THE LIFE OF ST. PATRICK

[Illustration]




                               THE LIFE OF
                               ST. PATRICK
                                   AND
                           HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

                                    BY
                             J. B. BURY, M.A.
      HON. D.LITT., OXON.; HON. LITT.D., DURHAM; HON. LL.D., EDIN.,
       GLASGOW, AND ABERDEEN; CORRESPONDING MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL
     ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, ST. PETERSBURG; FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY
     COLLEGE, DUBLIN; REGIUS PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY, AND FELLOW
            OF KING’S COLLEGE, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

                                  London
                        MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
                     NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
                                   1905

                          _All rights reserved_




PREFACE


Perhaps the scope of this book will be best understood if I explain
that the subject attracted my attention, not as an important crisis in
the history of Ireland, but, in the first place, as an appendix to the
history of the Roman Empire, illustrating the emanations of its influence
beyond its own frontiers; and, in the second place, as a notable
episode in the series of conversions which spread over northern Europe
the religion which prevails to-day. Studying the work of the Slavonic
apostles, Cyril and Methodius, I was led to compare them with other
European missionaries, Wulfilas, for instance, and Augustine, Boniface,
and Otto of Bamberg. When I came to Patrick, I found it impossible to
gain any clear conception of the man and his work. The subject was wrapt
in obscurity, and this obscurity was encircled by an atmosphere of
controversy and conjecture. Doubts of the very existence of St. Patrick
had been entertained, and other views almost amounted to the thesis
that if he did exist, he was not himself, but a namesake. It was at once
evident that the material had never been critically sifted, and that it
would be necessary to begin at the beginning, almost as if nothing had
been done, in a field where much had been written.

This may seem unfair to the work of Todd, which in learning and critical
acumen stands out pre-eminent from the mass of historical literature
which has gathered round St. Patrick. And I should like unreservedly to
acknowledge that I found it an excellent introduction to the subject.
But it left me doubtful about every fact connected with Patrick’s life.
The radical vice of the book is that the indispensable substructure is
lacking. The preliminary task of criticising the sources methodically had
never been performed. Todd showed his scholarship and historical insight
in dealing with this particular passage or that particular statement, but
such sporadic criticism was no substitute for methodical _Quellenkritik_.
Hence his results might be right or wrong, but they could not be
convincing.

It is a minor defect in Todd’s _St. Patrick_ that he is not impartial. By
this I mean that he wrote with an unmistakable ecclesiastical bias. It
is not implied that he would have ever stooped to a misrepresentation
of the evidence for the purpose of proving a particular thesis. No
reader would accuse him of that. But it is clear that he was anxious to
establish a particular thesis. He does not conceal that the conclusions
to which the evidence, as he interpreted it, conducted him were
conclusions which he wished to reach. In other words, he approached
a historical problem, with a distinct preference for one solution
rather than another; and this preference was due to an interest totally
irrelevant to mere historical truth. The business of a historian is to
ascertain facts. There is something essentially absurd in his wishing
that any alleged fact should turn out to be true or should turn out to be
false. So far as he entertains a wish of the kind, his attitude is not
critical.

The justification of the present biography is that it rests upon a
methodical examination of the sources, and that the conclusions, whether
right or wrong, were reached without any prepossession. For one whose
interest in the subject is purely intellectual, it was a matter of
unmixed indifference what answer might be found to any one of the vexed
questions. I will not anticipate my conclusions here, but I may say that
they tend to show that the Roman Catholic conception of St. Patrick’s
work is, generally, nearer to historical fact than the views of some
anti-Papal divines.

The fragmentary material, presenting endless difficulties and problems,
might have been treated with much less trouble to myself if I had been
content to weave, as Todd has done, technical discussions into the story.
It was less easy to do what I have attempted, to cast matter of this kind
into the literary shape of a biography—a choice which necessitated long
appendices supplying the justifications and groundwork. These appendices
represent the work which belongs to the science of history; the text is
an effort in the art of historiography.[1]

It should be needless to say that, in dealing with such fragmentary
material, reconstructions and hypotheses are inevitable. In ancient
and mediaeval history, as in physical science, hypotheses, founded on
a critical examination of the data, are necessary for the advancement
of knowledge. The reconstructions may fall to-morrow, but, if they are
legitimate, they will not have been useless.

The future historian of Ireland will have much to discover about the
political and social state of the island, which is still but vaguely
understood, and the religion of the Scots, about which it may be affirmed
that we know little more than nothing. These subjects await systematic
investigation, and I have only attempted a slight sketch (Chapter IV.),
confining myself to what it seemed possible to say with tolerable safety
on the chief points immediately relevant to the scope of this monograph.
But, notwithstanding the dimness of the background, I venture to hope
that some new light has been thrown on the foreground, and that this
study will supply a firmer basis for the life and work of Patrick, even
if some of the superstructures should fall.

The two maps are merely intended to help the reader to see the
whereabouts of some places which he might not easily find without
reference to the Ordnance Survey. I consulted Mr. Orpen’s valuable map
of Early Ireland (unfortunately on a small scale) in Poole’s _Historical
Atlas of Modern Europe_. But he has used material which applies to a
later period, and I have not ventured to follow him, for instance, in
marking the boundary between the northern frontiers of the kingdoms of
Connaught and Meath.

It was fortunate for me that my friend Professor Gwynn was engaged at
the same time on a “diplomatic” edition of the records contained in the
_Codex Armachanus_, which constitute the principal body of evidence. With
a generosity which has placed me under a deep obligation, he put the
results of his labour on the difficult text at my disposal, and I have
had the invaluable help and stimulus of constant communication with him
on many critical problems arising out of the text of the documents.

Since the book was in type I have received some communications from
my friend Professor Rhŷs which suggest a hope that the mysterious
Bannauenta, St. Patrick’s home, may perhaps be identified at last. I
had conjectured that it should be sought near the Severn or the Bristol
Channel. The existence of three places named Banwen (which may represent
Bannauenta) in Glamorganshire opens a prospect that the solution may
possibly lie there.

                                                               J. B. BURY.




CONTENTS


                                                                      PAGE

                                CHAPTER I

    ON THE DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIANITY BEYOND THE ROMAN EMPIRE             1

                               CHAPTER II

    THE CAPTIVITY AND ESCAPE OF PATRICK                                 16
        § 1. Parentage and Capture                                      16
        § 2. Captivity and Escape                                       27

                               CHAPTER III

    IN GAUL AND BRITAIN                                                 37
        § 1. At Lérins                                                  37
        § 2. At Home in Britain                                         41
        § 3. At Auxerre                                                 48
        § 4. Palladius in Ireland (A.D. 431-2)                          54
        § 5. Consecration of Patrick (A.D. 432)                         59

                               CHAPTER IV

    POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF IRELAND                           67

                                CHAPTER V

    IN THE ISLAND-PLAIN, IN DALARADIA                                   81

                               CHAPTER VI

    IN MEATH                                                            93
        § 1. King Loigaire’s Policy                                     93
        § 2. Legend of Patrick’s Contest with the Druids               104
        § 3. Loigaire’s Code                                           113
        § 4. Ecclesiastical Foundations in Meath                       116

                               CHAPTER VII

    IN CONNAUGHT                                                       126

                              CHAPTER VIII

    FOUNDATION OF ARMAGH AND ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANISATION               150
        § 1. Visit to Rome (_circa_ A.D. 441-3)                        150
        § 2. Foundation of Armagh (A.D. 444)                           154
        § 3. In South Ireland                                          162
        § 4. Church Discipline                                         166
        § 5. Ecclesiastical Organisation                               171

                               CHAPTER IX

    WRITINGS OF PATRICK, AND HIS DEATH                                 187
        § 1. The Denunciation of Coroticus                             187
        § 2. The Confession                                            196
        § 3. Patrick’s Death and Burial (A.D. 461)                     206

                                CHAPTER X

    PATRICK’S PLACE IN HISTORY                                         212

                           APPENDIX A—SOURCES

    BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE                                               225

    I. WRITINGS OF PATRICK, AND DOCUMENTS OF THE FIFTH CENTURY:—
          1. The _Confession_                                          225
          2. The Letter against Coroticus                              227
          3. _Dicta Patricii_                                          228
          4. Ecclesiastical Canons of St. Patrick                      233
             Note on the _Liber de Abusionibus Saeculi_                245
          5. Irish Hymn (_Lorica_) ascribed to Patrick                 246
          6. Hymn of St. Sechnall                                      246
          7. Life of Germanus, by Constantius                          247

    II. LIVES AND MEMOIRS OF PATRICK:—
          1. Memoir of Patrick, by Tírechán                            248
             Additions to Tírechán in the _Liber Armachanus_           251
          2. Additional notices in the _Liber Armachanus_              252
          3. Life of Patrick, by Muirchu                               255
          4. Hymn _Genair Patraicc_ (Hymn of Fíacc)                    263
          5. Early Acts in Irish                                       266
          6. _Vita Secunda_ and _Vita Quarta_                          268
          7. _Vita Tripartita_                                         269
          8. _Vita Tertia_                                             272
          9. Life by Probus (_Vita Quinta_)                            273
         10. Notice of Patrick in the _Historia Brittonum_             277

    III. OTHER DOCUMENTS:—
          1. The Irish Annals                                          279
          2. The _Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae_                       285
          3. The _Liber Angueli_                                       287

                            APPENDIX B—NOTES

    CHAPTER I.                                                         288
      ”    II.                                                         289
      ”   III.                                                         294
      ”    IV.                                                         299
      ”     V.                                                         300
      ”    VI.                                                         302
      ”   VII.                                                         306
      ”  VIII.                                                         307
      ”    IX.                                                         313
      ”     X.                                                         321

                           APPENDIX C—EXCURSUS

     1. The Home of St. Patrick (_Bannauenta_)                         322
     2. Irish Invasions of Britain                                     325
     3. The Dates of Patrick’s Birth and Captivity                     331
     4. The Place of Patrick’s Captivity                               334
     5. Tentative Chronology from the Escape to the Consecration as
          Bishop                                                       336
     6. The Escape to Gaul. The State of Gaul, A.D. 409-416            338
     7. Palladius                                                      342
     8. Patrick’s Alleged Visit (or Interrupted Journey) to Rome in
          A.D. 432                                                     344
     9. Patrick’s Consecration                                         347
    10. Evidence for Christianity in Ireland before St. Patrick        349
    11. King Loigaire and King Dathi                                   353
    12. The _Senchus Mór_                                              355
    13. Patrick’s Visits to Connaught                                  358
    14. King Amolngaid: Date of his Reign                              360
    15. Patrick at Rome                                                367
    16. Appeal to the Roman See                                        369
    17. Patrick’s Paschal Table                                        371
    18. The Organisation of the Episcopate                             375
    19. The Place of Patrick’s Burial                                  380
    20. Legendary Date of Patrick’s Death                              382
    21. Professor Zimmer’s Theory                                      384

    INDEX                                                              393

                                  MAPS

    PART OF KINGDOM OF ULIDIA (DALARADIA AND DALRIADA), WITH
      ORIOR                                                   _to face_ 84

    KINGDOMS OF MEATH AND CONNAUGHT                                ”   104




CHAPTER I

ON THE DIFFUSION OF CHRISTIANITY BEYOND THE ROMAN EMPIRE


The series of movements and wanderings, settlements and conquests, which
may be most fitly described as the expansion of the German and Slavonic
races, began in the second century A.D., and continued for well-nigh
a thousand years, reshaping the political geography and changing the
ethnical character of Europe. The latest stage in the process was the
expansion of the northern Germans of Scandinavia and Denmark, which
led to the settlements of the Vikings and Danes in the west and to
the creation of the Russian State by Swedes in the east. The general
movement of European history is not grasped if we fail to recognise that
the invasions and conquests of the Norsemen which began towards the
close of the eighth century are the continuation of the earlier German
expansion which we are accustomed to designate as the Wandering of the
Peoples. It was not till this last stage that Ireland came within range
of this general transformation, when, in the ninth century, Teutonic
settlements were made on her coasts and a Teutonic kingdom was formed
within her borders. Till then she had escaped the stress of the political
vicissitudes of Europe. But, four centuries before, a force of another
kind had drawn her into union with the continent and made her a part
of the Roman world, so far as the Roman world represented Christendom.
Remaining still politically aloof, still impervious to the influence
of higher social organisation, the island was swept into the spiritual
federation, which, through the act of Constantine, had become closely
identified with the Roman State. This was what the Roman Empire did for
Ireland, not directly or designedly, but automatically, one might say,
through the circumstances of its geographical position. The foundation
of a church in Ireland was not accomplished till the very hour when
the Empire was beginning to fall gradually asunder in the west; and
so it happens that when Europe, in the fifth century, is acquiring a
new form and feature, the establishment of the Christian faith in the
outlying island appears as a distinct, though modest, part of the general
transformation. _Ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo_, and Ireland, too,
has its small place in the great change.

[Sidenote: PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY]

To understand the conversion of Ireland, which we are here considering
as an episode in the history of Europe, we must glance at the general
conditions of the early propagation of the Christian idea. It would not
be easy to determine how much Christianity owes to the Roman Empire,
and we can hardly imagine what the rate and the mode of its progress
through southern and western Europe would have been if these lands had
not been united and organised by the might of Rome. It is perhaps not
an exaggeration to say that the existence of the Empire was a condition
of the success of a universal religion in Europe; and it is assuredly
true that the hindrances which the Roman Government, for two centuries
and a half, opposed to its diffusion, by treating it as the one
foreign religion which could not be tolerated by the State, were more
than compensated by the facilities of steady and safe intercourse and
communication, which not only helped the new idea to travel, but enabled
its preachers and adherents to organise their work and keep in constant
touch with one another.

The manner in which this faith spread in the west, and the steps in its
progress, are entirely hidden from us; we can only mark, in a general
way, some stages in the process.[2] We know that there were organised
communities in Gaul in the second century, and organised communities
in Britain at the end of the third; but in neither of these countries,
it would seem, did the religion begin to spread widely till after its
official recognition by the Emperor Constantine. At the end of the
fourth century there were still large districts in Gaul, especially
in the Belgic provinces, which were entirely heathen. In this respect
Gaul and Britain present a notable contrast to the other great Atlantic
country of the Empire. In the Spanish peninsula Christianity made such
rapid strides, and the Spaniards adapted it so skilfully to their pagan
habits, that before the time of Constantine Spain had become, throughout
its length and breadth, a Christian land.

[Sidenote: CAPTIVES]

It could not be expected that, while there were still within the Roman
frontiers many outlying districts where the new religion had not
penetrated, the western churches could conceive the design of making any
systematic attempt to convert the folks who lived beyond the borders of
the Empire. The first duty of the bishops of Gaul and the bishops of
Britain, if they undertook any missionary work, was to extend their faith
in the still heathen parts of their own provinces. The single conspicuous
case in which it reached a northern people, independent of the Empire,
is significant, for it exhibits the kind of circumstances which helped
this religion to travel. The conversion of the West Goths in Dacia was
not inaugurated by any missionary zeal on the part of the Church, but
came to pass through the means of Christian captives whom the people had
carried off in their invasions of Asia Minor in the middle of the third
century. The “apostle” Wulfilas, whose work led to the general conversion
of the Goths, sprang from a Cappadocian family which had thus been led
into captivity, and had lived for two generations in Gothic land. Gothic
in spirit and sentiment, as he was Gothic in name, he devoted himself to
spreading the gospel of the Christians among his people. His work was
recognised and supported at Constantinople, but the fact remains that
the conversion of the Goths was due to the hostilities which had brought
Christian captives to their land, and not to missionary enterprise of
the Church. The part which captives played in diffusing a knowledge
of their religion is, in this instance, strikingly exemplified. The
conversion of the kingdom of Iberia under Mount Caucasus is another case.
The story that it became Christian in the reign of Constantine through
the bond-slave Nino, who is still revered there as the “enlightener and
apostle of Georgia,” rests upon evidence only two generations later, and
must have a foundation in fact.[3] And even if the tale is not accepted
literally, its existence illustrates the important part which Christian
captives played in the diffusion of their creed. This is expressly
observed by the author of the treatise _On the Calling of the Gentiles_.
“Sons of the Church led captive by enemies made their masters serve the
gospel of Christ, and taught the faith to those to whom the fortune of
war had enslaved them.”[4]

The same nameless writer, who composed his work in the fifth century,
notices another channel by which knowledge of his religion was conveyed
to the barbarians. Foreign soldiers, who enlisted in the army of the
Empire, sometimes came under Christian influences in their garrison
stations, and when they returned to their own homes beyond the Imperial
frontier they carried the faith with them.[5]

That the silent and constant intercourse of commerce was also a means of
propagation beyond the limits of the Empire cannot be doubted, though
commercial relations and conditions in ancient and mediaeval history are
among the hardest to realise because ancient and mediaeval writers never
thought of describing them. The foundation of the Abyssinian church,
however, exhibits the part which merchants, as well as the part which
captives, might take in propagating a religious faith; and fortunately we
possess an account which was derived directly from one of the captives
who was concerned in the matter.[6]

A party of Greek explorers who had been sailing in southern seas landed
on the coast of Abyssinia and were slaughtered by the natives, with the
exception of two youths who were spared to become slaves of the king.
One served him as cup-bearer, the other, whose name was Frumentius, as
secretary; and after the king’s death his son’s education was entrusted
to these two men. Frumentius used his influence to help the Roman
merchants who traded with Abyssinia to found a Christian church. He was
afterwards permitted to return to his own country, but he resolved to
dedicate his life to the propagation of Christianity in Abyssinia, and
having been consecrated by Athanasius at Alexandria as Bishop of Axum,
the Abyssinian capital town, he returned thither to foster the new church.

[Sidenote: TRADERS]

This course of events illustrates both the way in which captives helped
to spread Christianity abroad, and also how the intercourse of trade
could lead to the planting of Christian communities in lands outside
the Empire. It illustrates the fact that up to the sixth century the
extension of that faith to the barbarians was not due to direct efforts
or deliberate design on the part of the Church, but to chapters of
accidents which arose through the relations, hostile and pacific, of
the Empire with its neighbours. The “mission” to the Gentiles was, in
practice, limited by the Church to the Roman world, though the heads
of the Church were always ready to recognise, welcome, and affiliate
Christian communities which might be planted on barbarian ground by the
accidents of private enterprise.

[Sidenote: PRESTIGE OF ROME]

It was only after the Roman Empire had become officially Christian
through the memorable decision of Constantine, that the conversion of
neighbouring states (with the striking exception of Armenia)[7] really
began; just after that change the victorious religion began to spread
generally in Gaul and Britain. The work of Frumentius and the work of
Wulfilas were alike subsequent to the revolution of Constantine. It would
be difficult to estimate how great was the impetus which this religion
derived, for the acceleration of its progress, from its acceptance by the
head of the Roman State. But while it is evident that the Church gained
immeasurably within the Empire by her sudden exaltation, it is perhaps
generally overlooked how her changed position aided Christianity to pass
out beyond the Empire’s borders. We touch here on a fact of supreme
importance—not less important, but more likely to escape notice, because
it cannot be stated in terms of definite occurrences:—the enormous
prestige which the Roman Empire possessed in the minds of the barbarian
peoples who dwelt beyond it. The observant student who follows with
care the history of the expansion of Germany and the strange process
by which the German kingdoms were established within the Empire in
western Europe, is struck at every step by the profound respect which
the barbarians evinced for the Empire and the Roman name throughout
all their hostilities and injuries. While they were unconsciously
dismembering it, they believed in its impregnable stability; Europe
without the Empire was unimaginable; the dominion of Rome seemed to them
part of the universal order, as eternal as the great globe itself. If
we take into account this immeasurable reverence for Rome, which is one
of the governing psychical facts in the history of the “wandering of
the nations,” we can discern what prestige a religion would acquire for
neighbouring peoples when it became the religion of the Roman people
and the Roman State. We can understand with what different eyes the
barbarians must have regarded Christianity when it was a forbidden and
persecuted doctrine and when it was raised to be a State religion. It
at once acquired a claim on their attention; it was no longer merely
one among many rival doctrines current in the Empire. Considerations of
political advantage came in; and political motives could sway barbarians,
no less than Constantine himself, in determining their attitude to a
religious creed. And the fact that the Christian God was the God of
that great Empire was in itself a persuasive argument in his favour.
Could a people find any more powerful protector than the Deity who was
worshipped and feared by the greatest “nation” on earth? So it seemed to
the Burgundians, who embraced the Roman religion, we are told,[8] because
they conceived that “the God of the Romans is a strong helper to those
who fear Him.” The simple barbarians did not reason too curiously. It
did not occur to them that the Eternal City had achieved her greatness
and built her empire under the auspices of Jupiter and Mars. There can be
little doubt that, if the step taken by Constantine had been postponed
for a hundred years, we should not find the Goths and the Vandals
professing Christianity at the beginning of the fifth century.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: IRELAND NOT ISOLATED]

Among the independent neighbours of the Roman Empire, Ireland occupies
a singular place as the only part of the Celtic world which had not
been gathered under the sceptre of Rome.[9] It may be suspected that an
erroneous opinion is prevalent, just because it lay outside the Empire,
that this outlying island was in early times more separate and aloof
from Europe than its geographical position would lead us to suppose.
The truth is that we have but lately begun to realise the frequency and
prevalence of intercourse by sea before historical records begin. It has
been but recently brought home to us that hundreds and hundreds of years
before the Homeric poems were created, the lands of the Mediterranean
were bound together by maritime communication. The same thing is true of
the northern seas at a later period. It is absurd to suppose that the
Celtic conquerors of Britain and of Iverne burned their ships when they
had reached the island shores and cut themselves off from intercourse
with the mainland from which they had crossed. And we may be sure that it
was not they who first established regular communications. We may be sure
that the pre-Celtic peoples of south Britain and the Ivernians, who gave
its name to Ireland, knew the waterways to the coasts of the continent.
The intimate connexion of the Celts of Britain with their kinsfolk across
the Channel is amply attested in Caesar’s history of the conquest of
Gaul; and in the ordinary histories of Britain the political connexion,
which even took the shape of a Gallo-British kingdom, has hardly been
duly emphasised. Ireland was further, but not far. Constant relations
between this island and Britain were inevitable through mere proximity,
but there is no doubt that regular communication was also maintained with
Gaul[10] and with Spain. Whatever weight may be allowed to the Irish
semi-mythical traditions which point to ancient bonds between Ireland and
Spain—and in judging them we must remember that the Ivernians are of the
same Mediterranean race as the Iberians—it is, for the Celtic period,
highly significant to find Roman geographers regarding Ireland as
midway between Spain and Britain,[11] a conception which seems to point
unmistakably to direct intercourse between Irish and Spanish ports. But
the trade of Ireland with the Empire is noticed by Tacitus,[12] and is
illustrated by the knowledge which Romans could acquire of its geography.
Ptolemy, in the second century, gives an account of the island, which,
disfigured though it is, and in many parts undecipherable through the
corruption of the place-names, can be tested sufficiently to show that it
is based upon genuine information.

[Sidenote: IRELAND AND BRITAIN]

It does not surprise us that in our Roman records we hear no syllable of
any relations with Ireland, when we remember how meagre and sporadic are
the literary records of Roman rule in Britain from the time of Domitian
to the premature close. We know, indeed, that at the very outset the
question had been considered whether Ireland should be occupied or not. A
general of Domitian thought the conquest ought to be attempted, but the
government decided against his opinion.[13] The question has been asked
why the Romans never annexed it? The answer is simple. After the time of
Augustus no additions were made to Roman dominion except under the stress
of political necessity. Britain was annexed by the generals of Claudius
for the same reason which prompted Julius to invade it,—political
necessity, arising from the dangerously close bonds which united the
Britons with the Gauls. The inference is that in the case of Ireland
there was no such pressing political necessity. The Goidels of Ireland
were a different branch of the Celtic race, and the Britons could find in
Ireland no such support as the Gauls found in Britain. This explanation
accords with the fact that till the middle of the fourth century the
Irish or Scots are not named among the dangerous invaders of the British
province; they are not named at all.

But it would be a false inference from this silence to suppose that the
government in Britain had not to take political account of their western
neighbours. Ireland was well on the horizon of the Roman governors, and
Irish affairs must from time to time have claimed their attention. The
exile, of whom Agricola made much, was not, we might surmise, the last
Irish prince who sought in Britain a refuge from enemies at home. But
one important measure of policy has escaped oblivion, though not through
Roman records. In the third century, it would seem, an Irish tribe which
dwelled in the kingdom of Meath was driven from its land. The name of
this tribe, the Dessi, still lives in their ancient home—the district
of Deece.[14] Some of them migrated southward to the lands of the Suir
and the Blackwater, where their name likewise survives in the districts
of Decies.[15] But others sought new abodes beyond the sea, and they
settled largely in South Wales. The migration of the Dessi rests on the
records of Irish tradition, but it is confirmed by the clear evidence
of inscribed stones which attest the presence of a Goidelic population
in south-western Britain. Here we have to do with an act of policy on
the part of the Roman Government similar to the policy pursued in other
parts of the Empire. A foreign people was allowed to settle, perhaps
under certain conditions of military service,[16] on the south-western
sea-board. Nor need these Goidelic settlers have consisted only of the
Dessi, or the settlements have all been made at one time, and there seem
to have been other settlements in Somerset, Devonshire, and Cornwall.[17]

[Sidenote: IRELAND AND THE EMPIRE]

General considerations, then, supported by particular fragments of
evidence which exist, would prepare us to learn, as something not
surprising, but rather to be expected, that, by the end of the fourth
century, Christians, and some knowledge of the Christian worship, should
have found their way to the Irish shores. Beyond the regular intercourse
with Britain, Gaul, and Spain there was the special circumstances of the
Irish settlements in south-west Britain—a highroad for the new creed to
travel;[18] and the great invasion in the middle of the fourth century,
which will be mentioned in the next chapter, must have conveyed Christian
captives to Ireland. In the conversion of this island, as elsewhere,
captives played the part of missionaries. It will not then amaze us to
find, when we reach the fifth century, that men go forth from Ireland to
be trained in the Christian theology. It will not astonish us to learn
that Christian communities exist which are ripe for organisation, or to
find this religion penetrating into the house of the High Kings. We shall
see reasons for supposing that the Latin alphabet had already made its
way to Ireland,[19] and the reception of an alphabet generally means the
reception of other influences from the same source.[20] For the present
it is enough to have brought the relations of the Empire to Ireland
somewhat into line with its relations to other independent neighbours.




CHAPTER II

THE CAPTIVITY AND ESCAPE OF PATRICK


§ 1. _Parentage and Capture_

The conversion of Ireland to Christianity has, as we have seen, its
modest place among those manifold changes by which a new Europe was
being formed in the fifth century. The beginnings of the work had been
noiseless and dateless, due to the play of accident and the obscure zeal
of nameless pioneers; but it was organised and established, so that it
could never be undone, mainly by the efforts of one man, a Roman citizen
of Britain, who devoted his life to the task.

[Sidenote: HOME OF PATRICK]

The child who was destined to play this part in the shaping of a new
Europe was born before the close of the fourth century, perhaps in
the year 389 A.D. His father, Calpurnius, was a Briton; like all free
subjects of the Empire, he was a Roman citizen; and, like his father
Potitus before him, he bore a Roman name. He belonged to the middle class
of landed proprietors, and was a decurion or member of the municipal
council of a Roman town. His home was in a village named Bannaventa,
but we cannot with any certainty identify its locality.[21] The only
Bannaventa that we know lay near Daventry, but this position does not
agree with an ancient indication that the village of Calpurnius was
close to the western sea. As the two elements of the name Bannaventa
were probably not uncommon in British geographical nomenclature, it
is not a rash assumption that there were other small places so called
besides the only Bannaventa which happens to appear in Roman geographical
sources, and we may be inclined to look for the Bannaventa of Calpurnius
in south-western Britain, perhaps in the regions of the lower Severn.
The village must have been in the neighbourhood of a town possessing a
municipal council of decurions, to which Calpurnius belonged. It would
not be right to infer that it was a town with the rank of a _colonia_,
like Gloucester, or of a _municipium_, like St. Albans; for smaller Roman
towns, such as were technically known as _praefecturae_, _fora_, and
_conciliabula_, might be managed by municipal councils.[22]

To be a decurion, or member of the governing council, of a Roman town
in the days of Calpurnius and his father was, throughout the greater
part of the Roman dominion, an unenvied dignity. Every landowner in a
municipality who did not belong to the senatorial class was obliged to
be a decurion, provided he possessed sixteen acres or upwards; and on
these landowners the chief burden of imperial taxation fell. They were
in this sense “the sinews of the republic.” They were bound to deliver
to the officials of the imperial treasury the amount of taxation levied
upon their community; it was their duty both to collect the tax and to
assess the proportion payable by the individual proprietor. In the fourth
century, while the class of great landed proprietors, who were mainly
senators and entirely free from municipal obligations, was increasing,
the class of small landowners diminished in numbers and declined in
prosperity. This decline progressed rapidly, and the imperial laws which
sought to arrest it suggest an appalling picture of economic decay
and hopeless misery throughout the provinces. The evils of perverse
legislation were aggravated by the corruption and tyranny of the treasury
officials, which the Emperors, with the best purposes, seemed powerless
to prevent. Men devised and sought all possible means of escaping from
the sad fate of a decurion’s dignity. Many a harassed taxpayer abandoned
his land, surrendered his freedom, and became a labourer on the estate of
a rich landlord to escape the miseries of a decayed decurion’s life. We
find the Emperor Maxentius punishing Christians by promoting them to the
dignity of a decurion.

