246 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



The last thi'ee of these lists enuiaerate books which were not in 

 their places on the shelves of some library, at the date at which they 

 were cli'awn up. MoreoTer, as we might expect, they all refer to 

 the same library. This is proved by the circnmstance that, notwith- 

 standing some differences,^ the same volumes are usually indicated 

 by the same press-marks in all three, and by the fact that, in both 

 the third and fourth lists, reference is made to the fii"st as the 

 "prior recensio."^ Probably the first list also has to do with this 

 library, and if so its position in MetcaK's note-book appeal's to in- 

 dicate that it is of earlier date than the others.^ It must be observed, 

 however, that it gives each of the first eight presses (A-H), six 

 shelves, while acccording to the remaining lists, they had no more 

 than five. Similarly, the number of shelves in 0, P, Q is diminished 

 by one ; while, on the other hand, in I, K, L we observe an increase 

 of one. What the pui'pose of the fii'st list may have been, is not 

 clear. Possibly — but I do not think this is likely — it is, like its 

 fellows, a catalogue of missing volumes. It does not appear to merit 

 fui'ther consideration. 



"We now tui-n our whole attention to the second, thii-d, and fourth 

 lists. In connexion with these, the fii'st question which arises is : 

 What was the Library to which they belonged, and of which they 

 give us, in fact, a fi-agmentary catalogue ? There is only one way of 

 answering this question satisfactorily. We must examine as many as 

 possible of the volumes named in the lists, and leam from them their 

 history. But how is this to be done ? Let me describe the method 

 which I have followed. 



In the fii'st place I assumed that the lists refer to an Irish Library, 

 and, that beiag so, that the Library ia question must be either that 

 of Trinity College, which had attained considerable proportions in the 

 fii'st half of the seventeenth century, or the collection of Archbishop 

 James TJssher. Whether these assumptions were at the time justi- 

 fiable I do not care to discuss. That they were sufficiently correct 



1 See A. 1. 3 ; C. 3. 4 ; E. 5. 23 ; F. 5. 17 (?see second list at E. 5. 17). 



- See, in the third list, F. 1. 3 ; F. 3. 13, 18 ; and in the fourth, D. 3. 14 

 C. 4. 11 ; D. 2. 18 ; E. 2. 19, 21 ; E. 3. 10, 12 ; F. 1. 3 ; F. 2. 19 ; F. 3. 18 

 F. 4. 8, 33 ; G. 3. 1, 21, 22 ; H. 1. 5 ; I. 1. 1, 14 ; I. 4. 21 ; I. 5. 9 ; K. 3. 17, 19 

 K. 4. 21; L. 2. 3; N. 3. 4, 11; 0. 3. 7, 16, 18; Q. 1. 24; R. 4. 7 ; S. 2. 19 

 T. 3. 18 ; T. 4. 19, 20 ; T. 5. 3 ; V. 3. 8, 40. 



^ As telling in favour of the first of these suppositions, hut somewhat agaiast 

 the second, is the fact that the first and fourth lists are in the same hand. 



