Lawlor — A Calendar oj the Register of Archhlshnp Floiimg. 9o 



position we iincl that the third gathering (ff. 21-28) was originally a gathering 

 of the same size and structure as the first two, which has lost a leaf — the 

 conjugate of the one which we have restored to it — between ff. 21, 22. That 

 it followed the second in the sixteenth century is proved by the older 

 foliation.' That it did so originally is highly probable. For the dated 

 documents in the first two gatherings, with the exception of some which 

 appear to have been added later in spaces originally left blank,' and one or 

 two of earlier date which were obviously not copied into the Eegister till long 

 after they were issued,^ are arranged in almost exact chronological sequence. 

 A similar arrangement, not, however, so rigorously chronological, is found in 

 the third gathering. And the last dated document in the second gathering 

 is of 4 January, 1409,* the second in the third gathering of 11 March, 1409.* 



At least one gathering has disappeared between ff. 28, 29. Not only is 

 a document left incomplete at the end of f. 28 ; we have also what seems to 

 be an allusion to the lost portion in the present fourth gathering. On f . .3 L 

 reference is made to a letter against O'Hanlon, which is said to have been 

 copied on the sixth leaf^ — i.e., doubtless the sixth leaf reckoned backwards 

 from f. 81. No such letter now appears in the Eegister. And this conclusion 

 is confirmed by the chronology. For the penultimate document of the third 

 gathering' is dated 18 April, 1409, the first of the fourth^ more than a year 

 later — 9 May, 1410. The loss of this portion of the Eegister must have 

 taken place at an early period, since the older numerator regarded the 

 gatherings which are now the third and fourth as consecutive." 



The fourth gathering (ff. 29-40) is now of twelve leaves, and is almost 

 certainly in its original state. The fifth (ff. 41-50) has lost at least two leaves 

 in the centre, but is otherwise perfect. It may therefore be assumed to have 

 been also of twelve leaves. Each of the three gatherings just mentioned has 

 an outer sheet of vellum, the inner sheets being of paper. 



After the fifth gathering there is another lacuna, of which an incomplete 

 document at the end of f. 50'" is decisive evidence. That it is of considerable 

 extent, and that the loss occurred between the dates of the earlier and later 

 foliation, is proved by the fact that f. 49 is numbered 51 in the older hand, 

 and f. 51 is numbered 70. Allowing for errors in the ancient numeration" we 

 may suspect the loss of two gatherings of ten leaves each. 



' Ff. 17, 18 (second gathering) are marked with tlie same iiumbeis in tlje older hand ; f. 28 

 (third gatliering) with the number 30. 



- Nos. 16, 18, 19, 90. ^ Nos. 29, 30, and inobahly nos. 54, 83. * No. 96. 



» No. 100. « See no. 131. ' No. 121. » No. 123. 



» He numbered fE. 28, 29 as 30 and 31 respectively. '» No. 214. . 



" That the sixteenth-century numerator made mistaltes is certain. Ff. 64, 55 are hoth numliered 

 73; ff. 61, 63 are numbered 80 (corrected from 79) and 83 respectively, f. 62 having been 

 numbered 81, which is corrected to 82. 



[13a*J 



