4. T r axr ori/i fV,o ^t, " i i , r ^id no ^ verify all the references and dates. You 4. 1 may add that there in 1. 14 of will notice an omission and an error in the reference )t-note should read three, and express to Dr. Hunter's manuscript, 23 Jan. (1342) 13 Aug., the hope that these emendations will in no 1343.
wise detract from the interest which the " Again, I think there must be something wrong paper has roused in many quarters * L D 3*. statement that ' in all, about a year and a
- \haJf of it [B.'s Register] survives.'
appendix to my paper I should like "As far as I can make out from the printed to add here one or two extracts from Dean Register in the Rolls Series, the actual amount is Kitchin a 'Durham College' ('Ruskin in " (1) in the MS. 'Registr. Palat. Dunelm.' 2 (or 5)
Oxford, and Other Studies,' 1904, p. 172) : Julv > #? 16 or 17 Dec., titf ; and
J' We have full lists of the Durham DolW* L ^ (2 lj nc r P r r a , t / ed in HatfieWs Register, 12 Sept.,
25 May, 1344,
considerably more than a year and a half. In any case, if possible, I think the reference in your article to the MS. 'Registr. Palat. Dunelm.' should be rectified from ' in the Treasury ' to ' in the Record Office, London.' "
This is, of course, an authoritative emen- STOCKS'S statement ; MR. does not say when the transfer occurred from Durham to London.
_. the Durham College
. books, and there are no traces of Bishop Jury's collection."
Have these lists been printed, and when ? The Dean gives (p. 195) one such from Blakiston's 'Collectanea,' O.H.S., vol. iii
Even The Illustrated London News seems to ,
lfcs a PP ear ance by a vignette, in its issue datl n of MR. Si ., representing Richard de Bury, Bishop HUGHES, however, m, among his copyists and callitrranhftrs " I transfer nnmirrorl i
ov
ot Durham, among
