The Opening Meeting. 243 
preservation of information with respect to the history of their 
county, it was a matter of some importance that the information so 
recorded should be correct. 
A local antiquarian was reported to have said, in a paper read on 
August 16th, 1880, at St. John’s Church, “ The tower, the transepts, 
and the vaulted chancel are the oldest portions of the Church, and 
. are stated to have beem built about the same time as 
the Castle, namely, 1130, and at the expense and under the direction 
of its celebrated founder, Roger Poore, Bishop of Salisbury and 
Chancellor to Henry I., whose works in architecture were the 
‘wonder of the age in which he lived.” (Wiltshire Archeological 
Magazine, vol. xix., pp. 119, 20.) In a paper read subsequently at 
the Castle itself, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, who had 
come down to tell them all about the history of their county, was 
stated to have spoken of “the great Bishop Roger Poore, who, like 
many another Norman, was attracted by the value of those earlier 
earthworks for the erection of a castle, and who was wise enough to 
erect his Castle upon them. He was glad to be able to say the 
foundations whieh existed showed clearly workmanship of the time of 
Roger Poore.” (Wiltshire Archeological Magazine, vol. xix., p. 
128.) 
Now it was a fact known to every student of the history of 
Wiltshire that no such person as Bishop Roger Poore ever existed, 
nor had his name ever been heard of until he had been evolved out 
of the inner consciousness of these two learned writers. They (the 
writers in question) had confused Roger, the Norman Bishop of Old 
Sarum from 1107 to 1139, with Bishop Richard Poore, who was in 
possession of the see from 1217 to 1229, and who transferred it 
during that time from its ancient seat to the Cathedral which he 
founded at New Salisbury. It was the former of these prelates 
who built Devizes Castle, as well as other Castles at Malmesbury, 
Sherborne, and elsewhere. But there was not the smallest ground 
for attributing to him the surname of Poore, and very little for 
supposing him to have been in any way connected with the family of 
his illustrious successor. One historical writer had indeed suggested 
as a possibility that such might have been the case, from the fact 
