In the early times it was only rich men who could afford to collect books. Amongst these, one of the most distinguished was Richard de Bury, Bishop of Durham, Treasurer and Chancellor of Edward III., who collected everything, and spared no cost in the maintenance of a staff of copyists and illuminators in his own household. Not only was he a collector (whose books, however, have been dispersed), but he was the author of an interesting relic of that devotion to an ennobling pursuit, the famous _Philobiblon_. This book had never been satisfactorily produced until the late Mr. Ernest Thomas issued in 1888 an admirable edition, founded on a collation of many manuscripts, and a spirited translation.[1] This work occupied Mr. Thomas several years, and before he completed it he saw reason to doubt the high literary position which had been universally accorded to the author; and his opinion was confirmed by an unpublished passage in a manuscript of the _Chronicon sui temporis_ of Adam de Murimuth, to which he was referred by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, where Adam characterised the bishop in very harsh terms. Mr. Thomas published in “The Library” (vol. i. p. 335) an article entitled, “Was Richard de Bury an Impostor?” In this he expressed the opinion that Richard Aungerville-- (1) Was _not_ an excellent bishop, _but_ an ambitious self-seeker, who bought his way to preferment. (2) Was _not_ a scholar and patron of scholars, _but_ merely a collector of books, that he might appear as a scholar. (3) _Did not_ bestow his collections on Durham College, Oxford, as he expressed his intention of doing; _but_ that these collections were sold to pay debts incurred by his ostentatious extravagance. (4) _Did not_ write _Philobiblon_. The authorship was claimed for Robert Holkot, a Dominican, who for some time was a member of the bishop’s household. It is certain that the evidence is such as to force us to lower our estimate of the prelate’s merits, but these four charges are certainly not all proved. He may not have been so learned and so unselfish a lover of books as was supposed, but there is no satisfactory reason for depriving him of the credit of being the author of the _Philobiblon_. Mr. Thomas shows that Richard de Bury was born on 24th January 1287, and not 1281, as stated in the “Dictionary of National Biography.” He completed the _Philobiblon_, and on the 14th April of the same year _Dominus Ricardus de Bury migravit ad Dominum_. A singularly appropriate chapter from the earliest “book about books” may here be quoted:-- “WHAT WE ARE TO THINK OF THE PRICE IN THE BUYING OF BOOKS. (Chapter III. of the _Philobiblon_ of Richard de Bury.[2])