"Quod opus (Philobiblon) Aucklandiæ in habitatione sua
complevit, 24 die Januarii, anno a communis salutis origine
1344, ætatis suæ 58, et 11 suæ pontificatus."

and then adds:

"He died 14 April, 1345. Holcot died in 1349."

There appears to be some confusion about the _editions_, also, of the
_Philobiblon_. There is an edition, 4to. Par., apud Gaspar. Philippum,
1500; also edit. _secund_. 4to. Oxoniæ, 1598; and it is printed in the
_Philolog. Epist. ex Bibl. Melch. Goldasti_, ed. Lipsiæ, 1674. But prior
to all these is the edition "printed at Cologne, 1473," from which the
_translation_ is made, and which is described by Watt as "the editio
princeps, and a work of uncommon rarity."

Query. Why does the Oxford edition of 1598 call itself "editio
_secundo_?" If the Paris edit. of 1500 so far differ from that of 1473
as to entitle it to be considered a different work, had the second MS.
passed through Holcot's hands?

J. SANSOM.

The translation of Richard de Bury's _Philobiblon_, by Mr. Inglis,
printed in 1832 for the late Mr. Rodd, is an unsatisfactory performance.
The version is bald and spiritless, and some of the best passages of the
original are rendered in language that does no justice to the author's
meaning. His style is so peculiar, so allusive, and so full of metaphor
and quotation, and the work is luminous with "the sparks of so many
sciences," that a good translation is a desideratum.