It is unknown to us whether the municipal classes in Britain suffered
as cruelly as their brethren in other parts of the Empire. The history
of this island throughout the last century of Roman rule is almost a
blank. It would be hazardous to draw any inferences from the agricultural
prosperity of Britain, whose corn-fields, notwithstanding the fact that
large tracts of land which is now under tillage were then woodland,
sometimes supplied the Roman legions on the Rhine with their daily
bread. But it is possible, for all we know, that members of the British
municipalities may have enjoyed a less dreary lot than the downtrodden
decurions of other provinces.

[Sidenote: DECURIONS]

There was one class of decurions which seems to have caused the Emperors
considerable perplexity. It was those who, whether from a genuine
religious motive or in order to shirk the municipal burdens, took orders
in the Christian Church. A pagan Emperor like Julian had no scruple in
recalling them sternly to their civil duties, but Christian Emperors
found it difficult to assert such a principle. They had to sustain the
curial system at all costs, and yet avoid giving offence to the Church.
Theodosius the Great laid down that the estates of decurions who had
become presbyters or deacons before a certain year should be exempt from
municipal obligations, but that those who had taken orders after that
year should forfeit their lands to the State. He qualified this law,
however, by a later enactment, which provided that if the presbyter or
deacon had a son who was not in orders, the son might keep the paternal
property and perform the accompanying duties.

Now Calpurnius belonged to this class of decurions who had sought
ordination. He was a Christian deacon, and his father before him had been
a Christian presbyter. And it would seem as if they had found it feasible
to combine their spiritual with their worldly duties. In any case, we may
assume that the property remained in the family; it was not forfeited to
the State.

[Sidenote: INVASIONS OF BRITAIN]

Whether the burdens laid upon them from Milan or Constantinople were
heavy or light, Calpurnius and his fellows in the northern island
were keenly conscious that the rule of their Roman lords had its
compensations. For Britain was beset by three bold and ruthless foes.[23]
The northern frontier of the province was ever threatened by the Picts
of Caledonia. Her western shores dreaded the descents of the Gaels and
Scots of Ireland, while the south and east were exposed to those Saxon
freebooters who were ultimately to conquer the island. Against these
enemies, ever watching for a favourable opportunity to spoil their rich
neighbour, the Roman garrison was usually a strong and sure protection
for the peaceful Britons. But favourable opportunities sometimes came.
Potitus, at least, if not Calpurnius, must have shared in the agonies
which Britain felt in those two terrible years when she was attacked on
all sides, by Pict, by Scot, and by Saxon, when Theodosius, the great
Emperor’s father, had to come in haste and put forth all his strength to
deliver the province from the barbarians. In the valley of the Severn
the foes whom men had to dread now were Irish freebooters, and we need
not doubt that in those years their pirate crafts sailed up the river
and brought death and ruin to many. Theodosius defeated Saxon, Pict, and
Scot, and it would seem that he pursued the Scots across the sea, driving
them back to their own shores. The Court poet of his grandson sings how
icebound Hiverne wept for the heaps of her slain children. After this,
the land had peace for a space. Serious and thoroughgoing measures were
taken for its defence, and an adequate army was left under a capable
commander. Men could breathe freely once more. But the breathing space
lasted less than fifteen years. The usurpation of the tyrant Maximus
brought new calamities to Britain. Maximus assumed the purple (A.D. 383)
by the will of the soldiers, who were ill-satisfied with the government
of Gratian; and if the provincials approved of this rash act, they
perhaps hoped that Maximus would be content with exercising authority
in their own island. But even if Maximus did not desire a more spacious
field for his ambition, such a course was perhaps impracticable. It
would have been difficult for any usurper to maintain himself, with the
adhesion of Britain alone, against the power of the lord of the West.
Probably the best chance of success, the best chance of life, for the
tyrant lay in winning Gaul. And so Maximus crossed the Channel, taking
the army, or a part of it, with him. His own safety was at stake; he
recked not of the safety of the province; and whatever forces he left
on the shores and on the northern frontier were unequal to the task
of protecting the island against the foes who were ever awaiting a
propitious hour to pounce upon their prey. Bitterly were the Britons
destined to rue the day when Maximus was invested with the purple.
Denuded of defenders, they had again to bear the inroads of Pict, Saxon,
and Scot. Rescue came after the fall of Maximus (A.D. 388), and the son
of their former defender, the Emperor Theodosius, empowered his most
trusted general, Stilicho, to make all needed provision for the defence
of the remote province. The enemies seem to have escaped, safe and sated,
from the shores of Britain before the return of the army; no fighting
devolved on Stilicho; he had only to see to works of fortification and
defence. But it was high time for legions to return; Britain, says a
contemporary poet, was well-nigh done to death.

[Sidenote: BIRTH OF PATRICK]

The woes and distresses of these years must have been witnessed and
felt by Calpurnius and his household, and they must have experienced
profoundly the joy of relief when their country was once more defended
by an adequate army. It was probably just before or just after this new
period of security had begun that a son was born to Calpurnius and his
wife Concessa.[24] It may have been the habit of the native provincials
to give their children two names, a Latin name, which stamped them as
Romans, as well as a British name, which would naturally be used in
home life. Calpurnius called his son Patricius.[25] But if Patricius
talked as a child with his father and mother the Brythonic tongue of
his forefathers, he bore the name of Sucat. He was thus double-named,
like the Apostle Paul, who bore a Roman as well as a Jewish name from
his youth up.[26] But another Roman name, Magonus, is also ascribed
to Patrick; and possibly his full style—as it would appear in the
town registry when he should come of age to exercise the rights of a
citizen—was Patricius Magonus Sucatus. Such a name would be strictly
analogous to that of a Roman historian of Gothic family who lived in a
later generation, Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus.[27]

As the son of a deacon, Patrick was educated in the Christian faith,
and was taught the Christian scriptures. And we may be sure that he was
brought up to feel a deep reverence for the Empire in which he was born
a freeman and citizen, and to regard Rome as the mighty bulwark of the
world—

    qua nihil in terris complectitur altius aether.

This feeling comes out in his writings; it may have been strengthened
by the experiences of his life, but the idea must have been with him
from his very cradle. Peaceful folk in Britain in those days could
have imagined no more terrible disaster than to be sundered from the
Empire; Rome was the symbol of peace and civilisation, and to Rome they
passionately clung. The worst thing they had to dread from year to year
was that the Roman army should be summoned to meet some sudden need in
another province.

But as Patrick grew up, the waves were already gathering, to close slowly
over the island, and to sweep the whole of western Europe. The great
Theodosius died, and his two feeble successors slumbered at Milan and
Constantinople, while along all the borders, or even pressing through the
gates, were the barbarians, armed and ready, impressed by the majesty
of Rome, but hungry for the spoils of the world. Hardly was Theodosius
at rest in his tomb when Greece was laid waste by the Goths, and Athens
trembled at the presence of Alaric. But men did not yet realise, even in
their dreams, the strange things to come, whereof this was the menace
and the presage. When the rumour of Alaric and his Goths reached the
homesteads of Britain, it must have struck men’s ears as a thing far
off, a trouble in which they could have no part. And the danger that
stole upon the Empire was muffled and disguised. Alaric was a Goth, but
at the same time he was an imperial general, a Master of Soldiers, a
servant of the Roman State, profoundly loyal to the Empire, the integrity
of which he was undermining.

A few years later Britain was startled by sudden tidings. Alaric and his
Goths had entered Italy itself; the Emperor Honorius was trembling on his
throne, and the armies of the west must hasten to defend him. The message
came from Stilicho, the general on whose strength and craft the safety of
western Europe in these years depended, and one Britannic legion obeyed
the summons to Italy. The islanders must again have been sick at heart in
daily expectation of the assaults of their old enemies.

[Sidenote: KING NIALL’S INVASION]

Those enemies were not asleep, and they rose up presently to take
advantage of the favourable time. At this point we encounter an Irish
king, whose name is famous in the obscure history of his own land. King
Niall was the High-king of Ireland in the days of the rebellion of
Maximus, and may possibly have joined in the marauding expeditions which
vexed Britain during those years. His deeds are enveloped in legend,
but the exalted notion which his countrymen formed of his prowess is
expressed in the vain tale that he invaded Gaul and conquered as far as
the Alps. To the annals of the Empire king Niall is as unknown as the
princelings of remotest Scythia, but in Britain his name must have been
a familiar word. The tradition that he died out of his own country, but
slain by the hand of a fellow-countryman, can hardly fail to be founded
on fact; and when the Irish annals tell us that he met his death “by the
Sea of Wight,” there is nothing in the circumstances of the time which
forbids us to believe the record. If the date assigned to his death, A.D.
405, is roughly correct, this last hosting of Niall was made before the
Roman army had finally left the island, but during the disorders which
preceded its departure.

It may have been at this crisis[28] in the history of Britain that the
event happened which shaped the whole life of the son of Calpurnius, who
had now reached the age of sixteen, in his home near the western sea.
A fleet of Irish freebooters came to the coasts or river-banks in the
neighbourhood seeking plunder and loading their vessels with captives.
Patrick was at his father’s farmstead, and was one of the victims.
Men-servants and maid-servants were taken, but his parents escaped;
perhaps they were not there, or perhaps the pirates could not carry more
than a certain number of slaves, and chose the young.

Thus was Patrick, in his seventeenth year, carried into captivity in
Ireland—“to the ultimate places of the earth,” as he says himself, as if
Ireland were severed by half the globe from Britain. The phrase shows
how thoroughly, how touchingly Roman was Patrick’s geographical view. The
Roman Empire was the world, and all outside its fringe was in darkness,
the ultimate places of the earth.


§ 2. _Captivity and Escape_

[Sidenote: CAPTURE OF PATRICK]

Of all that befell Patrick during his captivity in Ireland we know
little, yet the little knowledge we possess is more immediate and
authentic than our acquaintance with any other episode of his life,
because it comes from his own pen. But at the outset we encounter a
puzzling contradiction between Patrick’s own words and the tradition
which was afterwards current in Ireland as to the place of his
bondage.[29]

When the boats of his captors reached their haven, Patrick was led—so we
should conclude from his own story—across the island into the kingdom of
Connaught, to serve a master in the very furthest parts of the “ultimate
land.” His master dwelled near the wood of Fochlad, “nigh to the western
sea,” in north-western Connaught, to this day a wild and desolate land,
though the forest has long since been cleared away. A part of this bleak
country belonged to Amolngaid, who afterwards became king of Connaught,
and it is still called by his name, Tirawley, “the land of Amolngaid.”
But the wood of Fochlad was probably of larger extent than the district
of Tirawley; it may have stretched over Mayo to the western promontory
of Murrisk. Here, we should perhaps suppose, close to Crochan Aigli, the
mount which has been immemorially associated with Patrick’s name,[30] the
British slave served his master for six years.

But our other records transport us to a distant part of Ireland, far
away from the forest of Fochlad, to Pictish soil near the eastern coast
of Ulster. Here in the lands east of Lough Neagh, the old race, driven
eastward from central Ulster, still held out. The name Ulaid, which
originally designated the whole of northern Ireland—even as now in its
Danish form of Ulster—had come to be specially applied to the eastern
corner, whither the true Ulidians had been driven. It seemed now to be
the true Ulaid. Within the borders of Ulidia, in this restricted sense,
there was a marked division. In the extreme north were the Scots, and
in the south were the Picts. The small land of the Scots was known as
Dal-riada, and the larger land of the Picts as Dal-aradia.[31] It is
supposed that both peoples, those known as Scots and those known as
Picts, represented the older races, which possessed Ireland before the
coming of the Goidelic invaders, whose language ultimately prevailed
throughout the whole island.

[Sidenote: PLACE OF CAPTIVITY]

Here, it was believed and recorded, Patrick served a master whose name
was Miliucc. His lands and his homestead were in northern Dalaradia,
and Patrick herded his droves of pigs on Mount Miss. The name of this
mountain still abides unchanged, though by coalescing with _sliabh_,
the Gaelic word for “mountain,” it is slightly disguised in the form
Slemish. Not really lofty, and not visible at a distance of many miles,
yet, when you come within its range, Mount Miss dominates the whole scene
and produces the impression of a massive mountain. Its curious, striking
shape, like an inverted bowl, round and wide-brimmed, exercises a sort
of charm on the eye, and haunts one who is walking in the valley of the
Braid, somewhat as the triangular form of Pentelicus, clear-cut like the
pediment of a temple, follows one about in the plain of Athens.

It was in this valley of the Braid and on the slopes of Miss that,
according to the common tradition and general belief, Patrick for six
years did the bidding of his lord.[32] But it is certain, from his own
words, that he served near the forest of Fochlad. An attempt may be made
to reconcile the contradiction by assuming that he changed masters, and
that, having dwelled at first in the west, he was sold to another master
in Dalaradia;[33] but his own description of his bondage seems hardly
compatible with such a conjecture. The simplest solution seems to be a
frank rejection of the story which connected his captivity with Mount
Miss in the land of the Picts.

While he ate the bitter bread of bondage in a foreign land, a profound
spiritual change came over him. He had never given much thought to his
religion, but now that he was a thrall amid strangers, “the Lord,” he
says, “opened the sense of my unbelief.” The ardour of religious emotion,
“the love and fear of God,” so fully consumed his soul that in a single
day or night he would offer a hundred prayers; and he describes himself,
in woodland or on mountain-side, rising from his bed before dawn and
going forth to pray in hail, or rain, or snow.

    His contemplation was above the earth,
    And fixed on spiritual object.

Thus the years of his bondage were also the years of his “conversion,”
and he looked back upon this stage in his spiritual development as the
most important and critical in his life.

[Sidenote: THE ESCAPE]

But he was homesick, and he was too young to abandon hope of deliverance
and escape from the wild outland into which fate had cast him. He longed
and hoped, and we may be sure that he prayed, to win his way back within
the borders of the Roman Empire. His waking hopes came back to him at
night as responsive voices in his dreams. He heard a voice that said
to him in his sleep, “Thou doest well to fast; thou shalt soon return
to thy native land.” And another night it said, “Behold, thy ship is
ready.” Patrick took these dream-voices for divine intimations, and they
heartened him to make an attempt to escape. Escape was not easy, and
was beset with many perils. For the port where he might hope to find a
foreign vessel was about a hundred and eighty miles from his master’s
house. Patrick, in describing his escape, does not name the port, but
we may conjecture that it was Inver-dea, at the mouth of the stream,
which is now called the Vartry, and reaches the sea near the town of
Wicklow. The resolution of attempting this long flight, with the danger
of falling into the hands of some other master, if not of being overtaken
by his own, is ascribed by Patrick to the promptings of a higher will
than his. He escaped all dangers and reached the port, where he knew
no man. But at all events he had chosen the season of his flight well.
The ship of his dreams was there, and was soon to sail. It was a ship
of traders; their cargo was aboard, and part of the cargo consisted of
dogs, probably Irish wolf-hounds. Patrick spoke to some of the crew,
and made a proposal of service. He was willing to work his passage to
the port to which the vessel was bound. The proposal seems to have been
at first entertained, but afterwards the shipmaster objected, and said
sharply, “Nay, in no wise shalt thou come with us.” The disappointment,
as safety seemed within grasp, must have been bitter, and Patrick turned
away from the mariners to seek the lodging where he had found shelter. As
he went he prayed, and before he finished his prayer he heard one of the
crew shouting behind him, “Come quickly, for they are calling you.” The
shipmaster had been persuaded to forego his objections, and Patrick set
sail from the shores of Ireland with this rough company.

To what country or race the crew belonged we are not told; we learn only
that they were heathen. They wished to enter into some solemn compact of
abiding friendship with Patrick, but he refused to be adopted by them.
“I would not,” he says, using a quaint phrase,[34] “suck their breasts
because of the fear of God. Nevertheless I hoped of them that they might
come to the faith of Christ, for they were heathen, and therefore I held
on with them.”

They sailed for three days before they made land. The name of the coast
which they reached is hidden from us, and there is something very
strange about the whole story. The voyage was clearly uneventful. They
were not driven by storm or stress of weather out of their course to
some undesired shore. There is nothing in the tale, as Patrick tells
it himself, to suggest that the ship did not reach the port to which
it was bound. Yet when they landed, their way lay through a desert,
and they journeyed through the desert for eight and twenty days in
all. Their food ran short, and at last starvation threatened them;
many of their dogs were exhausted and left to die on the wayside. Then
the shipmaster said to Patrick, “Now, O Christian, thou sayest thy God
is great and almighty. Why then dost thou not pray for us? For we are
in danger of starvation, and there is no likelihood of our seeing any
man.” And Patrick, in the spirit of the missionary, replied, “Nothing is
impossible to the Lord, my God. Turn to him truly, that he may send you
food in your path this day till ye are filled, for he has plenty in all
places.” Presently a drove of pigs appeared on the road, and the starving
wayfarers killed many, and rested there two nights, and were refreshed.
They were as ready as Patrick himself to believe that the appearance of
the swine was a miraculous answer to his prayer, and he won high esteem
in their eyes.

As Patrick slept here, his body satisfied, after long privation, by a
plenteous meal, he had a dream, which he remembered vividly as long as
he lived. He dreamed that a great stone fell upon him, and that he could
not move his limbs. Then he called upon Elias,[35] and the beams of the
rising sun awoke him, and the feeling of heaviness fell away. Patrick
regarded this nightmare as a temptation of Satan, and imagined that
Christ had come to his aid. The incident has a ridiculous side, but it
shows the intense religious excitement of Patrick at this period, ready
to see in the most trivial occurrence a direct interposition from heaven;
and we must remember how in those days dreams were universally invested
with a certain mystery and dread.

For nine days more Patrick and his companions travelled through deserted
places, but were not in want of food or shelter; on the tenth they came
to the habitations of men. Patrick had no thoughts of remaining with them
longer than he needed. He had heard in a dream a divine voice answering
his thoughts and saying, “Thou shalt remain with them two months.” This
dream naturally guided him in choosing the time of his escape. At the end
of two months he succeeded in releasing himself from his masters.

[Sidenote: JOURNEY IN GAUL]

In his description of this strange adventure he leaves us to divine
the geography as best we may, for he relates it as if it had happened
in some nameless land beyond the borders of the known world. But the
circumstances enable us to determine that the ship made for the coast
of Gaul. It can be shown that its destination was not Britain, and Gaul
is the only other land which could have been reached in three days or
thereabouts. The aim of the traders with their Irish dogs must have been
to reach southern Europe, and the place of disembarkation would naturally
have been Nantes or Bordeaux. The story of the long faring through a
wilderness might be taken to illustrate the condition of western and
south-western Gaul at this period.[36] For much about the time at which
Patrick’s adventures happened, Gallic poets were writing heartbreaking
descriptions of the desolation which had been brought upon this country
by the great invasion of Vandals and Sueves and other barbarous peoples.
The Vandals and Sueves had indeed already left it to pass into Spain, but
they had left it waste. Strong castles, walled cities, sings one poet,
could not escape; the hands of the barbarians reached even lonely lodges
in dismal wilds and the very caves in the hills. “If the whole ocean,”
cries another, “had poured its waters into the fields of Gaul, its vasty
waves would have spared more than the invaders.”

But even in the exceptional conditions of the time, it is surprising that
a party, starting from a port on the west coast and travelling to the
Mediterranean, should have walked for four weeks without seeing a human
abode and in dire peril of starvation. We must suppose that they avoided,
deliberately and carefully, beaten roads, and perhaps made considerable
halts, in order to avoid encounters with roaming bands of the Teutonic
barbarians.

Though Patrick did not mention the scene of his journey in the narrative
which he left behind him, he used to tell his disciples how he had “the
fear of God as a guide in his journey through Gaul and Italy.” This
confirms the conclusion, to which the other evidence points, that Gaul
was the destination of the crew, and also intimates that he travelled
with his companions through Gaul to Italy. It was in Italy, then, we must
suppose, that he succeeded in escaping from them.

The book in which he described this episode was written by Patrick, as
we shall see hereafter, when he was an old man. He rigidly omitted all
details which did not bear upon his special purpose in writing it. The
whole tale of his captivity and escape, undefined or vaguely defined by
landmarks or seamarks, as if the places of the adventures had no name
or lay beyond the range of all human charts, is designed to display
exclusively the spiritual significance of those experiences. That the
land of his captivity was Ireland, this was indeed significant; but
otherwise names of men and places were of no concern and might be allowed
to drop away. Patrick, in reviewing this critical period of his life,
reproduces the select incidents as they impressed him at the moment,
contributing, as he believed, to his own spiritual development, or
illustrating the wonderful ways in which Heaven had dealt with him.




CHAPTER III

IN GAUL AND BRITAIN


§ 1. _At Lérins_

Patrick has not told us where, or in what circumstances, he parted from
his companions, nor has he related his subsequent adventures. When he
found himself free his first thought would have been, we should suppose,
to make his way back to his home in Britain. We saw that he probably
succeeded in escaping from his fellow-travellers in Italy, and his
easiest way home might in that case have been by the coast road through
Liguria and Provence to Marseilles. From whatever quarter he started, he
seems to have reached the coast of Provence. For here at length, amid
perplexing, broken clues, we have a definite trace of his path; here at
length we can fix an episode in his life to a small plot of ground.

[Sidenote: MONASTERY OF LERINUS]

In the later part of the fourth century the influence of the Eastern on
the Western mind had displayed itself not only in theological thought,
but also in the spread of asceticism and the foundation of monastic
societies, especially through the influence of men like Ambrose, Martin
of Tours, and Jerome. In choosing their lonely dwelling-places, the eyes
of anchorets did not overlook the little deserted islands which lay here
and there off the coast in the western Mediterranean. Island cloisters
studded the coast of Italy “like a necklace” before the end of the fourth
century, and soon they began to appear off the coast of Provence. It was
perhaps while Patrick was a slave in Ireland that a traveller, weary of
the world, came back from the east to his native Gaul, and, seeking a
spot where he might found a little society of monks who desired to live
far from the turmoil of cities, he was directed to the uncouth islet of
Lerinus, which no man tilled or approached because it was infested by
snakes. Honoratus took possession of it and reclaimed it for cultivation.
Wells were dug, and sweet water flowed “in the midst of the bitterness of
the sea.” Vines were planted and cells were built, and a little monastic
community gathered round Honoratus, destined within a few years to be
more illustrious than any of the older island cloisters. Lerinus is the
outermost of the two islands which lie opposite to the cape of Cannes,
smaller and lower than its fellow Lero, which screens it from view,
bearing at the present day the name of the man who made it significant
in history.[37] It is difficult to realise as one walks round it to-day
and sees a few stones, relics of its ancient monks, that at one time
it exercised a great if unobtrusive influence in southern Gaul. Its
peaceful, sequestered cells, “withdrawn into the great sea,” _in mare
magnum recedentia_, had a wonderful attraction for men who had been
shipwrecked in the tumbling world, or who desired unbroken hours for
contemplation—_vacare et videre_.

Patrick found a refuge in the island cloister of Honoratus, and in that
island we are for the first time treading ground where we have reason to
think that he lived for a considerable time. We should like to know the
circumstances of his admission to this community, but his own picture of
the state of his mind enables us to understand how easily he could have
been moved by the ascetic attractions of the monastery to interrupt his
homeward journey and lead a religious life in the _sacrae solitudines_ of
Lerinus for a few years.

Among the men of some note who sojourned in the monastery in its early
days was Hilary, who afterwards became Bishop of Arelate; Maximus, who
was the second abbot, and then Bishop of Reii; Lupus, who subsequently
held the see of Trecasses; Vincentius, who taught and wrote in the
cloister; and Eucherius, who composed, among other works, a treatise in
praise of the hermit’s life. Eucherius had built a hut for himself and
his wife Galla, aloof from the rest of the brotherhood, in the larger
island of Lero. It was remembered how one day Honoratus sent a messenger
across in a boat with a letter on a wax tablet, and Eucherius, seeing
the abbot’s writing, said, “To the wax you have restored its honey.”

As the monastic spirit grew and spread, many a stranger set his face
to Lerinus, hoping, as men hoped greatly in those days, that “he might
break through the wall of the passions and ascend by violence to the
kingdom of heaven.” Among those who joined the new society was Faustus, a
compatriot of Patrick. But it is unknown whether he was at Lérins at this
time; perhaps he was still only a child, for we first hear of him in the
abbotship of Maximus, who succeeded Honoratus,[38] and whom he himself
was destined to succeed.[39] Faustus had enjoyed an education such as
Patrick never acquired. He was a student of ancient philosophy, and a
master of style, as style was then understood. He was afterwards the
valued friend and correspondent of the greatest man of letters of that
century, Sidonius Apollinaris. Crude and rustic must Patrick have seemed
to his fellow-countryman, if they met at Lérins. Yet to-day the name of
Faustus has passed out of men’s memory, and Patrick’s is familiar in the
households of western Christendom, and in far-western Christendom beyond
the ocean.

[Sidenote: RETURN TO BRITAIN]

There can be no doubt that the years which he spent at Lérins exercised
an abiding influence on Patrick. He was brought under the spell of the
monastic ideal; and though his life was not to be sequestered, but out
in the active world of men, monastic societies became a principal and
indispensable element in his idea of a Christian Church. It is improbable
that during these years of seclusion he was stirred, even faintly, by
the idea of devoting himself to the work of spreading Christianity in
the barbarous land associated with his slavery and shame. But he was
profoundly convinced that during the years of his bondage he had been
held as in the hollow of God’s hand; whatever hopes or ambitions he may
have cherished in his boyhood must have been driven from his heart by the
stress of his experience, and in such a frame of mind the instinct of
a man of that age was to turn to a religious life. At Lérins, perhaps,
his desire, so far as he understood it, was to remain a monk; _uenire ad
eremum summa perfectio est_. But there were energies and feelings in him
which such a life would not have contented. At the end of a few years he
left the monastery to visit his kinsfolk in Britain, and there he became
conscious of the true destiny of his life.


§ 2. _At Home in Britain_

[Sidenote: PATRICK’S DREAM]

When Patrick returned to his old home, his kinsfolk welcomed him “as
a son,”[40] and implored him to stay and not part from them again.
But if he had any thought of yielding to their persuasions, it was
dismissed when he became aware, all at once, that the aim of his life
was determined. The idea of labouring among the heathen, which may have
been gradually, though quite unconsciously, gathering force and secretly
winning possession of his brain, suddenly stood full-grown, as it were,
face to face with him in a sensible shape. In a vision of the night it
seemed to him that he saw a man standing by his side. It was a certain
Victoricus. We may suppose that Patrick had made this man’s acquaintance
in Gaul, and that he was interested in Ireland, but his only appearance
in history is in Patrick’s dream. To the dreamer he seemed to have come
from Ireland, and in his hand he held a bundle of letters. “And he gave
me one of these, and I read the beginning of the letter, which contained
‘the voice of the Irish.’ And as I read the beginning of it, I fancied
that I heard the voice of the folk who were near the wood of Fochlad,
nigh to the western sea. And this was the cry: ‘We pray thee, holy youth,
to come and again walk amongst us as before.’ I was pierced to the heart
and could read no more; and thereupon I awoke.” This is the dreamer’s
description of his dream. But, as the story was told in later days, the
cry that pierced his heart was uttered by the young children of Fochlad,
even by the children still unborn. There is nothing of this in Patrick’s
words, yet the tradition betrays a true instinct of the significance of
the dream. It brings out more intensely and pathetically how the forlorn
condition of the helpless unbaptized, condemned to everlasting punishment
by the doctrine of the Church, could appeal irresistibly to the pity of a
Christian who held that rigorous doctrine.

