Lawlok — ^1 (kdendar of the Rngistcr of Archbinhop Swctcman. 215 



that they were copied in the blank spaces left in an earlier book. Thus we 

 have something like a complete record of only three out of the nineteen years 

 of Sweteman's primacy. 



And even in the part of the Eegister which relates to those years a good 

 many leaves have been lost. In most cases in which a document commenced 

 on one leaf and concluded on the next, either the beginning or the end has been 

 lost. Thus, confining ourselves to the years 1365-1367, we find reason to 

 suspect the loss of the leaf which followed each of the following : — ff. 13, 24, 

 27, 37, 42, 48, 50.' Leaves seem also to be missing before ff. 22, 23, 25, 39.^ 



Again, there are sometimes cross-references to documents which no longer 

 appear. Such are the references to " f. xi supra " on f. l^ ; to f. vii on f. 42'', 

 and to the 15th following leaf on f. 45.^ 



Thus, it appears that for the three years, 1365-1367, alone, at least 12 or 

 13 leaves — which would have contained matter equal in amount to one-quarter 

 of all that remains — have disappeared. 



If further proof is needed of the fragmentary character of the Eegister as 

 we have it, it is at hand. Some of the leaves bear older numbers. Thus f. 2 

 is marked 26(?); f. 28 has what appears to be a number — probably 11* — and 

 f. 29 has the number 116. If these numbers mark the position of the leaves 

 in an older book, it must have been miich more than twice as large as the 

 fragments of it that are left. 



But if the remaining leaves of Sweteman's Eegister bear but a small 

 proportion to those which once existed, it can no less easily be shown that the 

 original Eegister was not a single volume at all. It is a priori improbable 

 that the vellum leaves (32, 33, 51, 52, 53) belonged originally to the same 

 book as the paper leaves with which they are now bound. And the suspicion 

 that they came from a different volume is confirmed when we measure them. 

 The exact size of the paper leaves cannot be determined, owing to the 

 mutilation of their upper and lower edges, but they seem to have been about 

 295 X 230 mm. The vellum leaves, ff. 32, 51-53 are considerably larger — 

 about 333 x 250 mm., though their edges have been cut away. And another 

 sheet of vellum, numbered as a leaf of our volume (f. 33), is clearly an 

 intruder. It measures 450 x 250 mm., and is bound in sideways, and folded. 

 It may have been part of a roll. 



It can further be proved that the leaves have, in some cases, been displaced 

 from their original positions. We find, for e.\ample, the earlier part of a 



1 Seo nos. 78, X29, .143, 179, 200, 232, 2i2. -See nos. 115,121, 130, 184. _ 



3Seenos. 105, 200, 211. 



* Perhaps the first two of three digits. If tlic number was 117 it woiild prove that ff. 28. 29 

 had been trausposed. It is worthy of note that when the leaves are placed in the reverse of their 

 present order the douiimeuts follow one another in chronological sequence. 



[30*] 



