2/ie Opening Meeting. 



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 been 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 Archceological 

 Magazine, voh 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 which existed showed clearly workmanship of the time of 

 Roger Poore."" (Wiltshire Archaeological 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 121? to 3 220, 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 