[Sidenote: PELAGIUS]

This doctrine was closely connected with the question which, at this
time, above all other questions, was agitating western Christendom;
and, strange to say, the controversy had been opened by a man of
Irish descent. It is possible that, as some claim, Pelagius was born
in Ireland, but the evidence rather points to the conclusion that
he belonged to an Irish family settled in western Britain. His name
represents, doubtless, some Irish sea-name such as Muirchu, “hound of
the sea.” While Patrick was serving in Ireland, Pelagius was in Rome,
thinking out one of the great problems which has constantly perplexed the
meditations of men, and promulgating a view which arrested the interest
or compelled the attention of leaders of theological opinion from York
to Carthage, from Carthage to Jerusalem. For some years the Roman Empire
echoed with his fame.

Pelagianism is not one of those dull, lifeless heresies which have no
more interest than the fact that they once possessed for a short space
the minds of men a long while dead. At this period the onward movement
of human thought was confined within the lines of theology, couched in
theological language, and we must distinguish those questions which,
like the Arian and Pelagian, involve speculations of perpetual human
interest from controversies which touch merely the formulae of a
special theology. We need not enter upon the actual course of the debate
in which Pelagius and Augustine represented two opposed tendencies of
religious and philosophic thought, destined to reappear in the time of
the Reformation, but we are concerned with the general significance of
the questions involved. The chief and central principle of Pelagius was
the recognition of freewill as an inalienable property of human nature.
In every action a man is free to choose between good and evil, and his
choice is not determined, and has not been predetermined, by the Deity
who originally gave to man that power of choosing. Pelagius regarded
freewill as the palladium and surrogate of the dignity of human nature.
This view logically excluded the doctrine of original sin, inherited from
Adam, as well as the doctrine of predestination; it implied that infants
are born sinless, and that baptism is not necessary to save them from
hell; it implied that it was perfectly possible, however difficult, for
a man who had not embraced the Christian faith, or been bathed in the
mystical waters of baptism, to lead a sinless life. It is clear that this
thesis, as the opponents of Pelagius saw and said, struck at the very
root of the theory of the “Atonement”—at least as the “Atonement” was
crudely conceived by the Church in dependence on the old Jewish story
of the fall of Adam. Pelagius does not seem to have succeeded in really
working his theory of human nature into the Christian system, which he
fully accepted, and this was the logical weakness of his position in the
theological debate.

Pelagius was not a mere speculator. Himself a monk and rigorous liver,
he had in view the practical aim of raising the morality of Christians,
and his particular view of human nature and “sin” bore directly on this
practical aim. For if the purpose of religion is to realise the ideal of
holiness and draw men up, above the level of commonplace sensual life,
to high and heavenly things, and if the doctrine of sin was framed by
the Church with this view, it might well have seemed to an observer that
there lay a practical danger in such a doctrine. There was a danger that,
if men were taught that they were born evil and impotent to resist evil
by efforts of their own nature, the moral consciousness would be stifled
and paralysed by a belief so dishonouring to humanity. The assertion
of the freedom of the will by Pelagius, and his denial of innate sin,
represent a reaction of the moral consciousness against the dominance of
the religious consciousness, and although he speaks within the Church, he
is really asserting the man against the Christian, defending the honour
of the “reasonable creature.”[41]

To the surveyor of the history of humanity this is the interest which
Pelagius possesses, an interest which is generally obscured in the dust
of controversy. He was the champion of human nature as such, which the
Christian Church, in pursuance of its high objects, dishonoured and
branded as essentially depraved. He was the champion of all the good
men who lived “on the ridge of the world,” as men of his own race would
have said, before ever Jesus was born, of all those whose minds were
fixed on invisible things, of all the noble and sinless pagans, were
they many or few. This was the merit of Pelagius, to have attempted to
rescue the dignity of human nature oppressed by the doctrine of sin;
and we who realise how much our race owes to the peoples of antiquity
may feel particular sympathy with him who dared to say that, before
Jesus, sinless men had lived upon earth.[42] Of few men have the Celts
of Ireland or Britain better reason to be proud than of the bold thinker
who went forth to speak holy words for humanity against the inhuman
side of the Christian faith. He was ranged against the authorities of
Augustine and Jerome, but he was not fond of fighting; he wished to keep
the whole question out of the region of dogma, and let it remain a matter
of opinion; he never sought to get his own views sanctioned by a council
of the Church. But the strife and the defeat are of subordinate interest.
What interests us is that Pelagius, himself originally stimulated by
Rufinus, stimulated thinking men throughout the West, and induced many
to modify their views about freewill and congenital sin.

The repose of Lérins was not uninvaded by the sounds of this debate,
and some of its more notable monks showed hereafter that they had been
profoundly influenced by the arguments of Pelagius. The subject therefore
must have been familiar to Patrick; and the terrible doctrine, impugned
by the Scottish heretic, that infants, being sinful at their birth, incur
the everlasting punishment of the wicked until they are redeemed through
the mysterious rite of baptism, might well affect his imagination.
Nothing could have done more to quicken his concern for the unbaptized
people by the western sea than a vivid realisation of this doctrine.

[Sidenote: PATRICK’S RESOLVE]

The self-revealing dream convinced Patrick that he was destined to go
as missioner and helper to Ireland—_ad ultimum terrae_, to the limit of
the world. Yet he felt hesitation and uncertainty, distrusting his own
fitness for such an enterprise, conscious of the defective education of
his youth; and he felt a natural repugnance to return to the land of
captivity. His self-questionings and diffidence were in the end overcome
by the mastering instinct of his soul; and to his religious imagination
the instinct seemed to speak within him, like an inner voice, confirming
his purpose. Such experiences befall men of a certain cast and mould
when an impulse, which they can hardly justify when they weigh it in the
scales of the understanding, affects them so strongly that it seems the
objective compulsion or admonition of some external intelligence.


§ 3. _At Auxerre_

It is probable that when he was finally convinced of the destination
of his life, and knew that he must seek the woods of Fochlad, Patrick
did not tarry long in Britain, but returned to Gaul in order to prepare
himself for carrying out his task. It was necessary not only to train
himself, but to win support and countenance for his enterprise from
influential authorities in the Church. Even if Patrick had been already
in clerical orders, it would have been the mere adventure of a wild
fanatic, and would have excited general disapprobation, to set sail in
the first ship that left the mouth of the Severn for the Irish coast,
and, trusting simply in his own zeal and the divine protection, set out
to convert the heathen of Connaught. Such were not the conditions of the
task which he aspired to perform. He knew that, if he was to succeed, he
must come with support and resources and fellow-workers, accredited and
in touch with the Christian communities which already existed in Ireland.
He needed not only theological study and the counsels of men of leading
and light, but material support and official recognition.

[Sidenote: STUDY AT AUXERRE]

At this time the church of Autissiodorum seems to have already won a high
position in northern Gaul through the virtues of its bishop, Amator.
It was soon to win a higher fame still through the greater talents of
Amator’s successor. The town of Autissiodorum, situated on the river
Yonne, is no exception to the general rule that the towns of Gaul have
preserved the old Gallic names, whether place-names or tribe-names,
throughout Roman and German domination alike; and Auxerre, like most
towns in Gaul, unlike most towns in Britain, has had a continuous life
through all changes since the days when it was Patrick’s home in the
reign of Honorius and Valentinian. For it was Auxerre that Patrick chose
as the place of his study; perhaps he was introduced to Amator by British
ecclesiastics. It may be that there was some special link or intimacy
between the church of Auxerre and one of the British sees. But it is
not unlikely that there was a further motive in determining Patrick’s
choice. Perhaps some particular interest had been exhibited at Auxerre
in the Christian communities of Ireland. There is, in fact, evidence
which points to the conclusion that Auxerre was a resort of Irish
Christians for theological study. Patrick was ordained deacon by Bishop
Amator before long, and it would seem that two other young men, who were
afterwards to help the spread of Christianity in Ireland, were ordained
at the same time. One of them was a native of south Ireland; his Irish
name was Fith, but he took the name of Iserninus. The nationality of his
companion, Auxilius, which the Irish made into Ausaille, is unknown.

Fourteen years passed, at the smallest computation, from the ordination
of Patrick till the day came for setting forth to his chosen task.
This long delay can hardly be accounted for by the necessities of an
ecclesiastical training. There must have been other impediments and
difficulties. He intimates himself that he was not encouraged. Those to
whom he looked up for counsel considered his project rash and himself
unqualified for such a work. His _rusticitas_, or want of liberal
education, was urged against him; and perhaps a failure to win support is
a sufficient explanation of the delay.

[Sidenote: BISHOP GERMANUS]

At all events Patrick, one would suppose, had a discreet, if not a
sympathetic, guide in the head of the church of Auxerre. Amator had
been succeeded by one who was to bear a more illustrious name in the
ecclesiastical annals of Gaul. Germanus is a case, common in Gaul and
elsewhere at this period, of a distinguished layman who held office in
the State exchanging secular for ecclesiastical office. In the year 429
it devolved upon him to visit Britain, and this enterprise must have had
a particular interest for Patrick. The poison of the serpent Pelagius,
as his opponents named him, had been spreading, in a diluted form, in
the island; some of the writings of its British advocates are still
extant. The orthodox pillars of the British Church were alarmed, and they
sent pressing messages across the sea to invite their Gallic brethren
to send able champions over to overcome the heresy. It was probably to
Auxerre and Troyes, in the first instance, that they made their appeal,
and it is recorded that at a synod held at Troyes it was decided that
Germanus should proceed to Britain along with Lupus, Bishop of Troyes,
who had been formerly a monk of Lérins. Whatever may be the truth about
this alleged Gallic synod, Germanus went with higher authority and
prestige; for he went under the direct sanction of Celestine, the Bishop
of Rome. We learn that this sanction was gained by the influence of the
deacon Palladius, who may possibly have been a deacon of Germanus. The
authoritative mission from Gaul seems to have crushed the heretics, and
their doctrine was compelled to hide its head in Britain for a few years
to come.

Celestine was approached soon afterwards on a subject which touched
Patrick more closely than the suppression of heresy in Britain. His
attention was drawn to the position of the Christian communities in
Ireland. The man who interested himself in this matter was the same
deacon, Palladius, who had interested himself in the extirpation of
British Pelagianism. It is remarkable that this first appearance of
Irish Christianity in ecclesiastical history should be associated,
both chronologically and in the person of Palladius, with the Pelagian
question. Now we may be sure that some overture or message had come
from the Christian bodies in Ireland, whether to Britain, or Gaul, or
to Rome itself; for the Bishop of Rome would hardly have sent them a
bishop unless they had intimated that they wanted one.[43] It is, then,
not impossible, though it is not proven, that the motive of the Irish
Christians in taking such a step at this moment may have been the same
Pelagian difficulty which had caused the appeal from Britain.[44] The
question, which must have occurred sooner or later, of organising the
small Christian societies of Ireland may possibly have been brought to a
head by the Pelagian debate. And if the Pelagian heresy had gained any
ground in Ireland, nothing would have been more natural than that the
fact should have come before the notice of Germanus while he was dealing
with the same question in Britain.

[Sidenote: THE IRISH CHRISTIANS]

This conjecture, which is suggested unconstrainedly by the general
situation, may supply us with the key for reading between the lines of
a passage in Patrick’s autobiographical sketch. He complains of the
treachery of a most intimate friend, whom he does not name, but who
seems, from the circumstances, to have been an ecclesiastic, whether
of Britain or Gaul. To this friend he had communicated his inmost
thoughts,—_credidi etiam animam_,—and had evidently received sympathy
from him in regard to his cherished plan of working in Ireland.
His friend had told him emphatically that he must be made a bishop.
And afterwards, when the question of choosing a bishop for Ireland
practically arose, his friend was active in urging his claims. Now it was
in Britain that the matter was discussed when Patrick’s friend, though
Patrick himself was not there, showed such loyal zeal in his behalf.
Here, then, we have an incident which exactly fits into the situation
when Germanus was fighting against heresy in Britain in A.D. 429. If this
heresy existed in Ireland, it was an element in the problem with which
Germanus had to deal, even with regard to British interests solely; for,
if the false doctrine were permitted to spread unchecked in the Irish
communities, it might constitute a serious danger to the neighbouring
church in Britain. If, as was most likely to occur, orthodox members
of the Irish communities sent representatives to Germanus while he was
in Britain and asked for some intervention, the question of sending a
bishop to guide the Irish Christians in the right path and organise
their society became at once practical and urgent. This then, it seems
reasonable to suggest, may have been the occasion on which Patrick’s
friend designated him as the suitable man for the post.

The opportunity for which Patrick had been waiting long seemed to have
come at last. Probably a certain interest in Irish Christianity had been
already felt in Gaul, and especially at Auxerre; but it was now brought
under the notice of the head of Christendom. There seemed a prospect now
for Patrick to undertake the work on which he had set his heart under
high sanction and with sufficient support. But Celestine’s choice fell on
another. The deacon Palladius, who had been active in these affairs, was
prepared to go to Ireland, and Celestine consecrated him bishop for the
purpose (A.D. 431). The choice, if it was Celestine’s own, was perfectly
natural. We must remember that the first and chief consideration of
Celestine was the welfare and orthodoxy of Irish believers, not the
conversion of Irish unbelievers. He was called upon to meet the need of
the Christian communities; the further spreading of the faith among the
heathen was an ulterior consideration. The qualification, therefore,
which he sought in the new bishop may not have been burning zeal for
preaching to pagans, but rather experience and capacity for dealing with
the Pelagian heresy. Palladius had taken a prominent part in coping
with this heresy in Britain, and it is a probable conjecture that he
had accompanied Germanus thither. Possibly representatives of the Irish
Christians may have intimated that they wished for his appointment.


§ 4. _Palladius in Ireland (A.D. 431-2)_

[Sidenote: PALLADIUS]

The brief chronicle of the visit of Palladius to Ireland is that he came
and went within a year. It is generally assumed that he had not the
strength or tact to deal with the situation; that he departed in despair;
that his mission was a failure. But our evidence hardly warrants this
conclusion. We are told that he proceeded from Ireland to the land of
the Picts in north Britain, and died there. But we cannot be sure that
he did not intend to return. It is with north Leinster[45] and the hills
of Wicklow that tradition associates the brief episode of Palladius. But
we may be tempted to suspect that the expedition of Palladius to the
country of the Picts was not an abandonment of Ireland, but was, on the
contrary, part of his work in Ireland, and that it was not the Picts of
north Britain, but some Christian communities existing among the Picts of
Dalaradia in north Ireland, who were the object of his concern. The most
probable conclusion seems that the episcopate of Palladius in Ireland was
cut short, not by a voluntary desertion of his post, but by death.

[Sidenote: CHURCHES OF PALLADIUS]

We should like to know where were the dwelling-places of the Christians
to whom Palladius was sent. Between the port where Wicklow of the Vikings
now is, the port where Palladius landed, and the lonely glen of the two
lakes by whose shores a cluster of churches was afterwards to spring up,
stretched the lands of the children of Garrchu, and tradition said that
the chief of this tribe regarded Palladius with disfavour. But his short
sojourn is also associated with the foundation of three churches. It is
possible that we may seek the site of a little house for praying, built
by him or his disciples, on a high wooded hill that rises sheer enough on
the left bank of the river Avoca, close to a long slanting hollow, down
which, over grass or bushes, the eye catches the glimmer of the stream
winding in the vale below, and rises beyond to the higher hills which
bound the horizon. Here may have been the “House of the Romans,” Tech
na Rómán, and Tigroney, the shape in which this name is concealed, may
be a memorial of the first missioner of Rome. But farther west, beyond
the hills, we can determine with less uncertainty another place which
tradition associated with the activity of Palladius, in the neighbourhood
of one of the royal seats of the lords of Leinster. From the high rath of
Dunlavin those kings had a wide survey of their realm. Standing there,
one can see westward to Mount Bladma, and northward, across the Plain of
Liffey, into the kingdom of Meath. More than a league eastward from this
fortress Palladius is said to have founded a church which was known as
the “domnach” or “Lord’s house” of the High-field, _Domnach Airte_, in a
hilly region which is strewn with the remnants of ancient generations.
The original church of this place has long since vanished, and its
precise site cannot be guessed with certainty, but it gave a permanent
name to the place. At Donard we feel with some assurance that we are at
one of the earliest homes of the Christian faith in Ireland, not the
earliest that existed, but the earliest to which we can give a name.

There was a third church, seemingly the most important of those which
Palladius is said to have founded, Cell Fine, “the Church of the
Tribes,” in which his tablets and certain books and relics which he had
brought from Rome were preserved. Here, and perhaps here only, in the
place, unknown to us, where his relics lay, was preserved the memory of
Palladius, a mere name. Whatever his qualities may have been, he was
too short a time in Ireland to have produced a permanent impression.
The historical significance of his appearance there does not lie in any
slight ecclesiastical or theological successes he may have accomplished.
It is significant because it was the first manifestation in Ireland of
the authority of Rome. The secular arm of Rome, in days when Rome was
mightier—the arm of Agricola, the arm of Theodosius—had never reached
the Scottic coast; it was not till after the mother of the Empire had
been besieged and despoiled by barbarian invaders that her new spiritual
dominion began to reach out to those remote shores which her worldly
power had never sought to gain. The coming of Palladius was the first
link in the chain which bound Ireland—for some centuries loosely—to the
spiritual centre of western Europe.

But when, seeking vainly for traces of this first comer in the vales
of the children of Garrchu or on the holy hill of Donard, we see the
memorials in earth and stone of days before Palladius, we are reminded
that, if his coming is significant, it is a fact more important still
that no secular messengers of Rome had come before him. The superstitious
and primitive customs of the island were protected and secured, pure
and uncontaminated, by the barrier of sundering seas. If one of the
early Roman Emperors had annexed Ireland to their British provinces,
ideas of city life and civil government and administration would have
been introduced which might have proved a more powerful solvent than
Christianity of Celtic and Iberian barbarism. A Roman colonia, a number
of Roman towns with municipal organisation, might, in a couple of hundred
years, have produced a greater change in civilisation than all the little
clerical communities which sprang up in the three or four centuries
after the coming of Palladius. It would have been the task of the
Roman government to put an end to the incessant petty wars between the
kingdoms and tribes, _pacisque imponere morem_. But the absence of such
civilising influence protected and preserved the native traditions, and
the curiosity of those who study the development of the human mind may be
glad that Ireland lay safe and undisturbed at the end of the world, and
that Palladius, nearly a hundred years after the death of Constantine,
was the first emissary from Rome.


§ 5. _Consecration of Patrick (A.D. 432)_

[Sidenote: CONSECRATION OF PATRICK]

The appointment of Palladius as bishop for the Scots had naturally
affected the plans of Patrick. There was no longer any motive for delay
in setting about the accomplishment of his project. There was no reason
why, with the support of Auxerre and Bishop Germanus, he should not set
forth, along with whatever coadjutors he could muster, and, under the
auspices of the new bishop, begin the conversion of the heathen. All was
arranged for his enterprise in the following year (A.D. 432), and the
tradition is that he had already set out from Auxerre, accompanied by
Segitius, an elderly presbyter, when the news reached Gaul that Palladius
was dead. The announcement was brought by some of the companions of
Palladius, and Patrick’s plans were once more interrupted. But only for
a moment. The circumstances seem to imply that there was a distinct
understanding that he was to be the successor of Palladius, and Germanus
consecrated him bishop immediately. And so it came about that, in the
end, he started for the field of his work invested with the authority and
office which would render his labours most effective.[46]

Considerable preparations had, doubtless, been necessary. To carry out
the ambitious scheme of converting heathen lands, there was needed not
only a company of fellow-workers, but a cargo of “spiritual treasures”
and ecclesiastical gear for the equipment of the new communities which
were to be founded.[47] Money and treasure were indispensable, and
however simple Patrick’s faith may have been in the intrinsic potency of
the gospel which he was inspired to preach, he was a man of thoroughly
practical mind, and he knew that silver and gold and worldly wealth
would be needed in dealing with pagan princes, and in the effective
establishment of clerical communities.

       *       *       *       *       *

The foregoing account of Patrick’s setting forth for the field of his
labours is based on a critical examination of the oldest sources. In
later times men wished to believe that he, too, like Palladius, was
consecrated by Celestine.[48] Such a consecration seemed both to add a
halo of dignity to the national saint and to link his church more closely
to the apostolic seat. We have no means of knowing whether Patrick set
out before or after the death of Celestine,[49] but in any case the pious
story is inconsistent with the oldest testimonies. Nor, even if there
were room for doubt, would the question involve any point of theoretical
or practical importance. By virtue of what had already happened,
Ireland was, in principle, as closely linked to Rome as any western
church. The circumstances of the consecration and mission of Palladius
were significant; but whether his successor was ordained at Rome or at
Auxerre, whether he was personally known to the Roman pontiff or not, was
a matter of little moment. It will not be amiss, however, to dwell more
fully on the situation.

[Sidenote: AUTHORITY OF ROMAN SEE]

The position of the Roman see at this period in the Western Church is
often wrongly represented, or vaguely understood. At the end of the
fourth century the bishops of Rome, beyond their acknowledged primacy in
Christendom, possessed at least two important rights which secured them
a large influence in the ecclesiastical affairs of the western provinces
of the Empire.[50] The Roman see was recognised by imperial decrees of
Valentinian I. and Gratian as a court to which clergy might appeal from
the decisions of provincial councils in any part of the western portion
of the Empire. Of not less practical importance was another distinctive
prerogative, which, though not recognised by any formal enactment, was
admitted and acted upon by the churches of the west. The Roman Church
was regarded as the model church, and when doubtful points of discipline
arose, the bishops of the Gallic or other provinces used to consult the
Bishop of Rome for guidance, not as to a particular case, but as to a
general principle. The answers of the Roman bishops to such questions are
what are called _decretals_. No decretals are preserved older than those
of Damasus,[51] and perhaps it was in his pontificate that the practice
of such applications for advice became general. The motive of the custom
is evident. It was to preserve uniformity of discipline throughout the
Church and prevent the upgrowth of divergent practices. But those who
consulted the Roman pontiff were not in any way bound to accept his
ruling. The decretal was an answer to a question; it was not a command.
Those who accepted it were merely imitating the Roman see; they were not
obeying it.

The appellate jurisdiction, and the decretals which were gradually to be
converted from letters of advice into letters of command, were the chief
foundations on which the spiritual empire of Rome grew up. But in the
latter part of the fourth century its nascent authority was confronted
by a serious danger in the shape of a rival. When Milan instead of
Rome became the imperial residence in Italy, the see of Milan assumed
immediately a new importance and prestige. Its bishop soon came to be
regarded as an authority to which appeals might be addressed, as well as
to the Bishop of Rome. This new dignity was justified by the personality
of Ambrose, who then occupied the see, but it was due to the presence
of the Augustus. If his presence had been lasting, it is possible that
Mediolanum would have become in regard to Rome what Constantinople
became, because it was the Imperial city, in regard to Alexandria and
Antioch. But the danger passed away when the Emperor Honorius migrated to
Ravenna, though the consequences of the transient rivalry of Milan with
Rome can be traced for a few years longer.

For the further development of the spiritual authority of Rome two things
were necessary—tact and imperial support. Bishop Zosimus possessed
neither, and his brief pontificate did as much as could be done within
two short years to injure the prestige of the apostolic seat. He was
smitten on one cheek by the synods of Africa, he was smitten on the other
by the Gallic bishops at the Council of Turin.[52] He intervened in the
Pelagian controversy, and was obliged to eat his own words. But his
inglorious pontificate remains a landmark,[53] because he was the first
to make a strenuous attempt to exercise sovran rights which the western
churches had never admitted or been asked to admit—rights which a more
competent pontiff afterwards secured. The indiscretions of Zosimus were
atoned for by more moderate successors, but the most consummate tact and
adroitness would never have won the powers of intervention which he had
claimed and the Gallic bishops had repudiated, if Pope Leo had not gained
the ear of the Emperor. In A.D. 445, one of the greatest dates in the
history of the growth of the papal power, the Emperor Valentinian III.
conferred on the Bishop of Rome sovran authority in the western provinces
which were still under imperial sway.[54]

But in the meantime, though southern Gaul might resist Zosimus and
disregard Celestine when they attempted to assert a right of control,
though Celestine might discern in the power of the see of Arles and in
the tendencies of the monks of Lérins forces adverse to Roman influence,
no Gallic bishop would have thought of questioning the appellate
jurisdiction or the moral authority of the Roman see, as exercised before
the days of Zosimus. Germanus of Auxerre might sympathise with Hilary
of Arles in his struggle with Pope Leo, but in dealing with heresy
in Britain he had acted cordially with Pope Celestine. No one could
ascribe more importance than Vincentius of Lérins to the decisions of
the “apostolic seat.”[55] It would be a grave mistake to infer from the
disputes which cluster round Arles that the bishops of Gaul had ceased in
any way to acknowledge the older claims of Rome or to reverence it as the
head of Christendom.

[Sidenote: THE ROMAN SEE]

When a new ecclesiastical province was to be added to western
Christendom, it was to Rome, naturally, that an appeal would be made. It
was to the Bishop of Rome, as representing the unity of the Church, that
the Christians of Ireland, desiring to be an organised portion of that
unity, would naturally look to speed them on their way. His recognition
of Ireland as a province of the spiritual federation of which he was
the acknowledged head, would be the most direct and effective means of
securing for it an established place among the western churches. If,
then, they asked Celestine either to choose a bishop for them, or to
confirm their own choice and consecrate a bishop of their choosing,
they adopted exactly the course which we might expect. But once this
step was taken, once the Roman bishop had given his countenance and
sanction, it was a matter of indifference who consecrated his successor.
There was significance in the consecration at Rome of the first bishop
of the new province; there would have been no particular significance
in such a consecration in the case of the second any more than in the
case of the third. It was an accident that Patrick was consecrated in
Gaul. If Palladius had not been cut off, and if Patrick had proceeded,
as he intended, to Ireland in the capacity of a simple deacon, he might
afterwards have been called to succeed Palladius by the choice of the
Irish Christians and received episcopal ordination wherever it was most
convenient. The essential point is that by the sending of Palladius,
Ireland had become one of the western churches, and therefore, like
its fellows, looked to the see of Rome as the highest authority in
Christendom. Unless, at the very moment of incorporation, they were
to repudiate the unity of the Church, the Christians of Ireland could
not look with other eyes than the Christians of Gaul at the appellate
jurisdiction of the Roman bishop, and the moral weight of his decretals.




CHAPTER IV

POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF IRELAND


Nowhere more conspicuously than in Ireland have secular institutions
determined the manner in which the Christian religion spread and
increased. The introduction of that religion effected no social
revolution; it introduced new ideas and a new profession, but society
steadily remained in the primitive stage of tribal organisation for more
than a thousand years after the island had become part of Christendom.[56]

Ireland was divided into a large number of small districts, each of
which was owned by a tribe,[57] the aggregate of a number of clans or
families which believed that they were descended from a common ancestor.
At the head of the tribe was a “king,” who was elected from a certain
family. Below the king were four social grades within the tribe. There
were the nobles,[58] who were distinguished by the possession of land.
These were the only members of the tribe, besides the king, who had land
of their own. After them came those who had wealth in cattle and other
movable property,[59] but were only tenants of the land on which they
lived. Below these were freemen, who had no property either in soil or
in cattle, but farmed lands for which they paid rent. The lowest grade
consisted of herds and labourers of various kinds, who were not freemen,
but were regarded as members of the tribe and entitled to its protection.
There was also another class of slaves who did not belong to the tribe,
consisting of strangers—such as fugitives, bought slaves, and captives.
Patrick belonged to this class, _fudirs_ as they were called, in the days
of his bondage.

Originally all the land must have belonged to the tribe. But at the time
with which we are concerned, part of the arable land was the private
property of the king and the nobles. There were, however, certain
restrictions on this proprietorship which show that, theoretically, all
the land was still considered as in a certain sense tribal. The chief of
these was that the proprietor could not alienate his land without the
consent of the tribe.

