The Henson Journals

[375]

Tuesday, September 7th, 1915.

400th day

I went to Mr Bates (37 Old Elvet), and found him in his pot–house. I told him that my car was not available for the use of the wounded soldiers, & bade him find a substitute at my charges if he could. Then I vented my wrath on the futile & helpless Laidler. I corrected proofs, wrote to Cummings & Kathleen, & fumbled about over the Huguenot sermon! After lunch who should appear but Poole looking wonderfully like an old maid on the loose! He & Charnwood attended Evensong with me, & after service I went round the Cathedral with him. He declared that Richard de Bury was probably not the Author of the Philobiblion, but a Dominican named Holcot, who stayed much with him. A majority of the MSS ascribe the book to Holcot. After Poole's departure I looked up Robert Holcot in the D.N.B.

[377]

Poole himself wrote the Article, & notes there the probability that R.H. was the author of the Philobiblion. After enumerating his undoubted works, he says

'To these should perhaps be added the well–known 'Philobiblion sive De amore librorum' [Philobiblion or of the love of books], usually attributed to Bishop Richard of Bury (printed at Cologne, 1473: Paris, 1500, &c) the authorship of which has been much disputed. Probably the truth is represented by the title found in several manuscripts 'Incipit prologus Philobiblion Richardi Dunelmensis episcopi, quem librum compilavit Robertus Holcote de ordine predicatorum sub nomine dicti episcopi.' [The prologue begins Philobiblion of Richard Bishop of Durham which book compiled by Robert Holcot of the order of preachers [Dominican] under the name of the Bishop.] In other words, Holcot wrote the book at the request and in the name of the bishop, apparently to celebrate his fifty–eighth birthday, 24 Jan. 1344–5 (p. 151 ed. Thomas), while the bishop's supervision and co–operation need not be excluded, the form of the title might easily lead to the ascription of the book to Bury, but it is difficult to understand how, if it were Bury's own work, it could have come to be attributed to Holcot. At the same time too much stress should not be laid upon the evidently malicious account of Bury's small literary attainments & great pretentions given in A. Murimuth, 'Continuatio Chronicarum', p. 171 ed. E. M. Thompson 1889.

Meade–Falkner sent me a note enclosing a cheque for three pounds in payment for the 'Codex Decani Dunelmensis' (i.e. the Statutes with some additions) which Pickard advertised for sale, & which I had had sent to me for inspection.

---