Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1985, Blaðsíða 88
80
lacuna occurs between ff. 23/24 (cf. inventory of contents, above p.
67). The extent of this lacuna can only be deduced from the collation,
which because of the tightness of the existing binding is not entirely
certain, though the position of catchwords, watermarks and binding
threads at least limits the range of possibilities. It is to these and other
aspects of the physical make-up of the manuscript that I now turn.
Catchwords occur at ff. lOv, 22v and 31v, showing that new gather-
ings certainly began at ff. 11, 23 and 32. A unicorn watermark can be
seen at ff. 1-2, 3, 5, 7, 12-13, 16, 18-19, 22-23, 26 and 28-29; the last
four leaves (ff. 32-35) display a different type of paper, with a Gothic P
watermark at f. 34 and with chain-lines that are approximately half a
centimetre further apart than on the first 31 leaves. Binding threads
can be seen between ff. 5/6, 16/17, 26/27 and 32/33; the first two of
these threads undoubtedly mark the middle of gatherings comprising
ff. 1-10 and 11-22 respectively. The last four leaves are mounted on
thin strips of paper, which makes it impossible to tell whether they
originally formed a regular gathering of two pairs of conjunct leaves:
the position of the binding thread between ff. 32/33 does not preclude
this possibility, though the absence of a watermark at ff. 32 and 35
seems to weigh against it. As to ff. 23-31, two possibilities exist: (a) if
the first and last leaves of the sequence are conjunct, which could not
be established without risk of damage to the binding, they must have
enclosed a gathering of ten leaves, the second of which - originally
conjunct with f. 30 - is now lost; or (b) if these leaves are not conjunct,
f. 23 must have been the first leaf of an otherwise entirely lost gather-
ing and ff. 30-31 the last two leaves of a gathering of ten, the first two
leaves of which - originally conjunct with ff. 30-31 - are now likewise
lost. In the latter case the number of gatherings wholly or partly
missing between ff. 23/24 is in principle indeterminable; in the former
the manuscript must originally have consisted of 36 leaves, ff. 1-32
(now 1-31) in gatherings of ten, twelve and ten leaves respectively, and
ff. 33-36 (now 32-35) in a possibly irregular gathering of four leaves.
Both explanations are compatible with the positions of the water-
marks.
As already noticed on p. 58, the outside leaves of the manuscript
have suffered a good deal from wear and tear, but elsewhere the paper
is remarkably clean; a significant exception in this respect is art. 4 (ff.
18v-23), which shows that the vernacular Chronicle of Scotland in a