[Sidenote: IRISH TRIBES AND KINGDOMS]

The limits of these small tribal kingdoms can be still approximately
traced, for they are represented, for the most part, by the baronies of
the modern map, and the names of the baronies in many cases preserve the
names of the tribes. The inspection of a map on which the baronies are
marked will convey a general idea of the number and size of the small
kingdoms which formed the political units of the island. These kingdoms
varied greatly in size; the tribes varied in numbers and importance.
But each kingdom, whether large or small, managed its own affairs. The
self-government of the tribes, and the complicated organisation of the
clans and families within them, were the most important and fundamental
social facts. But the tribal units were grouped together loosely in a
political organisation of an elaborate kind, consisting in degrees of
overlordship.

Thus the king of Cashel was king over all the kingdoms of Munster; the
under-kings owed him tribute and service in war, and he had certain
obligations to them.[60] The king of Connaught and the king of Laigin
held the same position in regard to the kings of those provinces, and the
King of Tara exercised similar overlordship over the kings of Meath. But
the king of Tara was also overlord of all the kings of Ireland, and his
superior position was designated by the title “Árd-rí,” High King.

The kings of Cashel, Connaught, and Laigin are usually described as
provincial kings. For the island was regarded as consisting of five
provinces or “fifths.” Connaught, Mumen, and “Ultonia” corresponded,
with some minor differences, to Connaught, Munster, and Ulster of the
modern map; while Leinster represents the two remaining fifths, Laigin
in the south and Meath in the north. But it does not appear that in
historical times there was any king who held the same position in the
province of Ulster which the king of Cashel held in Munster. The northern
province consisted of three large kingdoms, which seem to have been
wholly independent, Aileach, Oriel, and Ulaid.[61] The kings of these
territories were all alike overlords of under-kings; they were all alike
subject to the High King; but they were as independent of one another as
they were of the king of Connaught. The king of Ulaid was not under the
king of Aileach, as the king of Thomond or the king of Ossory was under
the king of Cashel.[62]

[Sidenote: SYSTEM OF IRISH KINGDOMS]

Ireland then was organised, theoretically, in an ascending scale of
kings and over-kings. There was the High King at the head of all. Below
him were six over-kings, the king of Cashel, the king of Connaught,
the king of Laigin, the king of Aileach, the king of Ulaid, and the
king of Oriel. Below these were the tribal kings, but in some cases
there were intermediate grades, kings who were overlords of several
small territories. For example, several of the small kingdoms in north
Munster formed an intermediate group, the kingdom of Thomond. It is
clear that this system must have grown up by degrees through conquest,
and one remarkable practice illustrates its origin. It was the habit of
the over-kings to take hostages from the under-kings, as a surety for
the fulfilment of their obligations. This was such an important feature
of the political system that a house for the custody of hostages was
an almost indispensable addition to a royal palace. The “mound of the
hostages” is still shown at Tara.[63]

But though the general theory of the system is clear, it would be
difficult to say how far it was a reality at any particular period, or
how far the elaborate scheme of obligations and counter-obligations,
binding on the kings of all ranks, was intended to be enforced. The
ceaseless warfare which marks the annals of Ireland suggests that these
bonds were a cause of trouble rather than a source of union.

[Sidenote: INFLUENCE OF THE KINGS]

Of the political relations existing in Ireland in the fifth century we
know practically nothing. The most important fact seems to be that the
descendants of King Eochaid,[64] and particularly the family of his
son Niall, both of whom had been High Kings, were winning a decided
preponderance in the northern half of the island. When Patrick came to
Ireland, a son of Niall was on the throne of Tara; his cousin was king
of Connaught; one of his sons gave an abiding name to a large territory
in north Ulster;[65] other sons were kings of lesser kingdoms in Meath.
Family connexions of this kind were no permanent, or even immediate,
guarantee of union; but it is probable that at this time, through the
predominance of his near kindred, a prudent High King, such as Loigaire,
son of Niall, seems to have been, may have been able to exert more
effectual and far-reaching influence than many of his forerunners and
successors. We shall have occasion to observe that his reign seems
to have been a relatively peaceful period, if such an epithet can be
applied to any epoch of Irish history. Whatever may have been the
measure of the High King’s authority, it was unquestionably desirable
for the new bishop, in pursuing his designs, to secure his favour or
neutrality. But the political situation and the mutual relations of the
higher potentates had, we may fairly surmise, no decisive or serious
effect on the prospects of the religion which was now about to become
firmly established in the land. Those prospects depended mainly, if not
entirely, upon gaining the tribal kings and the heads of families. The
king of Ulidia, or the King of Ireland himself, might suffer or encourage
the strange worship in his own immediate territory, might himself embrace
the faith, but beyond that he could only recommend it; and though his
example might indeed do much, he could not force any under-king and his
tribe to tolerate the presence of a Christian community in their borders.

It was not political relations but the tribal system and economic
conditions that claimed the study of a bishop who came not merely to
make individual converts, but to build up a sacerdotal society. A church
and a priesthood must have means of support, and in a country where
wealth consisted in land and cattle it was plain that, if the church was
to become a stable and powerful institution, its priests and ministers
must have lands secured for their use. But land could be obtained only
through the goodwill of those who possessed it, and therefore it was
impossible to plant a church in any territory until some noble who owned
a private estate had been persuaded to accept the Christian baptism
and to make a grant of land for ecclesiastical use, with his tribe’s
consent. The conversion of the landless classes, slaves, or farmers, or
even the lords of herds, could not lead to the foundation of churches
and the maintenance of sacerdotal institutions. The success of Patrick’s
enterprise depended on the kings of the tribes and the chiefs of the
clans.

There was another reason also why Christianity could not hope to make
considerable progress until the heads of society had been converted.
Strong tribal sentiment, expressed in the devotion of the tribesmen to
the king of the tribe, of the clansmen to the chief of the clan, was the
most powerful social bond; and while, if a chief accepted the new faith,
his clan would generally follow his example, it was not likely that if he
rejected it many of his followers would dissociate themselves from his
action. Thus on every account the process of establishing the Christian
worship and priesthood in Ireland must begin from above and not from
below.

We know little of the religious beliefs and cults in Ireland which the
Christian faith aspired to displace. If there was any one divinity who
was revered and worshipped throughout the land it was probably the sun.
There seem to have been no temples, but there were altars in the open
air, and idols were worshipped, especially in the form of pillar-stones.
Various gods and goddesses play a part in the tales of Irish mythology,
but it is not known whether any of these beings was honoured by a cult.
There was no priesthood, and it seems certain that there was no organised
religion which could be described as national.

[Sidenote: HEATHEN CULTS]

Heathenism of such a kind could oppose no formidable resistance to the
weapons of such a force as the organised religion which had swept the
Roman Empire. Heathenism is naturally tolerant; and, when there is no
powerful sacerdotal order jealous of its privileges and monopoly, a new
superstition is readily entertained. It must be admitted as probable that
the morality which the Christian faith enjoins, and the hopes which it
offers, would hardly have appealed to heathen peoples or taken possession
of their minds if it had not engaged their imaginations by mysteries
and rites. It was, above all, these mysterious rites—baptism, without
which the body and soul were condemned to everlasting torment, and the
mystical ceremony which is known as the Eucharist—that stamped the
religion as genuine in the eyes of barbarians. And it is to be observed
that Christianity, while it demanded that its converts should abandon
heathen observances and heathen cults, did not require them to surrender
their belief in the existence of the beings whom they were forbidden to
worship. They were only required to regard those beings in a new light,
as maleficent demons. For the Christians themselves, even the highest
authorities in the Church, were as superstitious as the heathen. The
belief in the _sidhe_, or fairies, which was universal in Ireland, was
not affected by Christianity, and survives at the present day. Thus the
spreading of the new religion was facilitated by the circumstance that
it made no attempt to root out the heathen superstitions as intellectual
absurdities, but only aimed at transcending and transforming them, so
that fear of deities should be turned into hatred of demons.

[Sidenote: DRUIDISM AND SORCERY]

The chief pretenders to the possession of wizardry and powers of
divination in Ireland were the Druids,[66] who correspond, but not in all
respects, to the Druids of Gaul. They joined to their supernatural lore
innocent secular learning, skill in poetry, and knowledge of the laws
and history of their country. They gave the kings advice and educated
their children. The high value which was attached to their counsels
rested naturally on their prophetic powers. They practised divination
in various forms, with inscribed rods of yew, for instance, or by means
of magic wheels.[67] They could raise the winds, cover the plains with
darkness, create envelopes of vapour,[68] which rendered those who moved
therein invisible. Though learned in things divine, they did not form a
sacerdotal class; and in their religious functions they might be compared
rather to augurs than to priests. It was their habit to shave their heads
in front from ear to ear and to wear white garments. It was inevitable
that these men should be unfriendly to the introduction of new beliefs
which threatened their own position, since it condemned the practice
of divination and those kindred arts on which their eminent power was
based. But their opposition could not be effective, because they had no
organisation.

The fact, then, that the Christian Church, by its recognition of demons
as an actual power with which it had to cope, stood in this respect on
the same intellectual plane as the heathen, was an advantage in the task
of diffusing the religion. The belief in demons as a foe with which the
Church had to deal was expressed officially in the institution of a
clerical order called exorcists, whose duty it was, by means of formulae,
to exorcise devils at baptism.[69] Patrick had exorcists in his train,
and it was not unimportant that the Christian, going forth to persuade
the heathen, had such equipments of superstition. He was able to meet the
heathen sorcerer on common ground because he believed in the sorceries
which he condemned.[70] He was as fully convinced as the pagan that
the powers of magicians were real, but he knew that those powers were
strictly limited, whereas the power of his own God was limitless. Patrick
could never have said to an Irish wizard, as children of enlightenment
would now say, “Your magic is imposture; your spells cannot really raise
spirits or control the forces of nature; you cannot foretell what is to
come.” He would have said, “Yes, you can do such miracles by the aid of
evil powers, but those powers are subject to a good power whose religion
I preach, and are impotent except through his permission.” This point of
mental agreement between the Christian priest and the heathen whom he
regarded as benighted, their common belief in the efficacy of sorcery,
though they put different interpretations on its conditions,[71] was
probably not an insignificant aid in the propagation of the Christian
religion. It may be said, more generally, that if Christianity had
offered to men only its new theological doctrine with the hope of
immortal life and its new ethical ideals, if it had come simple and
unadorned, without an armoury of mysteries, miracles, and rites, if it
had risen to the height of rejecting magic not because it was wicked but
because it was absurd, it could never have won half the world.

[Sidenote: PROPHECY OF THE DRUIDS]

It was natural that the spread of new religious ideas should excite the
misgivings of the Druids, but so long as the new doctrine was professed
only here and there in isolated households, they could hardly gauge its
force or estimate the danger. It is not unlikely that shortly before
the coming of Palladius they awoke to the fact that a faith, opposed
to their own interests, was gaining ground, for, at the same time, the
Christian communities were discovering that they deserved and required
a bishop and an ecclesiastical organisation. The apprehension of the
Druids may be reflected in a prophecy attributed to the wizards of the
High King. They foretold that a foreign doctrine would seduce the people,
overthrow kings, and subvert the old order of things, and they designated
the preacher of the doctrine in these oracular words:[72] “Adzehead
will come with a crook-head staff; in his house, with hole-head robe,
he will chant impiety from his table; from the front (eastern) part of
his house all his household will respond, So be it, so be it.” It would
not be legitimate to build any theory on an alleged prophecy, when we
cannot control its date. But we may admit, without hesitation, that this
ancient verse, which was assuredly composed by a pagan, contains nothing
inconsistent with the tradition that it was current before the coming
of Patrick. There is nothing to stamp it as an oracle _post eventum_.
The knowledge which it shows of Christian usages was accessible to the
Druids, inasmuch as Christianity was already known, had already won
converts, in Ireland. And if, as we have seen reason to believe, the
Christians of Ireland negotiated for the appointment of a bishop a year
or two before the sending of Palladius, there would be no difficulty
in supposing that the Druids at this juncture, aware that a leader was
expected, expressed their apprehensions in this form. But whatever be the
truth about the oracle, whether it circulated in the mouths of men before
the appearance of Palladius and Patrick, or was first declared at a later
period, it possesses historical significance as reflecting the agitation
of heathenism, roused at length to alarm at the growth of the foreign
worship.




CHAPTER V

IN THE ISLAND-PLAIN, IN DALARADIA


The spot where the river Vartry, once the Dee, reaches the coast, just
north of the long ness which runs out into the sea at Wicklow, has a
historical interest because this little river mouth, now of no account,
was a chief port of the island in ancient times for mariners from south
Britain and Gaul, a place where strangers and traders landed, and where
the natives could perhaps most often have sight of outlandish ships and
foreign faces. It was the port where Patrick would most naturally land
coming from south Britain; but in any case he could hardly do otherwise
than first seek the region where Palladius had briefly laboured. This
would naturally be the starting-point, the place for studying the
situation, forming plans, perhaps opening negotiations. But there is
no record of this first indispensable stage in the new bishop’s work,
and our ignorance of his relations to these communities in southern
Ireland is one of the most unhappy gaps in our meagre knowledge of his
life. He has no sooner landed in the kingdom of Leinster than tradition
transports him to the kingdom of Ulidia.

[Sidenote: VOYAGE TO ULIDIA]

We must see where this tradition—this Ulidian tradition—would lead,
though we cannot allow it to guide us blindly. There are two connected
narratives professing to describe important passages of Patrick’s work in
Ireland. One of these[73] contains some genuine, unvarnished records as
to Christian communities which he founded. The other[74] is compact of
stories which it is difficult to utilise for historical purposes, though
it be admitted that they have elements of historical value. The most
striking parts of it are pure legend, but they are framed in a setting
which might include some literal facts. And the historical background
is there, though we have to allow for some distortion by anti-pagan
motives. But the difficulty which meets the critic here is due to the
circumstance that he has no sufficient records of a genuine historical
kind to guide him in dealing with this mixed material. Most of those who
have undertaken to deal with it have adopted the crude and vain method of
retaining as historical what is not miraculous. There is much which we
can securely reject at once, but there are other things which, while we
are not at liberty to accept them, we must regard as possibly resting on
some authentic basis. We have not the data for a definite solution. It
has seemed best, then, to reproduce the story, to criticise it, and point
out what may be its implications.

[Sidenote: IN DALARADIA]

If we stand on the steep headland which towers above the sea halfway
between the Danish towns of Wicklow and Dublin, the eye reaches from
the long low hill prominence under which the southern town is built,
northward to the island of Lambay. A little beyond, hidden from the view
and close to the coast, are some small islets which in ancient days were
known as the isles of the Children of Cor. If we could see these minute
points of land, we should be able to take in, with a sweep of the eye,
the first stage of St. Patrick’s traditional journey when he steered
his boat northward from the mouth of the Dee to bear his message to the
woods and glens of Ulidia. The story tells that he landed on one of these
islets, which has ever since been known as Inis Patrick. The name attests
an association with the apostle. It might be said that, if he travelled
to Ulidia by sea, as he may well have done, it was a natural precaution,
in days when travellers might be suspected as outlaws or robbers, to land
for a night’s halt on a desert island rather than on the coast, where
churlish inhabitants might give a stranger no pleasant welcome. From
the island which bears his name he continued his course along the coast
of Meath, past the mouth of the Boyne, and along the shores of Conaille
Muirthemni, which formed the southern part of the Ulidian kingdom. This
was the country where in old days Setanta,[75] the lord of the march,
is said to have kept watch and ward over the gates of Ulster. But it
was in more northern parts of the Pictish kingdom that Patrick’s purpose
lay, and he steered on past the inlet which was not yet the fiord of the
Carlings, past the mountainous region of southern Dalaradia, till he came
to a little land-locked bay, which in shape, though on a far smaller
scale, and not flanked by mountains, resembles the Bay of Pagasae.
But the sea-portal to Lake Strangford, as it is now called, is a much
narrower strait[76] than the mouth of the Greek gulf. Patrick rowed into
this water, and landed, he and those that were with him, on the southern
shore of the bay at the mouth of the Slan stream, which till recent years
was known by its old name.[77] They hid their boat, we are told, and went
a short distance inward from the shore to find a place of rest. Had they
rowed farther westward and followed, past salt marshes, the banks of the
winding river Quoile, they would have soon come to a great fortress, Dún
Lethglasse. But of the country and the country’s folk the tale supposes
that they knew nought. A swineherd espied the strangers from his hut,
and, supposing them to be thieves and robbers, went forth and told his
master. The region is embossed, as it were, with small hills, and one of
the higher of these hills was the master’s abode. Dichu was the name of
this man of substance, and he was one of those “naturally good” men whom
Patrick, though he was not a Pelagian, may have been prepared to find
among pagan folk. At the tidings of his herd, Dichu was prepared to slay
the strangers, but when he looked upon the face of Patrick he changed
his mind and offered hospitality. Then Patrick preached to him and he
believed, the first convert won by the apostle in the land of the Scots.

[Illustration: Part of the Kingdom of ULIDIA.

_R. & R. Clark, Ltd. Edinburgh._]

Before we ask the questions that naturally rise in the mind when we hear
a tale like this, we must accompany the saint on a further stage in his
progress. He tarried with Dichu only a few days, for he was impatient to
carry out a purpose which he cherished of revisiting the scene of his
thraldom and the home of his old master Miliucc in the extreme north of
Dalaradia. He left his boat in the keeping of Dichu and journeyed by
land through the country of the Picts till he saw once more the slopes
of Mount Miss. Miliucc still lived, and Patrick wished to pay the master
from whom he had fled the price of his freedom. It is not suggested
that he deemed it necessary, even after so many years, thus to legalise
his liberty and secure himself against the claim of a master to seize
a fugitive slave. The suggestion seems rather to be that he hoped to
convert Miliucc to the Christian doctrine, and that the best means of
conciliation was to recognise his right. But the heathen chief, hearing
that he was approaching with this intent, and seized with a strange alarm
lest his former slave should by some irresistible spell constrain him to
embrace a new religion against his will, resorted to an extreme device.
Having gathered all his substance together into his wooden house, he set
fire to the building, and perished with it. The flames of the unexpected
pyre met Patrick’s eyes as he stood on the south-western side of Mount
Miss,[78] and his biographer pictures him standing for two or three hours
dumb with surprise and grief. “I know not, God knows,” he said, using
a favourite phrase, “whether the posterity of this man shall not serve
others for ever, and no king arise from his seed.” Then he turned back
and retraced his steps to the habitation of Dichu.

The funeral pyre of Mount Miss[79] sends our thoughts over sea and land
to a more famous pyre at Sardis. The self-immolation of the obscure
Dalaradian kingling belongs to the same cycle of lore as that of the
great Lydian monarch whose name became a proverb for luxury and wealth.
Croesus built a timber death-pile in the court of his palace to escape
the shame of servitude to an earthly conqueror; Miliucc sought the flames
to avoid the peril of thraldom under a ghostly master. But in both
cases the idea of a king dying solemnly by fire is taken from some old
religious usage and introduced by legendary fancy into an historical
situation. And in this case fancy has wrought well and fitly. The
desperate pyre of Miliucc is a pathetic symbol of the protest of a doomed
religion.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: IN THE ISLAND-PLAIN]

The “island-plain”[80] of Dalaradia and the districts about Dún
Lethglasse claimed to have been the part of Ireland in which Patrick
began his work of preaching and baptizing heathen men. He abode there
and his religion grew; and inhabitants of those places in later days,
when his memory had been glorified, pleased themselves by the thought
that he “chose out and loved” this plain. He established himself securely
here with the help of his friend Dichu, who, though apparently not
the lord of Dún Lethglasse, was clearly a chieftain of influence and
authority in that region. Dichu granted Patrick a site for a Christian
establishment on a hill not far from the fortress, and a wooden barn was
said to have been turned into a place of Christian worship. The rustic
association has been preserved in the name, which has remained ever
since, _Sabhall_ or _Saul_, a word said to be borrowed[81] from the Latin
_stabulum_—cattle-stall or sheepfold.

We cannot suppose that the history of St. Patrick’s first plunge into
his missionary work was so simple, or so fully left to the play of
chance, as this naive tale represents. It belongs to a class of tales
which are characteristic of history in its uncritical stage, tales
which invert the perspective and magnify some subordinate incident
to be the main motive and purpose of the actors, ignoring the true
motive or depressing it to the level of an accident. Such tales, which
abounded, for instance, in the records of Hellas, are often accepted as
literally true if they hang together superficially, and if the particular
incidents are natural or even possible. A deeper criticism displays their
incredibility. The epic simplicity of Patrick’s journey may be true to
outward circumstances, but it is not possible to believe that he went
out so purely at a venture, like one in a romance who fares forth, on
a quest indeed and with a purpose, yet content to leave his course to
be guided by fortune, without previous plan or calculation. The sole
motive of Patrick’s northern journey is represented here as the hope of
persuading his old master to become a Christian, whereas its actual and
important result, the missionary work in southern Ulidia, appears almost
as an accidental consequence. The hard historic fact which underlies
the story is the work of Patrick in Ulidia and the foundation of Saul;
and the story is evidently the Ulidian legend of this beginning of a
new epoch in Ulidian history. Recognising this, we are unable to trust
the story even so far as to infer that Ulidia was the first scene of
Patrick’s missionary activity, as the Ulidians claimed. We can neither
affirm this nor deny it; but we must observe that, according to another
tradition, which has just as much authority, he began his work in the
kingdom of Meath. We have already seen reason to reject the tradition
that the place of Patrick’s captivity was in north-eastern Ireland, and
we may now see this record in a new light, as part of an attempt of the
Ulidian Christians to appropriate, as it were, Patrick to themselves, to
associate with their own land the bondage of his boyhood and to make it
the stage of his earliest labours.

There is one point in the story which can be accepted. It can be shown
that Dichu, the proprietor of Saul, was a real person. He was the son
of Trechim, and his brother Rus was a man of influence who lived at
Brechtan, which is still Bright, a few miles south of Saul. But was this
region so completely unprepared for the reception of the new faith as
the legend represents? Was the Christian idea a new revelation to the
chieftains of Dalaradia, borne for the first time by Patrick to those
shores? It seems more probable that there were some Christian communities
there already and that the land was ripe for conversion. It has been
pointed out above that it was perhaps in this land of the Picts that
Palladius died. If this were so—but we are treading on ground where
certainty is unattainable—we might accept without much hesitation the
Ulidian claim that, when Patrick left Leinster, his first destination
was Ulidia. For it would be the first duty of the new bishop of the
Christians in Ireland to visit and confirm the Christian communities
which existed. The force of the argument depends on the fact that two
different lines converge to a fixed point. The action of Palladius, the
first bishop of Ireland, in leaving Leinster and sailing “to the land
of the Picts,” and the Ulidian tradition that Patrick also travelled
directly from Leinster to the land of the Picts, may find a common
solution in the hypothesis that the Christian faith had already taken
root in Dalaradia.

Other churches in the neighbourhood of Saul claimed to have been planted
by Patrick, one at Brechtan, the place of Dichu’s brother, another
at Rathcolpa, which is still Raholp. Brechtan was the church of his
disciple, Bishop Loarn; and Tassach, his artificer, who made altars and
other things which were needed for his religious rites and the furnishing
forth of his oratories, was installed at Rathcolpa. These three places,
associated intimately with the first growth of Christianity in the
Ulidian kingdom, Saul, Brechtan, and Rathcolpa, are ranged, within a
short distance, on the eastern side of the Dún, which, a place of some
note in Ireland’s secular history, was destined to win importance as a
religious centre. But no church was founded there by St. Patrick, though
his name was afterwards to become permanently attached to it. The most
interesting remains of past ages at Downpatrick are not ecclesiastical,
but the “down” or dún itself, a great mound encircled by three broad
ramparts on the banks of the Quoile, one of the most impressive of
ancient Irish earthworks.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: ULIDIAN LEGENDS]

The most irreproachable contemporary evidence could hardly testify more
clearly to the deep impression that St. Patrick made upon the dwellers
of the Island-plain than the fact that their mythopoeic instinct was
stirred, at a very early stage, to explain one of the natural features of
their country by the miraculous powers of their teacher. According to one
story an uncivil and grasping neighbour seized two oxen of St. Patrick,
which were at pasture. The saint cursed him: “Mudebrod! thou hast done
ill. Thy land shall never profit thee.” And on the same day the sea
rushed in and covered it, and the fruitful soil was changed into a salt
marsh. The motive of such tales is to account for the origin of the salt
marshes which mark the northern border of the island-plain on the shores
of Lake Strangford,[82] and they show that the figure of St. Patrick had
inspired popular imagination in those regions at an early period.




CHAPTER VI

IN MEATH


§ 1. _King Loigaire’s Policy_

It has been already pointed out that the Roman terminus did not mark the
limit of Roman influence. That influence extended beyond the bounds of
the Empire. The existence of the majestic Empire was a fact of which its
free neighbours had to take cognisance, and which impressed itself on
their minds as one of the great facts of the universe. They were forced
into intercourse, whether hostile or peaceful, with the Roman republic.
We have seen that it must have affected the folks of Ireland who were
the neighbours of the British and Gallic provinces, though severed by
narrow seas. The soil of that island had indeed never been trodden by
Roman legions, but its ports were not sealed to the outer world, and from
the first century the outer world practically meant the Roman world. The
men of Ireland in the fourth century must have conceived their island
as lying just outside the threshold of a complex of land and sea, over
which the power of Rome stretched to bounds almost inaccessible to their
imagination. When the grasp of Rome relaxed or her power grew weak in the
neighbouring provinces of Britain, the Irish speedily became aware, and,
like the Germans, failed not to seize opportunities for winning spoil and
plunder; but, though they appear in Roman records as wasters and enemies,
this does not imply that they had no respect and veneration for Rome and
her civilisation. The compatibility of veneration with hostile behaviour
on the part of barbarians is shown by the attitude of the Germans in all
their dealings with the Empire which they dismembered. We may be sure
that the Iberians and Celts of Ireland, who were certainly not inferior
in intelligence to the Germans or less open to new ideas, were qualified
to admire the majesty of the Roman name and to feel curiosity about the
immense empire which dominated their horizon. Some of their own folk, as
we saw, had found new habitations in Roman territory,[83] and thus formed
a special channel for Roman influence to trickle into the free island.

The chief influence was the infiltration of the Christian religion.
The adoption of this religion by the Imperial government in the fourth
century must have had, as we have seen, a sensible effect in conferring
prestige on Christianity beyond the boundaries of the Empire. It
became inevitable that the favoured creed should henceforth be closely
associated with the Empire in the idea of barbarians and regarded as the
Roman religion. Hence that religion acquired, on political grounds, a
higher claim on their attention.

[Sidenote: KING LOIGAIRE]

We must realise the force of these general considerations in order to
understand the policy of the High King who sat on the throne of Ireland
throughout the whole period of Patrick’s work in the island. Loigaire had
succeeded about five years before Patrick’s arrival (A.D. 428). He was
son of King Niall, who had been slain in Britain, perhaps in the very
year in which Patrick had been carried into captivity. Niall’s immediate
successor was his nephew, Dathi, who reigned for twenty-three years, and
likewise found death beyond the sea.[84] But Dathi, it would seem, went
forth as a friend, not as a foe, of Rome. He led a host to help the Roman
general Aetius to drive back the Franks from the frontiers of eastern
Gaul, and he was struck by lightning. The expedition of Dathi has an
interest not only from the Irish, but also from the Roman point of view.
It illustrates the wide view of Aetius. It shows us how he looked to
all quarters for mercenary help; if he relied on the Huns, whom he was
hereafter to smite so hard, he also invited auxiliaries from Scottia.
From the Irish side, it illustrates the fact that Ireland was within the
Roman horizon.

[Sidenote: REIGN OF KING LOIGAIRE]

The reign of Loigaire lasted thirty-six years, and it marks a new epoch
in Irish history. The part which Loigaire himself played in bringing
about this change has been underrated. His statesmanship has been
obscured by tradition, but is revealed by interrogation of the scanty
evidence.

