216 Proceediiifjs of the Roi/al Irish Acn'h'mjj. 



document on f. 40,^ and its conclusion on f. 19.' We find also on f. 42' a cross- 

 reference to " the beginning of the second leaf," which is apparently satisfied 

 by the first entry in f. 40.' And, since f. 38' preserves a document which 

 was apparently intended to be read as a sequel to one on f. 40,* it would 

 appear that the latter leaf originally preceded the former. 



Finally, on the recto side of f. 4-3, a citation of the colidei, clergy and people 

 of Armagh for the archbishop's ordinary visitation appeal's,' though it is stated 

 on the recto of f. 42* to have been copied " in alia, parte folti precedoUis." Ff . 42, 

 43 have therefore been transposed; and apparently one of them was 

 reversed in the process, so that the recto became the verso of the leaf. That 

 f. 42 was the leaf so ti-eated may be concluded, since the documents on what is 

 now the verso belong to 1367, while those on the recto are plainly later 

 additions. All these facts are explained if we suppose the original order to 

 have been 43,42 (reversed),' A, 40, 19, 38, where A is the lost leaf after 42 

 already mentioned. 



It may be conjectured that the derangement of the order of the leaves has 

 gone much further than we could safely infer from this single example. And 

 there is some e^idence in support of this hypothesis. In a Eegister which 

 records the Acts of an archbishop from month to month, we might expect some 

 sort of rough ckronological order. And this we actually find. Thus, for 

 example, the documents on ff. 5, 6, which can be proved to have been always 

 consecutive, are iu chronological sequence from June, 1368, to February, 1371. 

 And many instances might be given of single leaves where the arrangement is, 

 at any rate approximately, in the order of time : it is so in the greater number 

 of cases. This fact laises the suspicion that, on the one hand, departure from 

 such order in passing from one leaf to another is due to displacement, and on 

 the other that leaves which, taken together, present a chronological sequence 

 originally followed one another, however far apart they now stand. Thus 

 ft'. 12, 13 have documents from June to Xovember, 1366, placed nearly in the 

 order of date. "We may assume tliat they were oiiginally, as now, consecutive. 

 A similar inference may be di'awn regarding ff. 15, 16 the documents on 

 which are of October and November, 1365. But f. 14, on which are written 

 letters of 1368, is clearly out of place. Grouping the leaves together on this 

 principle we may conclude that li'.36, 29,28, 15, 16 .February-November, 1365), 

 if not immediately consecutive, at least followed the order in which I have 

 written them. So also, it seems, did ff. 41, 24, 23, 25 (reversed) (February, 

 1366-May, 1367). Again f. 45 (May, J\me, 1367] probably preceded f. 42 



'No. 188. = No. 199. 3jfo. 186. ^ Nos. 186, 183. ^ No. 202. 6No.l95. 

 ■ Judging from ihe dates of tlie documents, we may suspeirt that f . 43 was originally left blank, 

 and the fuiiowiiig leaf (now 42j written on one side only. 



