GwYNN — The Liber Flavas Fergu^iorum. 17 



favour of this supposition ; but Dr. Fergus himself must have been 

 satisfied of the fact ; for, at his death, while the rest of his collection 

 of Mss. was sold to the Library of Trinity College, the Liher Flavus 

 was bequeathed to his daughter. This lady married a Kennedy, 

 member of a distinguished Irish family, whose history is related in a 

 note to Gilbert's History of Dublin Streets (Irish Quarterly Review 

 for 1853, p. 608). From this note the facts just stated have been 

 taken. There is inserted into the second volume of the us. a table of 

 contents written by James Marinus Kennedy, which concludes with 

 this note : — " Copied from the Index of the two T,rs. volumes or parts, 

 called Liher Flavus Fergusiorum^ made by Mr. E. Curry, and dated 

 the 11th of June, 1841. The late Mr. James Hardiman (the historian 

 of Galway) had the care of them at that period, being lent to him 

 many years prior by my father, the late Macarius John Kennedy." 

 Dr. Whitley Stokes points out to me that the quotation from the Life 

 of S. Moling, at p. 348 of Petrie's Ecclesiastical Architecture (2nd 

 edition), is taken fi'om the Liher Flavus. The note just quoted 

 explains why Petrie described the ms. as belonging to Hardiman. 

 The MS. had descended to Mr. James Marinus Kennedy, when 

 O'Curry made use of it for his Lectures on the Manuscript Materials 

 of Irish History. In this book (p. 532) will be found the table of 

 -contents above mentioned, which, however, is far from being com- 

 plete. In 1875 Mr. Kennedy, at Sir John Gilbert's request, deposited 

 the codex in the Koyal Irish Academy. 



Most of the folios are numbered on the verso^ in a hand seem- 

 ingly of the sixteenth century ; but the numbering di:ffers alto- 

 gether from the actual order of sequence, and would, if followed, 

 give an entirely wrong arrangement. This older pagination begins 

 with what is now volume ii., and runs continuously for 29 folios, 

 except that fol. 1 is lost, fol. 13 (?) is misplaced, and fol. 26 has been 

 omitted from the numbering. The present first folio of vol. ii. is so 

 defaced as to be almost illegible, whereas the first folio of vol. i. has 

 suffered mucli less. These facts make it probable that the ms. 

 originally began with (present) fol. 1 of vol. i. : so that this, being 

 tlie outside leaf, suffered to some extent. At a relatively early date, 

 however, the ms. fell into confusion ; and the original fol. 1 found its 

 way into the body of the book, and thus escaped further defacement. 

 In this condition of things, while the folio now lost from the 

 beginning of vol. ii. stood first in order, the old pagination was added ; 

 and the volume must have long retained this arrangement in order 

 that the outside leaves should have suffered as they have done. 



[2*] 