The first difficulty is one which meets us at all stages of early Irish
history. It is impossible to determine the compass of the power and
authority of the High Kings in the under-kingdoms. It seems probable
that Loigaire was able to exercise as much influence, at least in
northern Ireland, as was permitted to any king by the political and
social organisation of the country. We have seen that the efforts of
his grandfather, Eochaid, and his father, Niall, had extended the power
of the family throughout a great part of north Ireland. His cousin,
Amolngaid, was king of Connaught. His brothers and half-brothers were
petty kings.[85]

Whatever the authority of Loigaire was, he seems to have used it in the
interests of peace. So far as we can judge from the evidence of the
Annals, his reign was a period of peace. He was indeed the perpetual
enemy of the king of Leinster, and on three occasions at least there
was war between them. On the first, Loigaire was victorious; on the
second, he was taken prisoner; on the third, he was slain. But apart
from this fatal feud we do not hear of wars, and we do not hear that he
ventured upon expeditions over sea or took advantage of the difficulties
of Britain, engaged then in her struggle with the invaders who were to
conquer her.

A pacific policy harmonises with the record—though a warlike policy
would not contradict it—that in his reign and under his auspices a code
of native laws was constructed. This code, entitled the _Senchus Mór_,
still exists, changed and enlarged, and something will be said of it in
another place. It seems probable that the idea of this national work
was due to the example and influence of the Roman Empire. There is no
direct evidence that this was so, but it is a remarkable coincidence
that the reign of the king to whom the Irish code is ascribed concurs
with the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, whose lawyers gathered the
imperial edicts into the code called by his name. It cannot be thought
improbable that this coincidence is significant, and that the influence
of Rome is responsible for the earlier code of the Scot no less than for
the later codes of Goth, Burgundian, and Frank. The synchronism struck
the native annalists, and they expressed it in a clumsy way by placing
the composition of the Irish law-book in the very year in which the
Code of Theodosius was issued (A.D. 438). That may be taken as a naive
unhistorical expression of a true discernment that the idea of the Code
of Loigaire and his colleagues came directly or indirectly from the
Empire.

[Sidenote: ROMAN INFLUENCE]

The way in which the Roman world made its influence felt in Ireland
should be compared with the ways in which it exerted influence over other
adjacent countries. Let us take, for instance, Russia. Neither Russia nor
Ireland ever passed for a moment under the rule of Caesar. Both states
were neighbours of the Empire, and for the kings of Tara as for the
princes of Kiev the Empire was the eminent fact in the political worlds
with which they were acquainted. In both cases the intercourse of trade,
varied by warfare, prepared the way for the ultimate reception of some
of the ideas of the higher culture of Rome. But there was one essential
difference, due to political geography. Ireland was of little consequence
or account in the eyes of the Caesars of Old Rome, and it was only now
and then, as in the days of Valentinian I., that they were called upon to
give it a thought; whereas for the Caesars of the New Rome the existence
of the Russian state, from its creation in the ninth century, was an
important fact which entered permanently into the calculations of their
foreign policy. The contrast between the presence of political relations
in one case and their almost complete absence in the other is reflected
in the contrast between the circumstances of the victory of Christianity
in Russia and in Ireland. In Russia the faith of the Empire made, as it
were, a solemn entry through the public portals of the State; in Ireland
it entered privately through postern gates, and conquered from within.
In Russia it was imposed upon his subjects by their prince Vladimir,
who at the same time married a sister of the Roman Augusti; in Ireland
it was only tolerated, when its success had begun, by the chief king,
whose very name most probably never fell upon the ears of the Augustus at
Ravenna. But in both cases the introduction of the religion was only a
part, though the most important and effective part, of a wider influence
diffused from the Empire.

The great question with which Loigaire had to deal was the spread of
Christianity in his dominion, a question which confronted barbarian
kings just as it confronted Roman Emperors, and might be as embarrassing
and critical for Loigaire in his small sphere as it had proved for the
ecumenical statesmen Diocletian and Constantine. It is clear that in the
days of Theodosius II. the moment had come when the High King of Ireland
was constrained to adopt a definite attitude. If, as seems possible,
it was in the south of Ireland, in the realms of Leinster and Munster,
that this religion had hitherto made most progress, then, so long as it
was tolerated by the sovereigns of those kingdoms, the High King might
ignore it. But once it began to spread sensibly in his own immediate
kingdom of Meath, as king of Meath he could not ignore what in other
parts of Ireland the lord of all Ireland might pass over; the time had
come when he had to decide whether he would oppose or recognise Christian
communities and Christian priests.

[Sidenote: LOIGAIRE’S TOLERATION]

For most barbarian kings this question would be equivalent to another,
Shall I myself adopt the foreign faith? It argues in Loigaire exceptional
ability and objectivity of vision that he was capable of separating
his own personal view from his kingly policy. He was not drawn himself
to the creed of Christ; he held fast to the pagan faith and customs of
his fathers; but this did not hinder him from recognising the great and
growing strength of the religion which had overflowed from the Empire
into his island. He saw that it had already taken root, and we may be
certain that its close identification with the great Empire, the union of
Christ with Caesar, was an imposing argument.[86] But if King Loigaire
resolved on a policy of toleration, and was ultimately prepared to
“regularise” the position of the Christian clerics, it is not unlikely
that at first he may have been inclined to adopt a different attitude.
It must have been difficult for him to withstand the influence of the
Druids, who naturally put forth all their efforts to check the advance
of the dangerous doctrine which had come from over seas to destroy their
profession, their religion, and their gods. Tradition recorded their
prophecies that the new faith, if it were admitted, would subvert kings
and kingdoms. In legend, as we shall see, Loigaire appears as following
the counsels of his Druids, resolving to slay Patrick, and yielding only
when the sorcery of the Christian proved stronger than the sorcery of the
heathen magicians. It is possible that this tale may reflect facts in so
far as Loigaire may have been inclined to persecute before he adopted his
policy of even-handed toleration. We must not leave out of our account
the circumstance that, as in the case of Frankish Chlodwig and English
Ethelbert, there were probably friends of the Christian religion in the
king’s own household.

Ethelbert indeed was not like Loigaire. He, too, began with the resolve
to remain true to his own gods, while he granted licence to the priests
of his wife’s creed to do their will in his realm. Before two years had
passed, however, the English king forsook the old way himself and was
initiated in the Christian rites, while the Irish king never abandoned
the faith of his fathers. But Ethelbert’s wife, like Chlodwig’s, was a
Christian, while of Loigaire’s we cannot say what gods she worshipped; we
have only the record that she was a native of Britain, and, for all we
know, she may have been dead when Patrick arrived on the scene. Yet the
fact that he had a British wife may supply a point of contact between the
Irish king and the Empire and help to explain his tolerant attitude to
the Roman religion. But he had also a British daughter-in-law, and here,
if the main facts of the following story are true, we may fairly seek a
co-operating influence.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF TRIM]

In mid Meath, on the banks of the river Boyne, where it winds in one of
its loveliest curves through the plain to the west of the royal hill of
Tara, a small Christian settlement arose, perhaps soon after Patrick’s
arrival in Ireland. The place was called the “ford of the alder,” and the
name of the tree, Trim, still clings to it. In this spot Fedilmid, son
of King Loigaire, had his dwelling, and his wife was a lady of Britain,
who, if not already a Christian, must have had some knowledge of the
established religion of the Empire of which Britain was still in name a
province. Trim, according to its own tradition, was the scene of one of
Patrick’s most important successes.

The naive story relates that Lomman, one of Patrick’s British
fellow-workers, sailed up the Boyne and landed at the Ford of the Alder.
In the morning Fedilmid’s young son, Fortchernn,[87] sallied forth and
found Lomman reading the Gospel. Immediately the boy believed and was
baptized, and remained with Lomman till his mother came out to seek him.
She was delighted to meet a fellow-countryman, and she, too, believed and
returned to her house and told Fedilmid all that had befallen their son.
Then Fedilmid conversed with Lomman in the British tongue, and believed
with all his household. He consigned Fortchernn to the care of Lomman,
to be his pupil and spiritual foster-child, and made a donation of his
estate at Trim to Patrick and Lomman and Fortchernn.

Though the details of this story cannot be taken literally, it may
probably preserve correctly some of the main facts—that Fortchernn became
a pupil of Lomman and embraced the spiritual life; that Fedilmid made the
donation, and that the British princess played a part in the episode.
But tales of this kind are prone to represent circumstances, which were
really due to design, as the effect of chance. It is possible that the
British princess was already a Christian, and that, just as Augustine
travelled to Kent by the invitation of its Gallic queen, so Lomman rowed
to Trim at the call of its British mistress. In any case we may be sure
that Lomman’s coming to the Ford of the Alder was not fortuitous, but
was arranged by him and Patrick with forethought and purpose. The result
was of high importance. It gave Patrick a strong position and prestige
in Meath by establishing a Christian community with which the son and
grandson of the High King were so closely associated.


§ 2. _Legend of Patrick’s Contest with the Druids_

[Sidenote: THE EASTER LEGEND]

The bitter hostility of the Druids and the relations of Loigaire to
Patrick were worked up by Irish imagination into a legend which ushers
in the saint upon the scene of his work with great spectacular effect.
The story represents him as resolving to celebrate the first Easter after
his landing in Ireland on the hill of Slane, which rises high above the
left bank of the Boyne at about twelve miles from its mouth. On the
night of Easter eve he and his companions lit the Paschal fire, and on
that self-same night it so chanced that the King of Ireland held a high
and solemn festival in his palace at Tara where the kings and nobles of
the land gathered together. It was the custom that on that night of the
year no fire should be lit until a fire had been kindled with solemn
ritual in the royal house. Suddenly the company assembled at Tara saw
a light shining across the plain of Breg from the hill of Slane.[88]
King Loigaire, in surprise and alarm, consulted his magicians, and they
said, “O king, unless this fire which you see be quenched this same
night, it will never be quenched; and the kindler of it will overcome
us all and seduce all the folk of your realm.” And the king replied,
“It shall not be, but we will go to see the issue of the matter, and we
will put to death those who do such sin against our kingdom.” So he had
nine chariots yoked, and, with the queen and his two chief sorcerers
and others, he drove through the night over the plain of Breg. And in
order to win magic power over them who had kindled the fire, they wheeled
lefthandwise, or contrariwise to the sun’s course. And the magicians
arranged with the king that he should not go up to the place where the
fire was kindled, lest he should afterwards worship the kindler thereof,
but that the offender should be summoned to the king’s presence at some
distance from the fire, and the magicians should converse with him.
So the company dismounted out of range of the fire, and Patrick was
summoned. And the sorcerers said, “Let none arise at his coming, for
whoever rises will afterwards worship him.” When Patrick came and saw
the chariots and horses, he quoted the words of the Psalmist, “Some in
chariots and some on horses, but we in the name of the Lord.” One of the
company, and one only—his name was Erc—rose up when Patrick appeared, and
he was converted and Patrick blessed him (and he was afterwards buried
at Slane). Then the sorcerers and Patrick began to converse and dispute;
and Lochru, one of the enchanters, uttered strong words against the
Christian faith. And Patrick, looking grimly at him, prayed to God that
the blasphemer should be flung into the air and dashed to the ground.
And so it befell. Lochru was lifted upwards and fell upon a stone, so
that his head was dashed in pieces. Then the king was wroth and said,
“Lay hands upon the fellow.” And Patrick, seeing the heathen about to
attack him, cried in a loud voice, “Let God arise, and let his enemies
be scattered.” Then a great darkness fell and the earth quaked, and in
the tumult the heathen fell upon each other, and the horses fled over the
plain, and of all that company only the king and queen, and Lucetmael,
the other sorcerer, and a few others survived. Then the queen went to
Patrick and besought him, saying, “O mighty and just man, do not destroy
the king! He will come and kneel and worship your god.” And the king,
constrained by fear, bent his knee to Patrick and pretended to worship
God. But afterwards he bade Patrick to him, purposing to slay him; but
Patrick knew his thoughts, and he went before the king with his eight
companions, one of whom was a boy. But as the king counted them, lo! they
were no longer there, but he saw in the distance eight deer and a fawn
making for the wilds. And the king returned in the morning twilight to
Tara, disheartened and ashamed.

[Illustration: Map of the Kingdoms of

MEATH AND CONNAUGHT.

_R. & R. Clark Ltd Edinburgh_]

[Sidenote: MOTIF OF EASTER LEGEND]

The framers of this legend had an instinct for scenic effect. The bold
and brilliant idea of the first Easter fire flashing defiance across
the plain of Meath to the heathen powers of Tara, and the vision of the
king with his queen and sorcerers setting forth from their palace in the
depth of night with chariots and horses, and careering over the plain, as
Ailill and Maeve of pagan story might have suddenly driven in headlong
course against the Hound of Ulaid, is a picture not unworthy of the best
of those nameless story-makers who in all lands, working one cannot
tell where or how, transfigure the facts of history. The calendar is
disregarded. The idea is that Easter is to replace Beltane, the Christian
to overcome the heathen fire; and it is a matter of no import that the
day of Beltane was the first day of summer, which could never fall on
Easter Eve.[89] But incongruous though the circumstances are, the scene
is well conceived to express the triumph of the new faith, and certain
general historical facts are embodied, namely, the hostility of the
Druids and the personal distaste of the king for the foreign creed.

And the imaginary coincidence of the pagan with the Christian festival
has a historical interest of its own. Down to modern times we find
the ancient heathen customs of Europe observed in different countries
on different days. In some regions they were transferred to Christian
feasts like Easter and Pentecost, elsewhere the old heathen days were
preserved. When the old practice was adapted to the frame of the new
faith, the change was silent and unrecorded, but this Irish legend, by
its impossible junction of the two festivals, may be said to embody
unconsciously a record of such a change. We can detect here, in the very
act as it were, the process by which pagan superstitions which insisted
on surviving were sometimes adopted into the Christian calendar.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: CONTEST WITH THE DRUID]

The story has a sequel which tells how Patrick strove with the other
enchanter. On the morrow, that is, Easter day, Loigaire, with kings and
princes and nobles, was feasting in his palace, when Patrick with five
companions suddenly appeared among them, though the door was shut.[90]
He came to preach the Word, and the king invited him to sit at meat.
Lucetmael, the Druid, in order to prove him, poured a noxious drop into
the cup of Patrick, and the saint blessed the cup, and the liquor was
frozen to ice, except the drop of poison, which remained liquid, and fell
out when the cup was turned upside down. Then he blessed the cup again,
and the drink returned into its natural state.

Then the magician said, “Let us work miracles on the plain; let us bring
down snow upon the land.” Patrick said, “I will not bring down aught
against the will of God.” And the magician by his incantations brought
snow waist-high upon the plain. “Now remove it,” said the saint. “I
cannot,” said the Druid, “till this hour upon the morrow.” “You can do
evil,” answered the saint, “but not good,” and he blessed the plain, and
the snow vanished without rain, or mist, or wind. And all applauded and
marvelled. Then in the same way the Druid brought darkness down over the
plain, but he could not dissipate it, and Patrick dissipated it.

Then said the king, “Dip your books in the water, and we will worship
him whose books come out unspoiled.” Patrick was willing to accept this
test, but the sorcerer refused on the ground that Patrick worshipped
water as a god, meaning its use in baptism. Then the king proposed the
same test with fire instead of water; but the Druid said, “No, this man
worships fire and water alternately.” But all these parleyings were only
preliminary, leading up to the main issue, which is closely connected
with the events of the previous night. Patrick proposed an ordeal, which
was accepted. His pupil Benignus and the magician were placed in a hut
built half of green and half of dry wood. Benignus, clothed in the
magician’s garment, was placed in the dry part, and Lucetmael, wearing
the garment of Patrick, in the green part. And the hut was set on fire
in the presence of all. Then Patrick prayed, and the fire consumed the
magician, leaving Patrick’s robe unburnt, but it did not hurt Benignus,
though it burnt the magician’s robe from about him. Then Loigaire was
fain to kill Patrick, but he was afraid.

[Sidenote: BELTANE CUSTOMS]

Having discerned that one of the motives of the whole legend is the
adoption in the Christian Church, in connexion with the Easter festival,
of those fire-customs and sun-charms which were associated throughout
Celtic, as throughout Teutonic, Europe with certain days in spring or
early summer, we can hardly avoid recognising in this ordeal a memory of
the custom of burning a victim on those days. This victim was thought to
represent the spirit of vegetation, and its ashes were carried forth and
scattered in the fields to make them fruitful. Originally the victim was
human, but as time went on, either a mock victim, such as a straw man,
was substituted, or he who was chosen to die and decked out for sacrifice
was rescued at the brink of the fire. In the Eiffel country, by the
Rhine, for instance, the custom was long maintained of heaping brushwood
round a tall beech-tree, and forming a framework known as the “burg” or
the “hut,” and a straw man was sometimes burned in it.[91] We can hardly
doubt that the chief ceremonial of the Beltane celebration, the burning
of the spirit of growth—whether represented by a man or by a mock man,
whether in a dress of leaves or in a framework of green or dry wood—was
the motive which suggested the story of this ordeal. In the story the
motive has lost its particular significance, and but for its connexion
with the opposition between Easter and Beltane might escape detection.

The envelopment of a motive of somewhat the same kind in a setting
which purposes to be historical, and in which the motive entirely loses
its meaning, has an instructive parallel in the famous story of the
funeral pyre of king Croesus. The fundamental motive of that story is the
burning of the god Sandan,[92] but the incident has been wrought into a
historical context so as to disguise its origin, and the tale was largely
accepted as literal fact. But Cyrus was as innocent of dooming his
defeated foe to a cruel death as Patrick was of burning his Druid rival.
In both cases the true victims of the legendary flames were spirits of
popular imagination.

The story bears the stamp of an early origin. It is a common fallacy
that legends attach themselves to a figure only after a long lapse of
time, and that the antiquity of biographies may always be measured by
the presence or absence of miracles. The truth is that those men who are
destined to become the subjects of myth evoke the mythopoeic instinct
in their fellows while they are still alive, or before they are cold in
their graves. When once the tale is set rolling it may gather up as time
goes on many conventional and insignificant accretions of fiction, and
the presence or absence of these may indeed be a guide in determining the
age of a document. But the myths which are significant and characteristic
are nearly contemporary; they arise within the radius of the personality
to which they relate. The tale of Patrick’s first Easter in Ireland and
his dealings with the king is eminently a creation of this kind.

In this legend of Patrick’s dealings with the High King there is one
implication which harmonises with other records,[93] and which, we cannot
doubt, reflects, while it distorts, a fact. Patrick visited Loigaire in
his palace at Tara, but he went as a guest in peace, not as a hostile
magician and a destroyer of life. The position which the Christian
creed had won rendered a conference no less desirable for the High King
than for the bishop who represented the Church of the Empire. Loigaire
agreed to protect Patrick in his own kingdom, though he resisted any
attempts that were made to convert him. No cross should be raised over
his sepulchre; he should be buried, like his forefathers, standing and
accoutred in his arms.

But the place of the Christian communities in the society of Ireland,
their rights and obligations, and the modifications of existing customs
and laws which the principles and doctrines of their religion demanded,
raised questions which could not well be settled except in a general
conclave of the kings and chief men of the island. Now it was a custom of
the High Kings to hold occasionally a great celebration, called the Feast
of Tara, to which the under-kings were invited. It was an opportunity for
discussing the common affairs of the realm. Such an occasion is evidently
contemplated in the legend, and the Annals record that a Feast of Tara
was held towards the close of Loigaire’s reign. It is therefore possible
that at such an assembly the religious question was marked as a subject
of deliberation, and the bishop was invited to be present. If so, the
general issue of the debate must have been that Christian communities
were recognised as social units on the same footing as families, but that
Christian principles could not alter the general principles of Irish law.
This brings us to the chief monument of Loigaire’s reign, the legal code,
the construction of which may well have been discussed and resolved on at
one of the general assemblages at Tara.


§ 3. _Loigaire’s Code_

[Sidenote: IRISH LEGISLATION]

Loigaire did for Ireland what Euric did for the Visigoths, Gundobad for
the Burgundians, Chlodwig for the Salian Franks; and we have already
observed that to him probably, as to them, the idea of compiling a
written legal code came from the Roman Empire. The _Senchus Mór_, as
the code was called, has not come down in its primitive form; it has
been remodelled, worked over, and overlaid with additions by subsequent
lawyers; but a critical examination of the evidence leaves little room
for doubt that in its original shape it was, as tradition held, composed
under the auspices of Loigaire. As it was to be valid for Ireland,
and not merely for Meath, it was necessary for the High King to act
in consort with the provincial kings, and tradition mentions as his
coadjutors Corc, king of Munster, and Daire of Orior.[94]

If the view is right that the initiation of such a code was due to the
influence of Roman ideas, it would be not unnatural or surprising that
the Christian bishop and Roman citizen, who represented more than any
other man in Ireland the ideas of Roman civilisation, should have been
consulted, though the construction of the law-book was a matter for
native experts. But there was another reason why Patrick would naturally
have been taken into the counsels of the kings and lawyers. The spread
of Christianity and the foundation of Christian communities throughout
the land rendered it imperative for the secular authorities to define
the status of the clergy and fix the law which should be binding on all.
A new society had been established, recognising laws of its own, which
differed from the laws of the country; and this threatened to create a
double system, which would have been fatal to order. Either the spirit of
the Mosaic law must be allowed to transform the ancient customs of the
land, or the Christians must resign themselves to living under principles
opposed to ecclesiastical teaching.

[Sidenote: THE IRISH LAW CODE]

It is possible that Patrick made an attempt to revolutionise the Irish
system of dealing with cases of manslaughter, to abolish the customs
of composition by fine and private retaliation, and make it an offence
punishable by death. But if he made such an attempt it was unsuccessful,
and it would probably have received little support from his native
converts. The principle of primitive societies that bloodshedding was a
private offence which could be atoned for by payment of a composition—a
principle which Greek societies were discarding in the seventh century
B.C.—prevailed in Ireland so long as Ireland was independent, and the
Irish Church was perfectly content.

Among the experts who are said to have taken part in compiling the code
was the poet Dubthach, of Leinster, who is said to have been one of the
most eminent poets in the reign of Loigaire. Tradition says that he
became a Christian, and his pupil Fíacc, whom he had trained in the art
of poetry, was consecrated a bishop by Patrick. Of the poets of Ireland
at this early age we know nothing. One wonders what manner of poems
were sung by that bard whose sepulchral stone, old but of unknown age,
has preserved his bare name and calling, written in the character which
the Irish of those days used to inscribe upon their tombstones: VELITAS
LUGUTTI, “(This is the tomb) of the poet Lugut.”[95] The poets were men
of dignity and consequence in the society of their tribes and country.
They were not only poets but judges, for they possessed the legal
lore which was perhaps preserved in poetical form. The administration
of justice depended on their knowledge; their arbitrations were the
substitute for a court of justice. Such was the position of Dubthach,
lawyer at once and poet, like Charondas of Catana, whose laws, cast in
poetical form, were sung, we are told, at banquets. He was a native of
Leinster, and if he was one of the commission which drew up the _Senchus
Mór_, we may take it that he represented that kingdom, for the name of
the King of Leinster, Loigaire’s enemy, does not appear.

The legend of Patrick’s visit to Tara, when he entered through closed
doors, relates that when he appeared in the hall Dubthach alone of the
company rose from his seat to salute the stranger. This seems to be a
genuine fragment of tradition.[96] That there had been a friendship
between Patrick and Dubthach was believed in later times at Sletty, in
Leinster, of which Fíacc, pupil of Dubthach, was the first bishop.


§ 4. _Ecclesiastical Foundations in Meath_

The early traditions of Patrick’s work in founding new communities claim
our notice, for though we cannot control them in any particular case, the
probability is that many of them have a basis in fact, and collectively
they illustrate this side of his activity.

[Sidenote: HYMN OF SECUNDINUS]

Within Loigaire’s own immediate kingdom not a few churches claimed to
have been founded by Patrick, one or two of them in the neighbourhood of
the royal hill. But though the names of the places where these churches
were built are recorded, they are in most cases for us mere names; the
sites cannot be identified, or can only be guessed at. In a few places
in the land of Meath we can localise the literary traditions. We may
begin with a church which was founded not by the bishop himself, but by
a disciple and, it was believed, a relative. Not far south from Tara
lies Dunshaughlin, and the name, which represents[97] Domnach Sechnaill,
“the church of Sechnall,” is supposed to preserve the name of Sechnall
or Secundinus, said to have been Patrick’s nephew. Here Secundinus is
related to have composed the first Latin hymn that was composed in
Ireland, and the theme of the hymn was the apostolic work of his master.
This hymn is undoubtedly contemporary, and there is no reason either to
deny or to assert the authenticity of the tradition which ascribes it to
Secundinus, but there are considerations which make it very difficult
to accept his alleged relationship to Patrick.[98] It is composed
in trochaic rhythm, but with almost complete disregard of metrical
quantity,[99] and its twenty-three quatrains begin with the successive
letters of the alphabet. Literary merit it has none, and the historian
deplores that, instead of singing the general praises of Patrick’s
virtues and weaving round him a mesh of religious phrases describing his
work as pastor, messenger, and preacher, the author had thought well to
mention some of his particular actions. But the hymn has its value. It is
among the earliest memorials that we possess of his work; and if it was
composed by Secundinus, it was written before Patrick had been fourteen
years in Ireland, and is thus older than the greater memorial which
he wrote himself before he died. And the writer may have derived his
inspiration from Patrick’s own impressions about his work. We may suspect
that some of the verses echo words which had fallen from Patrick’s
lips in the hearing of his disciple, as when the master is compared
to Paul,[100] or described as a fisherman setting his nets for the
heathen, or called the light of the world, or a witness of God _in lege
catholica_. But Secundinus, if he was the hymnographer, did not live to
see the fuller realisation of Patrick’s claims to the fulsome laudations
of his hymn. The disciple died long before the master had finished his
“perfect life.”[101]

[Sidenote: WORK IN MEATH]

In another district of Meath, Donagh-Patrick, near the banks of the
Blackwater, seems to mark a spot associated with an important success of
the apostle. Here Conall, son of Niall, and brother of king Loigaire, had
his dwelling, still marked by the foundations of an ancient fort, and he
was less deaf than his greater brother to the persuasions of Patrick’s
teaching. He submitted to the rite of baptism, and he granted a place,
close to his own house, for the building of a church. Patrick measured
out the ground, and a church of unusual size arose, twenty yards from end
to end, and it was known as the Great Church of Patrick. Such was the
scale of the early houses of Christian worship in Ireland.

The conversion of Conall was an important achievement, but it is related
that there were other sons of Niall, who were so bitterly adverse to the
new doctrine, that they were fain to take the life of its teacher. Not
far from the place where he won the friendship of Conall, Patrick had
been in danger of his life at the hands of Coirpre, Conall’s brother. At
a little distance above the confluence of the Blackwater with the Boyne,
the village of Telltown recalls the memory of Taillte,[102] a place of
great note and fame in ancient Meath. Here a fair was held and a feast
celebrated at the beginning of autumn, and people gathered together to
witness the games which were held there, perhaps under the presidency of
the High King. The record of the visit of Patrick to Taillte mentions
the games as the “royal agon,” and the Greek word sends our thoughts to
those more illustrious contests which were held at the same season of
the year on the banks of the Alpheus in honour of Zeus. It is not clear
whether Patrick is supposed to have timed his visit to see and denounce
the heathen usages of the festival. Perhaps he would have avoided such
an occasion with the same discretion which Otto, the apostle of the
Pomeranians, exercised when he waited outside the town of Pyritz till the
pagan folk had finished the celebration of a religious feast.[103] The
story is that Coirpre, son of King Niall, wished to put Patrick to death
at Taillte, and scourged his servants because they would not betray their
master into his hands.

But if the bishop was in danger from a son of Niall at Taillte, he
is said to have fared worse at the hands of a grandson of Niall[104]
at another place of high repute in the kingdom of Meath. The hill of
Uisnech, in south-western Meath, was believed to mark the centre of the
island, and was a scene of pagan worship. Patrick visited the hill town,
and a stone known as the “stone of Coithrige”—perhaps a sacred stone
on which he inscribed a cross—commemorated his name and his visit. The
stone has disappeared, but the traveller is reminded of it by the stone
enclosure which is known as “St. Patrick’s bed.” While he was there, a
grandson of Niall slew some of his foreign companions. Patrick cursed
both this man and Coirpre, and foretold that no king should ever spring
from their seed, but that their posterity would serve the posterity of
their brethren. Tradition consistently represents Patrick as finding in
malediction an instrument not to be disdained.

It is recorded that, proceeding from Donagh-Patrick up the Blackwater, he
came to the Ford of the Quern,[105] and planted there another Christian
settlement. This place was probably near the old town of Kells, then
called Cenondae. Unlike Trim, Kells has some traces of the early age of
Christian Ireland, though nothing that can claim association with the
age of Patrick. The ancient stone house which is preserved there, is
connected by tradition with the name of the great saint who a hundred
years after Patrick’s death went forth from Ireland to convert north
Britain.[106]

       *       *       *       *       *

Some churches are said to have been established by Patrick in the
north-western region of Meath, which was known by a name, now obsolete,
as the kingdom of the two Tethbias.[107] The river Ethne, which is now
pronounced Inny, flows through this region to contribute its waters to a
swelling of the Shannon, and divides it into two parts, the northern and
the southern Tethbia. Perhaps the only place here that we have any ground
for associating with Patrick is Granard. We are told that from the hill
of Granard he pointed out to one of his followers the spot where a church
should be founded. This church, Cell Raithin, may have been the origin
of the settlement which grew into the town of Granard. Among the inmates
of the monastery established here is said to have been one who had a
specially interesting connexion with Patrick’s life. Gosact, described as
the son of his old master, was, according to the tradition, here ordained
a priest by the captive stranger who had once kept his father’s droves.
There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the tomb of Gosact was in later
times to be seen at Granard,[108] and that the tradition of the place
represented him as the son of Miliucc. Nor should we have any good reason
to question that Gosact, who was buried there, was a son of Miliucc. But
we have seen grounds for believing that the story of Patrick’s servitude
under Miliucc of Dalaradia was an error; and it would follow that Gosact,
son of Miliucc, was not the son of Patrick’s master. Nevertheless, Gosact
may have been connected with the years of bondage, and may perhaps supply
us with the clue which we desire for explaining how it came about that
it ever occurred to any one to place the scene of the captivity in the
land of Miliucc. In the earliest notice of Gosact that is preserved, he
is said to have been fostered by Patrick during the servitude of seven
years. This suggests the conjecture that, in conformity with a custom
which prevailed in Ireland, Miliucc had sent his son from home to be
brought up by Patrick’s master in Connaught, and that through this
accident, happening at the time of the captivity, Patrick had associated
with Gosact. The record of this bond between Patrick and Miliucc’s son
might have originated the error that Miliucc was Patrick’s master.

[Sidenote: IDOL OF MAG SLECHT]

It is said that, having done what he could do towards planting his
religion here and there in Tethbia, Patrick bent his steps northward
to one of the chief strongholds and sanctuaries of pagan worship in
Ireland.[109] In the plain of Slecht, in a region which belonged then to
the kingdom of Connaught, but falls now within the province of Ulster,
there was a famous idol. It was apparently a stone, covered with silver
and gold, standing in a sacred circuit, surrounded by twelve pillar
stones. This idol was known as Cenn Cruaich or Crom Cruaich, and it has
been suggested that a fossilised memory of the same worship is found
in a name among the British Celts beyond the sea, Pennicrucium. We may
suspect that either later generations exalted unduly the importance of
the precinct in Mag Slecht as a national centre of religion, or that
its importance had dwindled before the days of Patrick. It was told in
later times that the firstlings, even of human offspring, used to be
offered to this idol, in order to secure a plenteous yield of corn and
milk, and that the High Kings of Ireland themselves used to come at
the beginning of winter to do worship in the plain of Slecht. If the
cult in that plain possessed such national significance as was in later
times believed, it would have been one of Patrick’s greatest feats if
he assaulted and conquered the power of heathendom in one of its chief
fastnesses. The story tells, with a simplicity which defeats itself, that
he came and struck down the idol with his staff. If this was done, if the
golden pillar of the older god was thus cast down by the servant of the
new divinity, it must have been done with the consent of secular powers.
It would thus have marked, perhaps more than any other single event,
the formal success of Christian aggression against the pagan spirit of
Ireland, and it would inevitably have stood out in the earliest records
as one of the decisive victories, if not the supreme triumph. The blow
struck by Patrick at the stone of Mag Slecht would be as the stroke of
Boniface at the oak of Geismar. The fall of Cenn Cruaich should be as
illustrious in the story of the spreading of Christianity in the island
of the Scots as was the fall of the Irmin pillar on a Westphalian hill
in the advance of Christendom from the Rhine to the Elbe, under the
banner of Charles the Great. The apostle of the Irish might as justly and
proudly have sent some fragment of the fallen image to the Roman pontiff,
a trophy of the victory of their faith, as in a later age the apostle of
the Baltic Slavs sent to Rome the three-headed god which he took from the
temple of Stettin to show the head of the Church how a new land was being
won for Christ. But the truth is that the episode of Cenn Cruaich, though
the incident rests on an ancient tradition, held no prominent place in
the oldest records. Perhaps we shall be near the mark if we infer that
the story is based on a genuine fact, but that the later accounts impute
to it a significance which it did not possess.[110] We may suppose that
the worship of the idol was of interest only to the surrounding regions,
and had no national import for the whole island. If Patrick went to the
place and with the help of secular authority suppressed the worship and
cast down the god, it was simply one of his local successes, one of many
victories in his struggle with heathenism, not a crowning or typical
triumph.




CHAPTER VII

IN CONNAUGHT


It is uncertain how long Patrick had been in the island before he set
forth to accomplish the thing which had been the dream of his life, the
preaching of his gospel in the western parts of Connaught, _ubi nemo
ultra erat_, by the utmost margin of European land. We remember how the
cry of the children of Fochlad, heard in the visions of the night, was
the supreme call which he felt as irresistible. And although his outlook
must have widened as he came face to face with facts, and new tasks of
great worth and moment, presenting themselves, transformed and enlarged
the conception of his work as he had originally grasped it, we cannot
doubt that to bear light to the forest of Fochlad was the most cherished
wish of his heart. Nor is it likely that, however much he found to do in
Ulidia and Meath, he would have deferred this purpose long, unless some
grave obstacle had constrained him to delay. The necessary condition of
success was the consent of the king of the land; the decisive hindrance
would have been his disapprobation and opposition.

[Sidenote: WORK IN CONNAUGHT]

Now there was one district close to the woods of Fochlad where Patrick
was unable to fulfil his wishes till after the lapse of thirteen or
fourteen years. This was the land of Amolngaid, in north Mayo, the
land which is still called by that king’s name—Tír Amolngid, which is
pronounced Tirawley. It was not till after his death that the Christian
bishop visited those regions, and it may be inferred, perhaps, that
Amolngaid could not be persuaded to look with favour on the strange
religion which his sons afterwards accepted. According to the common
view, the forest of Fochlad was restricted to this corner of Connaught,
and in that case Patrick’s fulfilment of his original purpose would have
been thus long delayed. But it has been pointed out in a previous chapter
that Fochlad had possibly a wider compass, stretching across Mayo towards
the neighbourhood of Murrisk, and that the scene of Patrick’s bondage was
in that neighbourhood. If so, our records allow us to suppose, though
certainty cannot be attained, that he may have visited the southern
limits of Fochlad at an earlier period. We are told that he crossed the
Shannon and visited Connaught three times. One of these occasions was
shortly after the death of king Amolngaid;[111] but one or both of the
other visits may have been earlier, and on such an earlier occasion
he may have made his way to the region which he had known of old as a
bond-slave. In our records, events which belong to different journeys
are thrown together, and it is not possible, except at some particular
points, to distinguish them; but this chronological uncertainty will
not seriously affect the general view of Patrick’s labours in Connaught
as remembered there. In the following account of some of his acts it is
assumed that his first two journeys were in the lifetime of Amolngaid;
but while this assumption is adopted for the purpose of the narrative, it
will be understood that it is only tentative.[112]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: IN TIRERRILL]

The field of Patrick’s work in his first journey beyond the Shannon
seems to have been, partly, in the land of the children of Ailill. Their
country covered a large part of the county of Sligo, and perhaps extended
southward into Roscommon to the neighbourhood of Elphin. As in the case
of other Irish kingdoms, its memory is still preserved in the name of
a small portion of its original compass. The barony of Tirerrill is a
remnant of the land of Ailill, son of king Eochaidh, and brother of king
Niall.

In the north of this kingdom, on the west side of Lough Arrow, Patrick
founded a church in a district which still bears the old name of
Aghanagh; and east of the same lake, at the extreme border of Tirerrill,
the parish of Shancoe enables us to fix the whereabouts of another church
which he established at Senchua. There is a curious piece of evidence
which suggests that Christianity had already made an attempt to win a
footing in these regions. When Patrick ordained[113] a certain Ailbe, who
belonged to the family of Ailill, to the rank of priest, he told him of
the existence of a “wonderful” subterranean stone altar in the Mountain
of the Children of Ailill. There were four glass chalices at the four
corners of the altar, and Patrick warned Ailbe to beware of breaking the
edges of the excavation. As Shancoe was Ailbe’s church, we are entitled
to infer that the altar was somewhere in the Bralieve hills, which are
in that district.[114] It is clear that, if the tradition is genuine,
Patrick had seen the place himself, and the story implies that it was not
he who had set the altar in the lonely spot on the mountains, but that it
had been used in older days and abandoned.

No commemorative name has survived to mark the place of another church in
the same regions which owed its origin to Patrick, the Cell Angle;[115]
but what seems to have been the most important foundation of all was
farther north, in the parish of Tawnagh,[116] still called as it was
called when he first gave it a place on the ecclesiastical map of
Ireland.

It seems probable that in his first journey Patrick also visited the
north of Sligo, and consecrated Brón bishop for a church founded at
Caisselire. This place was on the sea-shore, under the massive hill of
Knocknaree, which dominates on the west the modern town of Sligo, and the
name Killespugbrone[117] still preserves the memory of the fifth-century
bishop.

He also worked in the regions south of Lake Gara, where Sachall, whom
we shall presently meet as a bishop, became his pupil.[118] Thence he
may have journeyed southward through the plains and wilds of Kerry,[119]
founding some churches on his way, till he came to the lake country
on the confines of Mayo and Galway. Then he turned westward through
Carra and founded the church of Achad-fobuir. The old name has clung
to the place—Aghagower, and in ancient times it had ecclesiastical
importance.[120] It marks clearly a stage in the apostle’s progress to
the famous mountain to which his visit gave a new name.

[Sidenote: CROCHAN AIGLI]

If we are right in supposing that this was the region in which Patrick
spent the years of his captivity, that this was the home of the children
of Fochlad who called to him in his dreams, the church of Aghagower
would possess a singular interest among all the churches which he founded
in Ireland, as fulfilling the wish which had first impelled him to make
the great resolve of his life. Here he revisited the scenes where he had
herded his master’s flocks and prayed at night in the woods in snow and
rain. Here he climbed again the mountain which he mentions in his own
description of the days of bondage, and which was always henceforward to
be linked with his own name. Crochan Aigli rises high and prominent on
the north shore of the wild desolate promontory, which is girt on three
sides by the sea, and is known as the “sea-land.”[121] To the summit
of this peak Patrick is said to have retired for lonely contemplation
and prayer. It is said that he remained there fasting forty days and
forty nights, like the Jewish teachers, Moses, Elias, and Jesus. It
may be thought that this report arose from the pious inclination of
later admirers to seek in his life similitudes to the lives of Moses
and other holy men of the Christian Scriptures. But it is conceivable
that the similitude was designed by Patrick himself. It is not unlikely
that, if he desired a season of isolation to commune with his own soul
and meditate on things invisible, he should have fixed the term of his
retreat by the highest examples. The forty days and forty nights may
be the literal truth, and may have helped to move the imagination of
his disciples to create a legend. For in after days men pictured the
saint encompassed by the company of the saints of Ireland. God said to
the souls of the saints, not only of the dead and living, but of the
still unborn, “Go up, O ye saints, to the top of the mountain which is
higher[122] than all the other mountains of the west, and bless the
folks of Ireland.” Then the souls mounted, and they flitted round the
lofty peak in the form of birds, darkening the air, so great was their
multitude. Thus God heartened Patrick by revealing to him the fruit of
his labours.

Ever since, this western mount has been associated with the foreign
teacher, not only bearing his name, but drawing to it multitudes of
pilgrims, who every year, as the anniversary of his death comes round,
toil up the steep ascent of Croagh Patrick, imbued still with the same
superstitious feelings which moved the minds of Christian and heathen, of
clerk and lay alike, in the days of Patrick. The confined space of its
summit is the one spot where we feel some assurance that we can stand
literally in his footsteps and realise that, as we look southward over
the desolate moors and tarns of Murrisk, northward across the bay to the
hills of Burrishoole and Erris, and then westward beyond the islets to
the spaces of the ocean, we are viewing a scene on which Patrick for
many days looked forth with the bodily eye. But the spot has a greater
interest if it is associated not only with the ground of solitary retreat
in his later years, but with the servitude of his boyhood. For if this
was so, the meditations on the mount were interfused with emotions
intelligible to the children of reason, who do not understand the need
of “saints” for fasting and prayer. It requires little imagination to
realise in some sort what the man’s feelings must have been when he
returned to the places of his thraldom, conscious that he was now a
“light among the Gentiles,” and that his bitter captivity had led to
such great results. It was a human as well as a saintly impulse to seek
isolation on the mountain where he had first turned to thoughts of
religion amidst the herds of his heathen lord.

       *       *       *       *       *

In the case of what we may suppose to have been another and later
journey in Connaught some genuine tradition of the line of advance
appears to have been preserved. The bishop is said to have travelled
westward through the southern corner of Leitrim to the banks of the
Shannon. That river sweeps to the east below the town of the Rock,[123]
and then, continuing its southward course, widens into a series of
swellings, which, though small compared with the greater sheets of water
into which it afterwards expands, are striking in their peculiar form.
The stream flows through Lake Nanoge, Lake Tap, Lake Boderg, and Lake
Bofin, but the special feature is the long arm of water which it flings
south-westward, known as Lake Kilglass. The effect of this is that the
river seems to bifurcate, and a promontory is formed by the true stream
and Lake Bofin on the east, and by the blind water passage of Lake
Kilglass on the west. It was to these river-lakes that Patrick bent his
way, and the place of his crossing, though not designated by any name
that is still used, is yet so clearly defined that we cannot mistake
it, and can hardly doubt that the tradition is true. He first crossed
over a river-swelling, and then found a second swelling in front of him,
which he also passed. The only place in the course of the Shannon which
satisfies these conditions is the place which has been described. When
he was rowed across Lake Bofin, Patrick found himself on the water-girt
promontory which is washed on the west by Lake Kilglass. In order to
reach the district of Moyglass, which was his first destination, he took
the shortest and most direct way, and crossed this second lake (perhaps
near the modern Carnado Bridge) instead of making half-a-day’s journey
round its shores.

[Sidenote: IN EASTERN CONNAUGHT]

On reaching the other bank he was in the plain of Glass,[124] and here
again we find that the name of a large district has been preserved in the
name of a small part. The little townland of Moyglass is adjacent to
Lake Tap, but the ancient plain of Glass extended, we may be confident,
from the banks of the river Shannon to the foot of the western hills,
which screen the river here from the great plain of Roscommon. In this
district the bishop established a Cell Mór or great church, and his visit
gave the place its abiding name. It can be inferred that Patrick’s church
was close to the village of Kilmore.

From the small plain of Glass Patrick made his way into the great plain,
known as Mag Ái, which extends over the central part of the county of
Roscommon. It is divided from the Shannon by a screen of low hills,
and only from some of the ridges in the south of it can one descry,
shimmering far away, the waters of Lake Ree. When he crossed that chain
of hills, Patrick found himself in the land of the Corcu Ochland, and
he was welcomed by a certain Hono, who is described as a Druid, and
was evidently a man of wealth and influence. There is good reason to
believe that Hono was prepared for Patrick’s coming, for two of Patrick’s
disciples, Assicus and his nephew Bitteus, along with Cipia, the mother
of Bitteus, were already with Hono when Patrick arrived. We may probably
infer that Christianity had already made some way here, and that, on
Patrick’s coming, no persuasions were necessary to induce Hono to
co-operate in founding a church and monastery. They went together to the
place which still bears the name of the White Rock—Ailfinn, and there
founded together one of the most important of Patrick’s ecclesiastical
foundations, which in later times, when the great dioceses were formed,
was to become the seat of a diocesan bishop. The community of Elphin was
to be under the headship of Hono’s descendants, but its first members
were Assicus, Betheus, and Cipia. Bishop Assicus, whose name has not been
forgotten at Elphin, was a skilful worker in bronze, and used to make for
Patrick altars and cases for books. Square patens of his workmanship were
long preserved as treasures at Armagh and at his own Elphin.

The next station of the bishop’s journey was the seat of the kings of
Connaught, the fortress of Crochan, famous in story. On one of the
highest and broadest of the low ridges which mark the plain of Ái stood
the royal palace, and though, as in the case of the other palaces of the
kings of Ireland, no remains of the habitation survive except the earthen
structure, it is something even to stand on the site of Rathcrochan,
where queen Maeve and her lord lived—if they lived at all. Around the
royal fort itself the ground is covered with other mounds and raths
and memorials of ancient history, so that one can hardly fancy what
appearance Crochan presented to Patrick. Near at hand was the place of
sepulchres, to which the kings went down from their stronghold, as the
kings of Mycenae went down from their citadel to the tombs below. In
that field of the dead one red stone stands conspicuous to the present
day, and the ill-certified tradition is that it marks the tomb of
Dathi, the successor and nephew of Niall. If there were any truth in
that tradition, the pillar would be an interesting link with the age of
Patrick, for it would have been set up not many years before he visited
the place.[125]

[Sidenote: RATHCROCHAN]

Imagination peopled many spots in Ireland with supernatural beings—not
only with fairies, but also with an earth-folk[126] that was once at
least human, a conquered population who had formerly held the island,
and, driven by invaders from the surface of the ground, had found new
homes in chambered mounds, where they practised their magic crafts. But
no spot was more closely associated with these fabled beings than the
hill of Rathcrochan. On ground so alive with legend, in a place which
stimulated fancy, it was hardly possible that the incident of Patrick’s
visit should be handed down in the sober colours of history or that
it should escape the meshes of fable. But the legend-shaping instinct
of some Christian poet wrought here with signal grace, and the story
must have been invented not many decads of years after the visit to
Rathcrochan.

[Sidenote: RATHCROCHAN LEGEND]

Patrick, the tale tells, and the bishops who accompanied him, had
assembled together at a fountain[127] near Rathcrochan to hold a council
before sunrise, when two maidens came down, after the fashion of women,
to wash at the fountain. They were the daughters of the High King of
Ireland, and their names were Ethne the White and Fedelm the Red. They
lived at Crochan, to be fostered and educated by two Druids, Mael and
Caplait. These Druids had been deeply alarmed when they heard that
Patrick was about to cross the Shannon, and by their sorceries they had
brought down darkness and mist over the plain of Ái to hinder him from
entering the land. The darkness of night prevailed for three days, but
was dispelled by the saint’s prayers.

When the princesses beheld the bishops and priests sitting round the
fountain, they were amazed at their strange garb, and knew not what to
think of them. Were they fairies—men of the _side_; or were they of the
earth-folk—the Tuatha De Danann; or were they an illusion, an unreal
vision? So they accosted and asked the strangers, “Whence have ye come,
and where is your home?” And Patrick answered, “It were better for you to
believe in the true God whom we worship than to ask questions about our
race.” Then the elder girl said, “Who is God, and where is God, and of
whom is he God? Where is his dwelling? Has he sons and daughters, your
God, and has he gold and silver? Is he immortal? Is he fair? Has his Son
been fostered by many? Are his daughters dear to the men of the world,
and fair in their eyes? Is he in heaven or in earth? in the sea, in the
rivers, in the hill places, in the valleys? Tell us how we may know him,
in whatwise he will appear. How is he discovered? Is he found in youth or
in old age?”

To these greetings Patrick replied: “Our God is the God of all men, the
God of heaven and earth, of sea and rivers, of sun and moon and stars,
of the lofty mountain and the lowly valleys, the God above heaven and
in heaven, and under heaven; he has his dwelling around heaven and
earth and sea and all that in them is. He inspires all, he quickens
all, he dominates all, he supports all. He lights the light of the sun;
he furnishes the light of the night; he has made springs in the dry
land, and has set stars to minister to the greater lights. He has a Son
co-eternal with himself, and like unto himself. The Son is not younger
than the Father, nor the Father older than the Son. And the Holy Spirit
breathes in them. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not divided.
I wish to unite you with the heavenly King, as ye are daughters of an
earthly king. Believe.”

With one voice and with one heart the two king’s daughters said, “Tell
us with all diligence how we may believe in the heavenly King that we
may see Him face to face, and we will do as thou sayest.” Patrick said,
“Do ye believe that by baptism ye can cast away the sin of your father
and mother?” They said, “We believe.” “Do ye believe in repentance after
sin?” “We believe.” “Do ye believe in life after death?” “We believe.”
“Do ye believe in the resurrection in the day of Judgment?” “We believe.”
“Do ye believe in the unity of the Church?” “We believe.”

Then Patrick baptized them in the fountain and placed a white veil on
their heads, and they begged that they might behold the face of Christ.
And Patrick said, “Until ye shall taste of death, ye cannot see the face
of Christ, and unless ye shall receive the sacrifice.” They answered,
“Give us the sacrifice that we may see the Son, our bridegroom.” And they
received the Eucharist, and fell asleep in death. And they were placed in
one bed, and their friends mourned them.

Then Caplait the Druid came, and Patrick preached to him, and he believed
and became a monk. His brother Mael was wroth at his falling away, and
hoped to recall him to the old faith, but on hearing Patrick’s teaching
he too became a Christian and his head was tonsured.

When the prescribed days of lamentation were over, the maidens were
buried in a round tomb near the fountain. Their grave was dedicated to
God and to Patrick and his heirs after him, and he constructed a church
of earth in that place.

In this curious legend is embedded some matter of historical
significance. In the first place we must treat the story of the brother
Druids separately from the story of the maidens, for they are bound
together only by an external link, and their motives are distinct. The
motive of the legend of the two virgins who died in the hour of their
conversion recurs in other tales,[128] and the solid basis of fact was
their tomb by the spring at Rathcrochan. At that tomb the story grew
up that when they were baptized, their desire for the heavenly vision
was fulfilled immediately by their death. This legend was then worked
up artificially, and the dialogue was composed and written down in
Irish, partly in verse.[129] The freshness and simplicity, which are so
striking, and some particular traits, justify us in surmising that this
happened at an early date, within the first generation after the saint’s
death. The naive wonder of the maidens at the appearance of the clerks,
the brief view which Patrick unfolds of the articles of his religion,
the emphasis laid upon the unity of the Church, point to the conclusion
that the story took shape when Patrick’s ways of teaching, and the first
impressions made upon pagans by the apostles of the new faith, were
within the memory of the Church. The dialogue is artificial, for the
questions of the damsels are arranged so as to lead up to the bishop’s
exposition of his creed. And, on the other hand, the baptismal questions
of Patrick assume a knowledge on the part of the princesses which is
inconsistent with their previous ignorance.

Now if we are right in the view that the legend originated at an early
date and was cast into literary shape—at least before the end of the
fifth century—we can hardly escape the inference that the maidens whose
memory was preserved at Crochan were in truth daughters of Loigaire. Such
an identification was not at all likely to have been invented by popular
legend, nor by any recorder of Patrick’s acts, living within a generation
of his death. In sending children to be brought up away from their home,
king Loigaire would have followed the general practice of the country,
and that he should send them to the royal residence of Connaught would
have been natural enough. The fathers of king Amolngaid and king Loigaire
were brothers, and it would not be surprising that Loigaire should send
his daughters to Rathcrochan to be educated by the Druids of Amolngaid.

[Sidenote: IRISH AND ROMAN TONSURES]

But the episode of these brethren has an independent motive of its own.
One brother, Mael, has an Irish name, designating the native tonsure, by
which only the front part of the head was shaven from ear to ear; while
Caplait, his fellow, has a Latin name (_Capillatus_), which signifies
the removal of all the hair in the fashion already largely adopted in
the western Empire, and subsequently known as the Roman tonsure.[130]
Both Druids alike were tonsured by Patrick according to the story;
both alike, it is implied, wore the native tonsure before they were
converted. The name _Caplait_ could not have been applied to either till
after his conversion. But when they became monks it applied equally to
both, just as _Mael_ was equally applicable to both when they were still
pagans. Thus the story, taken literally, does not hang together, and the
transparent names suggest that it arose from some circumstance connected
with the Christian tonsure. Fortunately, the narrative supplies us with
the clue. The writer who tells the tale observes that the incident
gave rise to an Irish maxim, _cosmail Mael do Chaplait_, “Mael is like
unto Caplait.” It is manifest that here, as in other cases of the same
kind, the story originated from the proverb, not the proverb from the
story. The story was told to explain the existence of the proverb, but
the existence of the proverb itself is the ultimate fact. It happens to
be a fact of historical significance. We may infer that the Christian
tonsure had been introduced and enforced by Patrick, but that his rule
was relaxed and disregarded after his death, the native clergy adopting
the old native tonsure of the Druids. The two fashions subsisted for a
time side by side, then the Roman fell completely out of use till it
was restored in the seventh century. But the proverb “Mael is like unto
Caplait” arose when the two tonsures were in use together, and expressed
the claim that the native mode was as legitimate for a monk as the
foreign.

       *       *       *       *       *

From Rathcrochan, Patrick and his company proceeded westward and planted
religious foundations in the region which is now most easily described
as the barony of Castlereagh. A number of Gallic clergy were with him,
and these he dispersed to found churches in various places. One of
these places stands out in interest, though it is of small account now.
Baslic survives as the name of a parish, and preserves the memory of the
foreign clerks who thought of the greater _basilicae_ of the Empire when
they built their little sanctuary in the wilds of Connaught and gave it
the high-sounding name of _Basilica sanctorum_. No place-name, due to
Christianity, in Ireland has a greater interest than Basilica, west of
Rathcrochan. Another church founded in this region, near the banks of
the river Suck, was Cell Garad, which is perhaps to be sought at Oran,
where an old burial-ground and the fragment of a belfry mark an ancient
ecclesiastical site. Both Baslic and Cell Garad were the seats of bishops.

[Sidenote: INSCRIPTION AT SELCE]

Patrick then went northward to Selce,[131] in the land of Brian. Here the
sons of Brian welcomed him and were baptized, and he founded a church
close to Lake Selce. On a hill hard by, where he and his companions
encamped, a memorial of their visit was preserved for centuries. They
wrote upon some stones in the place, and it was probably their own names
that they recorded, so that posterity knew who were of Patrick’s company
when the sons of Brian were baptized at the hill of Selce. Two bishops
were with him, Brón, whose home, as we saw, was in the north, on the
sea-shore under Knocknaree, and Sachall, bishop of the new church of
Baslic; eight priests, including Benignus, his favourite pupil; and two
women. It may have been that the names of the company were inscribed on
three stones severally consecrated by the names _Iesus_, _Christus_,
_Soter_.

From here Patrick may have proceeded westward to Lake Tecet—Lake Tecet of
Ireland, bearing the same name as the more famous Lake Tecet of Britain,
which the stranger knows as the Lake of Bala. The boggy soil makes the
waters dark, and if we look down from one of the hills which partly gird
it, the form of the lake, with its many corners and inlets, eludes the
eye. It was probably near the western or northern shore that Adrochta,
who took the veil from Patrick’s hand, founded a church. Nor is she
forgotten to-day, for as we walk on the eastern bank of the lake, we are
in the parish of “Adrochta’s Church.”[132]

       *       *       *       *       *

We now come to a journey of Patrick for which we have a definite
chronological indication, since we know that it was undertaken soon
after the death of king Amolngaid, and that king probably died about
thirteen years after Patrick’s arrival in Ireland. The story represents
the land of Amolngaid as the particular region of Fochlad which had
been the goal of Patrick’s desires, and describes the occasion of his
setting forth as if it had been brought about by a pure chance. Near
the palace of king Loigaire at Tara he overheard a conversation between
two noblemen, one of whom informed the other that he was Endae, son of
Amolngaid, and had come from the far west, “from Mag Domnon[133] and the
wood of Fochlad.” Then Patrick, hearing the magic name of his dream,
was thrilled with joy, and, turning round, he cried to Endae, “Thither
I will go with thee, if I live, for God bade me go.” But Endae replied,
“Thou shalt not come with me, lest we be slain together.” “Yet,” said the
saint, “thou shalt never reach thy home alive if I come not with thee,
nor shalt thou have eternal life. For it is on my account that thou hast
come hither.” And Endae said, “Baptize my son, for he is young. But I and
my brethren may not believe in thee till we come to our own folk, lest
they mock us.” And Patrick baptized his son Conall.

[Sidenote: THE SONS OF AMOLNGAID]

It appears that Endae and his six brethren had come to Tara to invoke the
judgment of the High King in a dispute about the inheritance of their
father’s property. The claim of Endae and his son was opposed to the
claims of the other six. In giving judgment king Loigaire is said to have
invited the aid of Patrick, and they decided that the inheritance should
be divided among the claimants in seven parts. This doom was in favour
of Endae’s brethren, if, as we may suppose, Endae’s claim was that the
division of the property should be eightfold, his son Conall receiving a
separate portion for himself. But however this may have been, Endae is
said to have dedicated his seventh portion and his son Conall to Patrick
and Patrick’s God.

When the award was given, Patrick and a company of ecclesiastics
prepared to set forth with Endae. But they took the precaution of making
a formal agreement with Endae and his brothers, and we may be certain
that whatever the other terms may have been, the bodily safety of the
Christians was expressly ensured. The most significant circumstance
concerning this treaty is that it was made under the warranty of king
Loigaire. This is an important piece of evidence as to the attitude
of that king to the Christian teachers. It exhibits his policy of
enlightened toleration, and shows that, though personally he clung to
the beliefs of his fathers, yet in his capacity of king of Ireland he
was willing to assist the diffusion of a doctrine subversive of those
beliefs.

Patrick set out with Endae and his brethren, and having crossed the river
Moy, perhaps at a ford where the “town of the ford” stands to-day,[134]
they entered the territory of Amolngaid, where were the woods of Fochlad,
and beyond, to westward, the wild Mag Domnon. That the baptism of Conall
and the coming of the Christian teacher in the company of the chiefs
should arouse wrath and disgust among the Druids is not surprising, and
there may be some historical foundation for the legend which tells how
the chief Druid, Rechrad, sought to kill Patrick. Along with nine Druids,
arrayed in white, he advanced to meet Endae and his company. When Endae
saw them, he snatched up his arms to drive them off, but Patrick raised
his left hand and cursed the wizard, and Rechrad fell dead, and was
burned up before the eyes of all. The other Druids fled into Mag Domnon.
And when the folk saw this miracle, many were baptized on that day.

[Sidenote: IN TIRAWLEY]

It was in this way, according to the legend, that Christianity entered
the northern regions of Fochlad. Near the forest, and close to the
sea-shore, was founded a church,[135] and not far from it a cross was set
up, of which the memory is preserved in the local name Crosspatrick.[136]
The church, built doubtless of timber, was afterwards to be overshadowed
by the neighbouring foundation of Killala, conspicuous by its lofty
belfry. Elsewhere Patrick caused a square church of earth to be
constructed, at the gathering-place of the sons of Amolngaid, which has
been identified with Mullaghfarry, “the hill of the meeting-place.”




CHAPTER VIII

FOUNDATION OF ARMAGH AND ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANISATION


§ 1. _Visit to Rome (circa A.D. 441-3)_

It is possible that Patrick had intended in earlier years to visit Rome
long before he began his labours in Ireland. If he entertained such a
thought, it would seem that circumstances hindered him from realising
it.[137] But it would not have been unnatural if he continued to cherish
the idea of repairing to the centre of western Christendom; and we might
expect that when he had spent some years in the toils, afflictions,
and disappointments, the alternating hopes and fears, the successes
and defeats, incident to missionary work in a barbarous land, he would
have wished to receive some recognition of his work and sympathy with
his efforts from the head of the western churches. He might count upon
sympathy and encouragement; the interest which the Roman see was prepared
to take in the remote island had been shown by the sending of Palladius;
whether Patrick had ever himself received a message from the successor of
Celestine is unknown.

[Sidenote: RELICS]

In addition to the object of directing the attention of the Roman bishop
to the growth of the Church in Ireland—an object which would at that
time appeal strongly to Patrick or to any one else in his place—there
was another motive for visiting Rome, which, though subordinate, must
not be passed over. Patrick was the son of his age, and it would display
a complete ignorance of the spirit of the Church, in Gaul and elsewhere
at that time, if we failed to recognise the high importance which he
must have attributed to the relics of holy men, especially of the early
apostles, and the value which he would have set on acquiring such parcels
of matter for his new churches in Ireland. The religious estimation
of relics had become general in the fourth century. Such a learned
man as Gregory of Nyssa set great store by them. The subject might be
illustrated at great length, but it will be enough to remind the reader
of the excitement which was caused in the religious world in the year 386
A.D., when Ambrose of Milan discovered the tombs of St. Gervasius and
St. Protasius. The bishops of the west vied for shares in the remains.
In Gaul, three cities, Tours, Rouen, and Vienne, were fortunate enough
to receive scraps of linen or particles of blood-stained dust which had
touched the precious bodies. The estimation of relics in Gaul will be
best understood by reading the work of Victricius, Bishop of Rouen and
missionary of Belgica, “in praise of the saints.”[138] It is certain that
Patrick could not have helped sharing in this universal reverence for
relics, and could not have failed to deem it an object of high importance
to secure things of such value for his church. The hope of winning a
fragment of a cerement cloth or some grains of dust—_pulvisculum nescio
quod in modico vasculo pretioso linteamine circumdatum_[139]—would have
been no small inducement to visit Rome, the city of many martyrs.

Patrick had been eight years in Ireland when a greater than Celestine or
Xystus was elected to the see of Rome.[140] The pontificate of Leo the
Great marks an eminent station in the progress of the Roman bishops to
that commanding position which they were ultimately to occupy in Europe.
His path had been prepared by his forerunners, but it is he who induces
the Emperor to accord a formal and imperial sanction to the sovran
authority of the Roman see in the west,[141] and he plays a more leading
and decisive part than any of his predecessors in moulding Christian
theology by his famous Epistle on the occasion of the Council of
Chalcedon. That Leo should have taken as direct and energetic an interest
in the extension of the borders of Christendom as the less eminent
bishops before him is what we should expect.

[Sidenote: VISIT TO ROME]

It was in the year after his elevation that Patrick, according to the
conclusion to which our evidence points, betook himself to Rome.[142] No
step could have been more natural, and none could have been more politic.
It was equally wise whether he was assured of the goodwill of Leo or, as
is possible, had reason to believe that his work had been misrepresented.
To report the success of his labours to the head of the western churches,
of which Ireland was the youngest, to enlist his personal sympathy, to
gain his formal approbation, his moral support, and his advice, were
objects which would well repay a visit to Rome, and an absence of some
length from Ireland. It is indeed hardly too much to say that nothing was
more likely to further his success than an express approbation of his
work by the highest authority in Christendom.

But it is possible that he may have had a more particular motive, which
may explain why he chose just this time for his visit. Hitherto, active
in different parts of the island, he had established no central seat,
no primatial or “metropolitan” church for the chief bishop. Not long
after his return, he founded, as we shall see presently, the church of
Armagh, fixing his own see there, and establishing it as the primatial
church. This was a step of the highest importance in the progress of
ecclesiastical organisation, and it is not a very daring conjecture
to suppose that Patrick may have wished to consult the Roman bishop
concerning this design and obtain his approbation.

The result of the visit to Rome is briefly stated in words which are
probably a contemporary record, “he was approved in the Catholic faith.”
He may well have received practical advice from Leo—such advice as a
later pontiff gave to Augustine for the conversion of the English. But
Patrick bore back with him to Ireland visible and material proofs of
the goodwill of Rome. He received gifts which, to Christians of his
day, seemed the most precious of all gifts, relics not of any lesser
martyrs, but of the apostles Peter and Paul. They were gifts particularly
opportune for bestowing prestige upon the new church which he was about
to found, and where they were afterwards preserved.


§ 2. _Foundation of Armagh (A.D. 444)_

No act of Patrick had more decisive consequences for the ecclesiastical
history of the island than the foundation, soon after his return from
Rome, of the church and monastery of Ardd Mache, in the kingdom of Oriel.
King Daire, through whose goodwill this community was established,
dwelled in the neighbourhood of the ancient fortress of Emain, which his
own ancestors had destroyed a hundred years agone, when they had come
from the south to wrest the land from the Ulidians and sack the palace
of its lords. The conquerors did not set up their own abode in the
stronghold of the old kings of Ulster; they burned the timber buildings
and left the place desolate, as it were under a curse. The ample earth
structures of this royal stronghold are still there, attesting that
Emain, famous in legend, was a place of historical importance in the days
when Ulster belonged to one of the elder peoples of the island.[143] Once
and again, long after the days of St. Patrick, the Picts from their home
in Dalaradia made vain attempts to recover their storied palace, but it
was not destined to become a place of human habitation again until, more
than a thousand years after its desolation, a house seems to have been
built there by an Ulster king “for the entertainment of the learned men
of Ireland.”

[Sidenote: KING DAIRE]

The abode of king Daire was somewhere in the neighbourhood. It seems
possible that he was the king of Oriel, though it may be held that he was
only king of one of the tribes which belonged to the Oriel kingdom.[144]
Daire was not ill disposed towards the foreign religion, and he was
persuaded to grant Patrick a site for a monastic foundation not far
from his own dwelling. Eastward from Emain, concealed from the eye by
two high ridges, rises the hill known as Ardd Mache, “the height of
Macha,” bearing the name, it is said, of some heroine of legend. At the
eastern foot of this hill, Daire apportioned a small tract of ground to
Patrick, and this was the beginning of what was to become the chief
ecclesiastical city of Ireland. The simple houses which were needed for a
small society of monks were built, and there is a record, which appears
to be ancient and credible, concerning these primitive buildings. A
circular space was marked out, one hundred and forty feet in diameter,
and enclosed by a rampart of earth. Within this _less_, as it was called,
were erected, doubtless of wood, a Great House to be the dwelling of the
monks, a kitchen, and a small oratory.[145] This record has an interest
beyond this particular monastery, as we may believe that it represents
the typical scheme of the monastic establishments of Patrick and his
companions.

[Sidenote: STORY OF DAIRE’S HORSE]

We know not how long Patrick and his household abode under the hill
of Macha, but this settlement was not to be final.[146] It seems that
the bishop ultimately won great influence over the king, who evidently
embraced the Christian faith; and then Daire resolved that the monastery
should be raised from its lowly place to a loftier and safer site. A
curious story, with the marks of antiquity about it, has come down,
showing how all this befell, and it would be difficult to say how much
is fable and what was the underlying fact. Patrick, so the tale relates,
had from the very first cast his eyes upon the hill of Macha. But Daire
refused to grant it, and gave him instead the land below. One day a
squire of the king drove a horse to feed in a field of grass which
belonged to the monastery. Patrick remonstrated, but the squire made no
answer, and when he returned to the field on the morrow, he found the
horse dead. He told his master that the Christian had killed the horse,
and Daire said to his men, Go and kill him. But as the men were on their
way to do his bidding, an illness unto death suddenly fell on Daire, and
his wife said, “It is the sake of the Christian. Let some one go quickly,
and let his blessing be brought to us, and thou shalt be well; and let
those who went to slay him be stopped.” Then two men went to Patrick and
told him that Daire was ill, and asked him for a remedy. Patrick gave him
some water which he had consecrated. With this water they first sprinkled
the dead horse, and it was restored to life; and then, returning to
Daire’s house, they found it no less potent in restoring their lord to
health.

[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF ARMAGH]

Then Daire visited the monastery to pay respect to Patrick, and
offered him a large bronze vessel, imported from over seas. The bishop
acknowledged the gift by a simple “I thank thee,” in Latin. The king
looked for some more elaborate and impressive acknowledgment; he was
annoyed that the cauldron should be received with no greater sign of
satisfaction than a _gratzacham_, as the Latin phrase _gratias agamus_
sounded in rapid colloquial pronunciation. And on returning home he sent
his servants to bring back the bronze, as a thing which the Christian was
unable to appreciate. When they came back with the vessel, Daire asked
them what Patrick said, and they replied, “He said _gratzacham_.” “What,”
said Daire, “_gratzacham_ when it was given, _gratzacham_ when it was
taken away! It is a good word, and for his _gratzacham_ he shall have
his cauldron.” Then Daire went himself with the cauldron to Patrick, and
said, “Keep thy cauldron, for thou art a steadfast and unchangeful man.”
And he gave him, besides, the land which he had before desired.

Whatever may be thought of the anecdotes of the horse and the cauldron,
we may believe that Patrick won the respect of Daire as a man of firm
character, and that for this reason Daire was induced to promote him
to the higher site, granting him the land on the hill, with the usual
reservation of the rights of the tribe.[147] So it came about that
Patrick and his household went up from their home at the foot of the hill
and made another home on its summit. The new settlement was probably
constructed on the same plan, though the close may have been larger, to
suit the area of the hill-top.[148] The old settlement below was perhaps
devoted to the uses of a graveyard,[149] and in later days a cloister was
to arise there, known as the Temple of the Graveyard.

[Sidenote: THE CHOICE OF ARMAGH]

Such, according to ancient tradition, was the founding of Armagh, which
rose to be the supreme ecclesiastical city in Ireland. Though we have
no record of Patrick’s own views, it is hardly possible to escape the
conclusion that he consciously and deliberately laid the foundations
of this pre-eminence. It is true that some of his successors in the
see supported and enhanced its claim to supremacy and domination by
misrepresentations and forgeries, just as in a larger sphere the
later bishops of Rome made use of fabricated documents and accepted
falsifications of history in order to establish their extravagant
pretensions. But as in the case of Rome, so in the case of Armagh,
misrepresentation of history could only avail to increase or confirm an
authority which was already acknowledged and to extend the limits of a
power which had been otherwise established. If the church of Armagh had
been originally on the same footing as any of the other churches which
were founded by Patrick, it is inconceivable that it could have acquired
the pre-eminence which it enjoyed in the seventh century merely by
means of the false assertion that the founder had made it supreme over
all his other churches. Now we know of no political circumstances or
historical events between the age of Patrick and the seventh century
which would have served to elevate the church of Armagh above the
churches of northern Ireland and invest it with an authority and prestige
which did not originally belong to it. The only tenable explanation of
the commanding position which Armagh occupied is that the tradition is
substantially true, and that Patrick made this foundation, near the
derelict palace of the ancient Ulster kings, his own special seat and
residence, from which he exercised, and intended that his successors
should exercise, in Ireland an authority similar to that which a
metropolitan bishop exercised in his province on the continent.[150] The
choice of Armagh may seem strange. It may be said that if his “province”
was conterminous with the whole island, the hill of Macha was hardly a
well-chosen spot as an ecclesiastical centre. We might expect him to have
sought a site somewhere in the kingdom of Meath, somewhere less distant
from the hill of Uisnech, which the islanders regarded as the navel of
their country. Trim, for instance, would seem to be a far more suitable
seat for a bishop whose duties of supervision extended to Desmond as
much as to Dalriada. There are two points here which may be taken into
consideration. If we confine our view to the sphere of Patrick’s own
missionary activity, namely, northern Ireland, Armagh was a sufficiently
convenient centre. Meath and Connaught and the kingdoms of Ulster,
the lands in which Patrick had himself chiefly worked, might seem to
require closer supervision, and it may have been a matter of policy not
to attempt to press his authority too strictly over the churches of the
south. We shall see presently that though he visited southern Ireland,
his work there was relatively slight. The evidence suggests that while
the whole island formed a single ecclesiastical province, in which
Patrick occupied the position of “metropolitan,” there was actually,
though not officially, a province within a province. He exerted a more
direct and minute control over the northern part of the island. But, in
any case, the position of an ecclesiastical metropolis cannot be entirely
determined by compasses; geographical convenience cannot be always
decisive. Here we come to a second consideration. The circumstance that
king Loigaire was not a Christian may have weighed with Patrick against
choosing a place in Meath. He may have thought it expedient to fix the
chief seat of ecclesiastical authority in the territory and near the
palace of a Christian king. If Daire was king of Oriel, his conversion
to Christianity, in contrast with the obduracy of Loigaire, will go far
to explain the choice of Armagh. It counted for much to have a secure
position near the gates of a powerful king, and his conversion would have
been the greatest single triumph that Patrick had yet achieved.

Our oldest records do not describe Patrick’s work in the kingdoms of
Ulster with the same details or at the same length as his work in
Connaught. But they indicate that he preached and founded churches in the
kingdoms of Ailech and Oriel, as well as in Ulidia; and there is reason
to believe that fuller records existed at an early period and were used
by one of the later biographers. It may be noted that he is said to have
consecrated the site of a church at Coleraine, and that a stone on which
he sat was shown at Dunseveric, on the shore of the northern sea. In the
land of the Condiri, who gave their name to the diocese of Connor, many
churches attributed their origin to him, for instance, Glenavy,[151] near
the banks of Lake Neagh, and Glore, the church of Glenarm.


§ 3. _In South Ireland_

While Patrick’s sphere of immediate activity seems to have been mainly
the northern half of the island, there is not much room for serious
doubts that he claimed to hold a position of ecclesiastical authority
over the southern provinces also. His own description of himself
not as bishop in a particular province, but as bishop in Ireland
generally,[152] is sufficient to make this clear; and there are not
wanting ancient records of his visits to Leinster and Munster. He is said
to have baptized the sons of Dunlang, king of Leinster, and Crimthann,
king of the Hy Ceinselaich; he is recorded to have visited the royal
palace at the hill of Cashel and baptized the sons of Natfraich, king of
Munster. It was remembered that he had passed through Ossory, and worked
in the regions of Muskerry. If, as is possible, Christianity had made
greater way in the southern kingdoms, he had less to do as a pioneer,
but the task of organisation must have devolved upon him here as in the
north. It is easy to understand why comparatively scanty traditions
should have been preserved of his work in the south. His special
association with the see of Armagh did not dispose the communities of
Munster and Leinster to remember a connexion which supported the claims
of that see to a superior jurisdiction.

[Sidenote: IN LEINSTER]

In Leinster, Patrick had two fellow-workers who occupied a special
position. Auxilius and Iserninus, whom he had known at Auxerre, had been
sent to Ireland about six years after his own coming.[153] The origin of
Auxilius is unknown. His name is still commemorated by a church which he
founded, Killossy,[154] not far from Naas, one of the chief abodes of
the kings of Leinster. Iserninus was of Irish birth. His native name
was Fith. He was born in the neighbourhood of Clonmore,[155] on the
borders of Carlow and Wicklow. Here, in the land of his clan, he first
set up a church, but his ultimate establishment was at Aghade,[156] on
the Slaney. These regions formed part of a considerable kingdom which was
at this time ruled over by Endae Cennsalach, who seems to have founded
the political importance of his tribe, for the land came to be known by
the name of the Children of Cennsalach. This king did what lay in his
power to oppose the diffusion of the new faith, and Iserninus found it
prudent to withdraw beyond the borders of his kingdom. Perhaps he found
a refuge at Kilcullen,[157] close to Dún Aillinn, one of the strongholds
of the kings of Leinster. But Crimthann, the son and successor of Endae,
was converted and baptized by Patrick at his dwelling in Rathvilly,
on the banks of the Slaney, where earthworks still mark a seat of the
kings of the Children of Cennsalach. This case is similar to the case
of the sons of Amolngaid, and illustrates the general fact that while
the older generation was still, fervently or patiently, clinging to the
old beliefs, the younger generation was steadily turning to the new. The
conversion of Crimthann enabled Iserninus to return to his own land, and
he established himself at Aghade, a crossing-place on the Slaney, about
nine miles below Rathvilly.

Among the acts which are ascribed to Patrick in Leinster, the
consecration of Fíacc, the Fair, a pupil of the poet Dubthach, and
himself a poet, deserve mention.[158] The conversion of the poet into
the Christian bishop reminds us of the more illustrious contemporary
case of Sidonius Apollinaris. There seems no reason to doubt the truth
of this tradition, and perhaps the bell, the staff, the writing tablet,
and the cup and paten, which Patrick is said to have given to Fíacc,
were preserved at the church where his memory was specially cherished.
He was first settled at a church which was called after himself, Domnach
Féicc, the situation of which is not improbably supposed to have been
east of the Slaney, not far from Tallow.[159] But he afterwards became
bishop of Slébte, on the western bank of the Barrow, under the hills of
Margy,[160] and ended his days there. In the early middle ages Slébte was
a notable place on the ecclesiastical map, but the desolate site shows
no vestiges of its ancient importance. At the end of the seventh century
Slébte renewed the ties which bound it to Armagh in the days of Fíacc and
Patrick, and we possess a monument of this reconciliation in the earliest
biography of Patrick that has come down to us, written by a clerk of
Fíacc’s church.[161]


§ 4. _Church Discipline_

It is not clear whether Auxilius and Iserninus were already invested
with episcopal rank when they left Gaul, or were consecrated in Leinster
by Patrick.[162] But in any case, they seem, along with Secundinus, who
came with them from Gaul, to have held an exceptional position of weight
as counsellors and coadjutors. Coming, perhaps, from the episcopal city
where Patrick himself had been trained, they corroborated the Gallic
influence, we might say the influence of Auxerre, which presided at
the organisation of the Church in Ireland. It was natural that Patrick
should take special counsel with these men for laying down rules of
ecclesiastical discipline, and, on the occasion, perhaps, of one of
his visits to Leinster, a body of rules was drawn up in the form of a
circular letter, addressed by Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus to all the
clergy of Ireland.[163] The miscellaneous regulations are arranged in
a haphazard manner, and were evidently prompted by abuses or practical
difficulties which had come to the notice of the framers. Most of the
rules deal with the discipline of the clergy. They testify to such
irregularities as a bishop interfering in his neighbour’s diocese;
vagabond clerks going from place to place; churches founded without the
permission of the bishop. It is ordained that no cleric from Britain
shall minister in Ireland, unless he has brought a letter from his
superior. All the clergy, from the priest to the doorkeeper, are to wear
the complete Roman tonsure, and their wives are to veil their heads. A
monk and a consecrated virgin are not to drive from house to house in
the same car, or indulge in protracted conversations. Provision is made
for the stringent enforcement of sentences of excommunication. One of
the most important duties of Irish Christians at this period was the
redemption of Christian captives from slavery;[164] and this furnished an
opportunity for imposture and deception. It is provided that no one shall
privately and without permission make a collection for this purpose, and
that, if there be any surplus from a collection, it shall be placed on
the altar and kept for another’s need.

It is interesting to observe a prohibition of the acceptance of alms
from pagans. It points to the comprehensive religious view of some,
perhaps many, of the still unconverted—Loigaire himself may have been an
instance,—who, though not prepared to abandon their own cults, were ready
to pay some homage to the new deity whose reality and power they did not
question.

In a church growing up in a heathen land, it seems to have been found
inexpedient and impracticable to enforce long periods of penitence for
transgressions which were regarded more lightly in Ireland than in
the Roman Empire. Accordingly we find that only a year of penance is
imposed on those who commit manslaughter or fornication or consult a
soothsayer,[165] and only half a year for an act of theft.

[Sidenote: APPEAL TO ROME]

The provisions contained in this circular letter cannot represent
all the rules which Patrick, with his coadjutors, must have made for
ecclesiastical order in Ireland. A number of other canons were ascribed
to him, and though we cannot be sure that they are all authentic, it
cannot be proved that they are all of later origin.[166] One of them, not
the least important, is a provision which, without any express evidence,
we might surmise that Patrick would have ordained. It required no special
discernment to foresee that in a young church difficult questions would
inevitably arise which might lead to grave controversy and dissension.
How were such to be decided? Could they safely be left to local councils,
with no higher court of appeal? The obvious resource was to follow the
common practice of other western churches and request the Bishop of Rome
to lay down a ruling. For Patrick, as for his contemporaries, this was
simply a matter of course. To consult the Roman see, and obtain a ruling
in the form of a decretal, was the universally recognised means in the
western provinces of securing unity and uniformity in the Church. The
position which the Roman see occupied, by common consent, in the days
of Patrick has been sufficiently explained in a previous chapter;[167]
and if this position is rightly understood, it becomes evident that,
when Ireland entered into the ecclesiastical confederation of the west,
it was merely a direct and inevitable consequence that, for the church
in Ireland, just as for the churches in Gaul or in Spain, the Roman see
was both a court of appeal, and also the one authority to which recourse
could be had, whenever recourse to an authority beyond Ireland itself
seemed desirable. This was so axiomatic that, if we are told that Patrick
expressly prescribed resort to Rome in case of necessity, the only thing
which might surprise us is that he should have thought it needful to
formulate it at all. But in a new church, unfamiliar with the traditions
of the older churches within the Empire, it was clearly desirable to
define and enact some things which were observed in Gaul and Spain and
Italy without express definition or enactment. We are therefore fully
entitled to accept as authentic the canon which lays down, “If any
questions (of difficulty) arise in this island, let them be referred to
the apostolic seat.”[168] Not to have recognised the Roman see as the
source of authoritative responses would have been almost equivalent to a
repudiation of the unity of the Church.

That Patrick should have prescribed to Irish monks the form of tonsure
which was usual in western monasteries was a matter of course. It was
more significant that he introduced, as seems to be the case, the Paschal
reckoning which was at that time approved by Rome. It would appear that
an older system for the determination of Easter was in use among the
Christian communities which existed in Ireland before his coming. He
brought with him a table of Easter days based on the system then accepted
at Rome, so that in the celebration of this feast the new province might
be in harmony with western Christendom.[169]

Though we have no direct testimony as to the liturgy which Patrick
introduced, we cannot doubt that it was the Gallican. The Gallican
liturgy, which differs from the Roman by its oriental character,
prevailed in Ireland and Britain up to the end of the seventh century;
and we are entitled to conjecture, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, that Patrick, trained at Auxerre, introduced the usage to
which he was accustomed in that church.


§ 5. _Ecclesiastical Organisation_

[Sidenote: FEATURES OF HIS WORK]

St. Patrick has himself briefly described some of the features of
his work, and his description bears out and supplements the general
impression which we derive from the details recorded by tradition. In the
first place, he indicates the double character of his work. On the one
hand he created an ecclesiastical organisation, he chose and ordained
clergy, for a people which had been recently turning to the Christian
faith.[170] On the other hand, he planted that faith in regions which
were wholly heathen, in the extreme parts of the island, as he repeatedly
insists.[171] He spread his nets that a large multitude “might be caught
for God,” and that there might be clergy everywhere to baptize and
exhort a folk needing and craving their service.[172] He says that he
baptized thousands, and this need not be a figure of hyperbole,[173] and
ordained ministers of religion everywhere. The foundation of monastic
communities is borne out by his incidental observation that young natives
have become monks, and daughters of chieftains “virgins of Christ.”[174]
These maidens, he says, generally took their vows against the will of
their fathers, and were ready to suffer persecution from their parents.
He mentions especially a beautiful woman of noble birth whom he baptized.
A few days after the ceremony she came to him and intimated that she had
received a direct warning from God that she should become a “virgin of
Christ.” It is not suggested that the opposition of the parents was due
to heathen obduracy; it would rather appear that, in the cases which
are here contemplated, the parents themselves had likewise embraced
Christianity. But they had a natural repugnance to seeing their children
withdrawn from the claims of the family and the world. The triumph on
which Patrick in this passage complacently dwells is not the triumph of
Christian doctrine but of the monastic ideal.

Patrick refers to perils through which he passed in the prosecution of
his work. He says that divine aid “delivered me often from bondage and
from twelve dangers by which my life was endangered.”[175] He mentions
one occasion on which he and his companions were seized, and his captors
wished to slay him. His belongings were taken from him and he was kept
in fetters for a fortnight, but then, through the intervention of
influential friends, he was set free and his property restored.[176]

[Sidenote: FEATURES OF HIS POLICY]

Such experiences would probably have been more frequent if he had not
resorted to a policy which stood him in good stead. He used to purchase
the goodwill and protection of the kings by giving them presents.[177]
In the same way he provided for the security of the clergy in those
districts which he most frequently visited, by paying large sums to the
judges or brehons. It is easily conceived that their goodwill was of
high importance for harmonising the new communities and their new ideal
of life with the general conditions of society. Patrick claims to have
distributed among the judges at least “the value of fifteen men.” All
these expenses were defrayed from his own purse.[178]

Another feature in his policy, on which he prided himself, was plain
dealing and sincerity towards the Irish. He never went back from his
word, and never resorted to tricks, in order to win some advantage for
“God and the Church.” He believed that by adhering strictly to this
policy of straightforwardness he averted persecutions.[179]

While Patrick was assisted by many foreign fellow-workers, it was his aim
to create a native clergy; and it was a matter of the utmost importance
to find likely youths and educate them for ecclesiastical work. Our
records do not omit to illustrate this side of his policy. Benignus, who
afterwards succeeded him in Armagh, was said to have been adopted by
him as a young boy soon after his coming to Ireland,[180] and Sachall,
who accompanied him to Rome, was another instance. A similar policy was
contemplated by Pope Gregory the Great for England. We have a letter
which he wrote to a presbyter, bidding him purchase in Gaul English boy
slaves of seventeen or eighteen years, for the purpose of educating them
in monasteries.[181]

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: MONASTIC FOUNDATIONS]

The churches and cloisters which were founded by Patrick and his
companions seem in most cases to have been established on land which
was devoted to the purpose by chieftains or nobles from their own
private property. But the interests of the tribe to which the proprietor
belonged, and the interests of the proprietor’s descendants, had to be
considered, and the consideration of these interests seems to have led
to a peculiar system. We find that in some cases the proprietor did
not make over all his rights to the ecclesiastical community which was
founded on his estate, but retained, and transmitted to his descendants,
a certain control over it, side by side with the control which the abbot,
a spiritual head of the community, exercised. There were thus two lines
of succession—the secular line, in which the descent was hereditary, and
the ecclesiastical line, which was sometimes regularly connected by blood
with the founder. This dual system kept the ecclesiastical community
in close touch with the tribe, and it has been pointed out that the
tendency ultimately was “to throw the ecclesiastical succession into the
hands of the lay succession, and so to defeat the object of the founder
by transferring the endowment to the laity.”[182] Armagh and Trim are
conspicuous instances of this dual succession.

In other cases the connexion of the monastery with the tribe was
secured, and the interests of the proprietor’s family were consulted
by establishing a family right of inheritance to the abbacy. There was
only a spiritual succession; the undivided authority lay with the abbot;
but the abbots could be chosen only from the founder’s kin.[183] Such a
provision might be made conditionally or unconditionally. It might be
provided that preference should be given to members of the founder’s
family, if a person suitable for such a spiritual office could be found
among them. The monastery of Drumlease in Leitrim, which was founded by
one Fethfió, furnishes an instructive example.[184] Fethfió laid down
that the inheritance to Drumlease should not be confined unconditionally
to his own family. His family should inherit the succession, if there
were any member pious and good and conscientious. If not, the abbot
should be chosen from the community or monks of Drumlease.

But in other cases the original proprietor seems to have alienated his
land and placed it entirely in the hands of an ecclesiastical founder,
who was either a member of another tribe or a foreigner. But the tribe
within whose territory the land lay had a word to say. It seems to have
been a general rule that the privilege of succession belonged to the
founder’s tribe, but that if no suitable successor could be found in that
tribe, the abbacy should pass to the tribe within whose territory the
monastery stood.[185]

In our earliest records we find some ecclesiastical foundations expressly
distinguished as “free,” which would seem to imply a release from
restrictions and obligations which were usually imposed, and a greater
measure of independence of the tribe.[186] Thus in Sligo a large district
was offered by its owners “to God and Patrick,” and we are told that the
king, who seems to be acting as representative of the tribe, “made it
free to God and Patrick.”[187] But it is impossible to determine what
were the limits of this immunity.

[Sidenote: TRIBAL INFLUENCE]

The Church in the Roman Empire has been described as an _imperium in
imperio_, and the typical ecclesiastical community in Ireland may be
described as a tribe within a tribe. The abbot, or, where the dual system
prevailed, his lay coadjutor, exercised over the lay folk settled on the
lands of the community a control similar to that which the tribal king
exercised over the tribe. But though the community was thus constituted
as an independent body and formed a sort of tribe itself, not subject to
the king, it was nevertheless bound by certain obligations to the tribe
within whose borders it lay. We have seen that the right of eventual
succession to the abbacy was often reserved to the tribe. But in general
the monastery was bound not only to furnish the religious services which
the tribe required, but to rear and educate without cost the offspring
of any tribesman who chose to devote his son to a religious life.[188]
The tribesman, on his part, was bound, when he had once consigned his
child to the care of the monks, not to withdraw him, on pain of paying
a forfeit.[189] A monastery might welcome novices from other tribes, if
their parents chose to pay the cost of their education; its attachment by
a closer bond to what might be called its lay tribe was expressed in this
right of the tribesmen to a free training for an ecclesiastical career.

It is also to be observed that the member of a religious house, though
he belonged to a society which managed its affairs independently of
the tribe, did not altogether cease to be a tribesman.[190] If he was
slain, the compensation was due not to the church but to his tribe. It is
uncertain how far he continued to share any of the secular liabilities
of his lay tribesmen. On his father’s death he inherited his portion of
the family property, like any of his brethren; but we cannot say how far,
in early times, the tribe permitted a monastic community to exercise
rights over land thus inherited by one of its members. In later times
the Church assumed possession, perhaps allowing the monk to hold his
inheritance as a tenant, and furnishing him with stock.[191] But this
custom may not have been introduced until the Church had waxed in power
and cupidity. It is uncertain, too, what claims the newborn monasteries
ventured to press, in their early years, upon the liberality of those who
had permitted their foundation. At a subsequent period they claimed[192]
not only first-fruits and tithes and the firstlings of animals, but also
first-born sons, and when a man had ten sons, another as well as the
eldest. We may doubt whether such claims, modelled on the law of Moses,
and exceeding in audacity the claims of any other church, were often
admitted[193] or seriously pressed; but it is certain that rights of
such a kind were not and could not have been sought by Patrick and his
fellows.

[Sidenote: MONASTIC SYSTEM]

This sketch of the conditions under which the new religious settlements
were planted in Ireland is necessarily vague and slight, and is presented
with the reserve which is due when the material for reconstruction is
fragmentary and we have to argue back from circumstances which prevailed
at a later period. But the evidence at least shows clearly that the
organisation was conditioned and moulded by the nature of the secular
society. On one hand there was a bond, of various degrees of intimacy,
connecting the religious community with the tribe, in the midst of which
it was established; and on the other hand, the community took upon itself
the form and likeness of a tribe or clan, its members being regarded as
the family or followers of its head.

There is no reason to suppose that all Patrick’s ecclesiastical
foundations took the shape of monastic societies. Many of the churches
which he founded were served, doubtless, by only one or two clerics,
and furnished with only enough land to support them. But the monastic
foundations were a leading feature of the organisation. They were to
be centres for propagating Christianity and schools for educating the
clergy. But they also served the religious needs of the immediate
district. A staff of clergy was attached, and the abbot was frequently
also a bishop. It is not difficult to conjecture the reason and purpose
of this remarkable union of the monastic institution with general church
organisation. It was probably due to the circumstance that there were
no cities in Ireland; centres had to be created for ecclesiastical
purposes, and it was almost a matter of course that these ecclesiastical
towns should be constructed on the monastic principle. If towns had
existed, they would have been the ecclesiastical centres, the seats
of the bishops; the bishops would not have been abbots or attached to
monasteries. The fact that the word _civitas_, “city,” was used to
designate these double-sided communities illustrates the motive of this
singular organisation.

[Sidenote: DIOCESAN SYSTEM]

But the peculiarity must not mislead us into the error of supposing
that there was no diocesan organisation, or that the bishops whom
Patrick ordained had not definite and distinct sees.[194] It is
inconceivable that in instituting bishops he should not have been guided
by geographical considerations, or that in organising a clerical body
he should not have submitted them to the jurisdiction of the bishops
whom he ordained. The limits of the bishoprics would naturally have
corresponded to the limits of tribal territories; this was not only the
simplest scheme, but was also dictated by obvious political expedience.
The anomalous state of things which presently arose, the multiplication
of bishops without sees, was assuredly never anticipated by Patrick. It
was due to the extravagant growth of monasticism. When new monasteries
were founded, they determined to have bishops of their own, and to be
quite independent of the bishops of the dioceses in which they were
situated. This practice was not indeed confined to Ireland. There are
several notable instances in Gaul.[195] But whereas elsewhere it was the
exception, in Ireland it seems to have become the rule. The desire of
new foundations to be self-sufficient and completely independent of the
diocesan bishop would not perhaps have been so strong if the diocesan
bishop had not usually been associated with one of the older monasteries.
But once the practice of bishops without sees was introduced, bishops
multiplied like flies. A new and narrow conception of the episcopal
office prevailed, and when it was recognised that bishops need not have
sees, there was no reason to set a limit to their number. The order of
bishop became a dignity to which any man of piety might aspire.

There is no evidence that Patrick consecrated bishops without sees, and
perhaps it would not be rash to say that he never did so. It cannot be
seriously doubted that he established a diocesan organisation, which,
in the course of the subsequent development of religious institutions,
largely broke down. The maintenance of the diocesan structure could
not be secured without control from above, and unless we refuse to
believe that Patrick attempted anything in the way of organisation,
it is evident that he must have founded a superior archdiocesan or
metropolitan jurisdiction. He exercised this higher authority himself,
and it is difficult to doubt that he attached it to the see which he
occupied, the see of Armagh. The position of this see has already
engaged our attention. But the centrifugal tendencies which marked the
secular society of Ireland made themselves felt no less acutely in
the Church; the ecclesiastical communities were animated by the same
impulse to independence as the tribes; and it was hard for the Bishop of
Armagh, as for the King of Ireland, to exert effectual authority. The
independent tribal spirit was not flexible or readily obedient to the
distant control of a prelate who was a member of another tribe; there
was no secular power able or willing to enforce submission to the higher
jurisdiction. Thus it was a continual struggle for the bishops of Armagh
to maintain the position which Patrick had bequeathed to them; and the
rise within their province, during the sixth century, of new and powerful
communities, owing them no obedience, and outstripping their church
in zeal, learning, and reputation, conduced to the decline of their
influence. It was not till the end of the seventh century that the church
of Armagh began to succeed in re-establishing its power. In the meantime
the interests of religion had perhaps not suffered through the absence
of ecclesiastical unity. At no time were the churchmen of Ireland more
conspicuous, and famous in other lands, for learning and piety than in
the sixth and seventh centuries.

[Sidenote: CHANGES AFTER PATRICK]

The difficulties and errors which have arisen as to the spirit and
principles of Patrick’s ecclesiastical policy are due to the circumstance
that after his death his work was partly undone, and the Irish Church
developed on lines which were quite from the purpose of his design. The
old Easter reckoning survived his reform and lasted till the seventh
century.[196] Irish monks abandoned the recognised mode of shaving the
head which he had enjoined, and adopted the native tonsure of the pagan
Druids.[197] The central authority at Armagh could not maintain itself
against the centrifugal spirit of the land or resist the love of local
independence which operated in ecclesiastical exactly as in political
affairs. Monasticism, an institution which appears to have been intensely
attractive to the temper of the people, ran riot, we might say, at the
expense of ecclesiastical organisation. Abbots became of more account
than bishops. The political changes in Gaul and Italy, connected with
the dismemberment of the Empire, tended to keep Ireland out of touch
with the continental churches in the later part of the fifth and in the
sixth century. The injunction to appeal to Rome, though no one would
have thought of repudiating it, was a dead letter. Looking at Irish
Christianity as it appears in the seventh century, when the movement set
in to bring it into line with the rest of the western Church, students
have been inclined to assume that Patrick inaugurated the peculiar
features which were really alien to the spirit of his work. Whatever
concessions and modifications he may have found it necessary or politic
to make in view of the social conditions of Ireland, he certainly did not
anticipate, far less intend, such a development as that which actually
ensued.

But though his organisation partially collapsed, and though the Irish
Christians did not live up to his ideal of the _unitas ecclesiae_, there
was one feature of his policy which was never undone. He made Latin the
ecclesiastical language of Ireland. The significance of this will claim
our consideration when we come to examine his historical position. It was
remembered in the traditions of his work that he used to write alphabets
for youths who were chosen for a clerical career; it was the first step
in teaching them Latin.

[Sidenote: INTRODUCTION OF LATIN]

Some knowledge of the Latin alphabet must have penetrated to Ireland at
an earlier period. It must have been known in the scattered Christian
communities, and it may have been known much more widely. It was not
a new thing when Patrick arrived, but his work seems to have secured
it a new position. Yet we cannot say exactly what happened. We cannot
say whether the introduction of the Latin script originated a written
Irish literature, or only displaced an older form of writing in which
a literature already existed. In the mist which rests over the early
history of Ireland this is one of the darkest points. It would be
out of place to discuss the question here at large, but one or two
considerations may be briefly noted. The mode of writing which the early
Irish possessed—though how long before the fifth century we know not—and
seem to have mainly used for engraving names on sepulchral monuments, is
alphabetic. The characters, which are called ogams, consisting of strokes
and points, were probably a native invention, since such inscriptions are
found only in Ireland and in regions of the British islands which came
within the range of Irish influence. But it will not be maintained that
the alphabet itself was a native product, an independent discovery. It is
simply the Latin alphabet,[198] with the last three letters left out and
two letters added.[199] And a cipher representing the Latin alphabet can
hardly fail to imply that when it was invented the Latin alphabet was in
use. No positive evidence has yet been discovered to show that the Irish
ever employed, besides their monumental script, a less cumbersome system
of symbols, suitable for literature and the business of life, other than
the Roman. A few statements which may be gathered from their own later
traditions are not sufficiently clear or authentic to carry much weight.
The absence of evidence, however, is not decisive. It is to be remembered
that writing was in use among the Celtic Iberians of Spain and the Celts
of Gaul before the Roman Conquest. The Iberians had their own script,
and some of the Spanish peoples had a considerable literature.[200] In
Gaul, we are told by Caesar, the lore of the Druids was not written down,
but Greek writing was used for public and private purposes.[201] This
means that the Gallic tongue was written in Greek characters, and some
examples of such writing are preserved.[202] These facts show at least
that the art of writing might have reached Ireland at an early period.
But there is no proof that it did. If any pre-Roman alphabet was ever
used it has left no traces of its presence. But the Roman alphabet was
introduced, perhaps much sooner than is generally supposed, after the
Roman occupation of Britain. And from it some learned man in Ireland
constructed the ogam cipher for sepulchral uses. The diffusion of
Christianity tended, doubtless, to diffuse the use of writing, but Latin
letters were a gift which the pagans of Ireland received from the Empire,
independently of the gift of Christianity.




CHAPTER IX

WRITINGS OF PATRICK, AND HIS DEATH


§ 1. _The Denunciation of Coroticus_

Christianity had been introduced among the Picts of Galloway at the
beginning of the fifth century by the labours of a Briton, who is little
more than a name. Ninian, educated at Rome, had probably come under
the influence of St. Martin of Tours, and had then devoted himself to
the task of preaching his faith in the wilds of Galloway, where, on
the inner promontory which runs out towards the Isle of Man, he built
a stone church. As the only stone building in this uncivilised land it
became known as the White House (Candida Casa), and its place is marked
by Whitern. An important monastic establishment grew around it, which
enjoyed a high reputation in Ireland in the sixth century, and was known
there as the “Great Monastery.” The work of Ninian was, in one way,
like the work of his contemporary Victricius in Gaul, being missionary
work within the Roman Empire, if Galloway and its inhabitants belonged
to the Roman province of Valentia. The Roman power may the more easily
have controlled these barbarous subjects since they were severed from
their kinsmen, the Picts of the north beyond the Clyde, by the British
population of Strathclyde.

[Sidenote: FIFTH-CENTURY BRITAIN]

After the Roman legions were withdrawn from Britain, and the island was
cut off from the central control of the Empire, the task of maintaining
order in the western part of the “province of Valentia” seems to have
been undertaken by one of those rulers who sprang up in various parts of
the island, and are variously styled as “kings” or “tyrants.” A word must
be said as to the condition of Britain in the fifth century, because it
is very generally misunderstood.

There can be no greater error than to suppose that the withdrawal of
the Roman legions from Britain in 407, and the rescript of the Emperor
Honorius, three or four years later, permitting the citizens of Britain
to arm themselves and provide for their own defence, meant the instant
departure of all things Roman from British shores, the death of Roman
traditions, the end of Roman civilisation. The idea that the island
almost immediately relapsed into something resembling its pre-Roman
condition is due partly to the scanty nature of our evidence, partly to
a misreading of the famous work of Gildas “on the decline and fall of
Britain,” partly to a mistaken idea of the isolation of Britain from
the continent, and largely to that anachronistic habit, into which it
is so easy to fall, of judging men’s acts and thoughts as if they could
have foreseen the future. It cannot be too strongly enforced that in
those years which mark _for us_ the Roman surrender of Britain, and
for many years after, no man—emperor or imperial minister or British
provincial—could have thought or realised that the events which they
were witnessing meant a final dismemberment of the Empire in the west,
that Britain was really cut off for ever. The Empire had weathered
storms before, and emerged stable and strong; to the contemporaries of
Honorius and Valentinian the Empire was part of the established order of
things, and a suspension of its control in any particular portion of its
dominion was something temporary and passing. The British provincials
did not and could not for a moment regard themselves and their province
as finally severed from Rome; they still considered themselves part
of the Empire; for a hundred and fifty years some of them at least
considered themselves Roman citizens. From this point of view alone
it is not conceivable that the traditions and machinery of the Roman
administration should have disappeared at once, the moment the central
authorities ceased to control it. What could the provincials have
deliberately put in its place? All the circumstances seem to enforce the
conclusion that the administration, in its general lines, continued,
but was gradually modified, and ultimately decayed, through three main
causes—financial necessities which must have soon led to a reduction
of the elaborate machinery of administration, the organisation of new
methods of self-help, and the development of local interests promoted by
the ambition of private persons who won power and supremacy in various
districts. There was doubtless a Celtic revival, but for many years after
the rescript of Honorius, Roman institutions must have continued to exist
alongside of, or controlled by, the local potentates, who are described
as “kings” or “tyrants.” And in the later years of the fifth century
the great successes won by the British against the English invaders
were achieved by generals—Ambrosius Aurelianus, and Arthur—who were not
“kings” or “tyrants,” but rather, in some sense, national leaders, and
whose position can be best explained by supposing that they represent the
traditions of Roman rule, and are, in fact, successors of the Roman dukes
and counts of Britain. If in some cases the tyrants may have combined
their own irregular position with the title of a Roman official it is
what we should expect.

[Sidenote: COROTICUS]

The man whom we find in the reign of Valentinian III. ruling in
Strathclyde, and maintaining such law and order as might be maintained,
was named Coroticus or Ceretic, and he founded a line of kings who were
still reigning at the end of the following century. His seat was the Rock
of Clyde.[203] As the seat of a British ruler, amid surrounding Scots
and Picts, this stronghold came to be known as Dún na m-Bretan, “the
fort of the Britons,” which was corrupted into the modern Dumbarton.
The continuity of the rule of Coroticus with the military organisation
of the Empire is strongly suggested by the circumstance that his power
was maintained by “soldiers”;[204] and his position seems thus marked as
distinct from that of pre-Roman chiefs of British tribes. His soldiers
may well be the successors of the Roman troops who defended the north.
His position—whether he assumed any Roman military title or not—may
be compared to that of the general Aegidius, who maintained the name
of the Empire in north Gaul when it had been cut off from the rest of
the Empire. Aegidius transmitted his authority to his son Syagrius, as
Coroticus transmitted his to his son Cinuit; and if Syagrius had not
been overthrown by the Franks, a state would have been formed in Belgica
which would have resembled in origin the state which Coroticus formed in
Strathclyde. Of course the Gallo-Roman generals Aegidius and Syagrius,
while their authority was practically uncontrolled, were in touch with
the Empire, maintained the Imperial machinery, and had a position totally
different from the irregular position of the semi-barbarous Briton on
his rock by the Clyde; but we may be sure that Coroticus was careful
to make the most of his claim to represent the Imperial tradition and
rule over Roman citizens. And while the contrast is obvious, it is not
uninstructive to observe the analogy, which is less obvious, between the
position of Britain and its rulers, still attached in theory, name, and
tradition to the Empire, though cut off from it, and the position of
those parts of the Belgic and Lyonnese provinces, which, aloof from the
rest of Imperial territory, maintained themselves under Aegidius and his
son Syagrius for a few years amid the surrounding German kingdoms.

[Sidenote: OUTRAGE ON NEOPHYTES]

Coroticus, then, was the ruler of Strathclyde in the days of Patrick. We
can easily understand that he may sometimes have found it difficult to
pay his soldiers and retainers, and that for this purpose he may have
been forced to plunder his neighbours. However this may be, he fitted out
a marauding expedition; it does not appear that he led it himself, but
it crossed the channel, and descended on the coast of Ireland, probably
in Dalaradia or Dalriada. Perhaps it was an act of reprisal for raids
which the Scots and Picts of these lands may have made upon his dominion;
it may have been, for all we know, an episode in a regular war. At all
events he was supported in his enterprise by the Picts of Galloway, who
had relapsed into heathenism, and by some of those heathen Scots who had
come over from Ireland and settled in the region north-west of the Clyde.
In the course of their devastation these heathen allies of Coroticus
appeared on the scene of a Christian ceremony. Neophytes, who had just
been baptized and anointed with the baptismal chrism, were standing
in white raiment; the sign of the cross was still “fragrant on their
foreheads” when the heathen rushed upon them, put some to the sword and
carried others captive. Patrick, whether he had himself performed the
ceremony or not, must have been near the spot of this outrage, for he
was informed of it so soon, that on the next day he despatched one of
his most trusted priests—one whom he had trained from childhood—to the
soldiers of Coroticus, requesting them to send back the booty and release
the captives. The message, which must have reached them before they left
Ireland, was received with mockery, though the soldiers of Coroticus were
Christians and “Romans,” and it was not they but their heathen allies
who had massacred the defenceless Christians. It is not clear whether
Coroticus himself was present when the message was delivered, but it is
certain that Patrick regarded him as responsible, and we must suppose
that he had declined to interfere before Patrick wrote the letter which
is our record of this event. The only thing which the indignant bishop
could do for the release of his “sons and daughters” was to bring the
public opinion of the Christians in Strathclyde to bear upon Coroticus
and his soldiers. He wrote a strong letter, addressing it apparently
to the general Christian community in the dominion of Coroticus, and
requiring them to have no dealings with the guilty “tyrant” and his
soldiers, “not to take food or drink with them, not to receive alms from
them, nor show respect to them, until they should repent in tears and
make satisfaction to God by releasing the Christian captives.” He asks
that the letter should be read before all the people in the presence
of Coroticus. The guilt of the outrage is laid, in this communication,
entirely upon Coroticus; it is ascribed to his orders; he is called a
betrayer of Christians into the hands of Scots and Picts. Apostrophising
him the bishop writes: “It is the custom of Roman Christians in Gaul to
send good men to the Franks and other heathens to redeem captives for so
many thousand pieces of gold; you, on the contrary, slay Christians and
sell them to a foreign nation that knows not God; you deliver members of
Christ as it were into a house of ill fame.”

The sequel of this episode is unknown. We have no record whether the
letter of Patrick had any effect on the obstinate hearts of Coroticus
and his soldiers, or whether those to whom it was addressed applied the
pressure of excommunication, which he begged them to put in force. The
Irish legend that the king was turned into a fox by the prayers of the
saint is based on the idea that he declined to release the captives; but
it may have no other foundation than the letter which we possess.

[Sidenote: LETTER OF PATRICK]

But this letter has an interest for the biographer of Patrick beyond
the details of the occurrence which evoked it. Beside, and distinct
from, the wrathful indignation which animates his language, there is
a strain of bitterness which had another motive. He is clearly afraid
that his message will not be received with friendship or sympathy by
the British Christians to whom it is sent. He complains expressly that
his work in Ireland is regarded in Britain—in his own country—with envy
and uncharitableness. “If my own do not know me—well, ‘a prophet has
no honour in his own country.’ We do not belong, peradventure, to one
sheepfold, nor have we one God for our father.” He refers to his own
biography, to his birth as a Roman citizen, to his unselfish motives in
undertaking the toil of a preacher of the Gospel in a barbarous land
where he lives a stranger and exile; as if he had to justify himself
against the envy and injustice of jealous detractors. “I am envied”;
“some despise me.” This bitterness is a note of the letter, and almost
suggests that in Patrick’s opinion the envy and dislike with which his
successful work in Ireland was regarded in north Britain was partly
responsible for the outrage itself.

There is no extant evidence to fix the date of this episode, but the
dominance of the same bitter note in the other extant writing of Patrick,
which was written in the author’s old age, makes it not improbable that
the letter belongs to the later rather than to the earlier period of his
labours in Ireland. To that other document, the _Confession_, we may now
pass.


§ 2. _The Confession_

Men of action who help to change the face of the world by impressing
upon it ideas which others have originated, have seldom the time, and
seldom, unless they have received in their youth a literary training,
the inclination, to record their work in writing. The great apostles
of Europe illustrate this fact. None of them, from Wulfilas to Otto of
Bamberg, has left a relation of his own apostolic labours. We are lucky
if a disciple took thought for posterity by writing a brief narrative of
his master’s acts. But in the case of the apostle of the Scots, as in the
case of the apostles of the Slavs, no disciple wrote down what he could
aver of his own certain knowledge. If Benignus, his pupil and successor,
had done for Patrick what Auxentius did for Wulfilas, what Willibald did
for Boniface, we should have certainty on many things where it is now
only possible to note our ignorance. But although neither Patrick nor
any of the other apostles who preached to Celt, German, or Slav wrote
the story of his own life, some of them have left literary records which
bear on their work. The most conspicuous example is the correspondence
of our West-Saxon Boniface, the apostle of the Germans; but fortunately
in Patrick’s case, too, circumstances occasionally forced him to write.
The _Confession_ is of far greater interest and value than the letter
against Coroticus; for, though not an autobiography, it contains highly
important autobiographical passages, to which reference has been made in
the foregoing pages.

[Sidenote: THE CONFESSION]

This work was written in Patrick’s old age, at a time when he felt that
death might not be very far off. “This,” he says, “is my confession
before I die,” and accordingly the work is known as the Confession. This
title, however, might easily convey a false idea. The writer has occasion
to confess certain sins, he has occasion also to make a brief confession
of the articles of his faith, but it is in neither of these senses that
he calls the work as a whole his Confession. Neither his sins nor his
theological creed are his main theme, but the wonderful ways of God in
dealing with his own life. “I must not hide the gift of God”; this is
what he “confesses”; this is the refrain which pervades the _Confession_
and emphatically marks its purpose.

Of miracles, in the sense of violations of natural laws, the _Confession_
says nothing; but his own strange life seemed to Patrick more marvellous
than any miracle in that special meaning of the word. The _Confession_
reveals vividly his intense wondering consciousness of the fact that
it had fallen just to him, out of the multitude of all his fellows who
might have seemed fitter for the task, to carry out a great work for
the extension of the borders of Christendom. As he looked back on his
past life, it seemed unutterably strange that the careless boy in the
British town should have shone forth as a light to the Gentiles, and the
ways by which this strange thing had been compassed made it seem more
mysterious still. But what impressed him above all as a divine miracle
was that he should have felt assured of success beforehand. What we, in
a matter-of-fact way, might describe as a man’s overruling imperative
desire, accompanied by a secret consciousness of his own capacity, to
attempt a great and difficult task seemed to Patrick a direct revelation
from one who had foreknowledge of the future—_qui novit omnia etiam
ante tempora secularia_. The express motive of the _Confession_ is
to declare the wonderful dealings of God with himself, as a sort of
repayment—_retributio_—or thanksgiving.[205]

[Sidenote: PATRICK’S ILLITERACY]

But it would hardly have been necessary to make such a declaration
in writing if it had not seemed to him that his life and work were
partly misunderstood. It was inevitable that a man of Patrick’s force
of character and achievements should have aroused some feelings of
jealousy and voices of detraction; and the _Confession_ is evidently
a reply to things that were said to belittle him. One charge that was
brought against him was his lack of literary education. His deficiency
in this respect was probably urged as a disqualification for the eminent
position of authority which he had won by his practical labours. Compared
with most of the many bishops in Gaul, compared perhaps with most of
the few bishops in Britain, Patrick might well have been described
as illiterate. In the eyes of his countryman, Faustus, in the eyes of
Sidonius Apollinaris, the Bishop of Armagh would have seemed, so far
as style is concerned, unworthy to hold a pen. On this count Patrick
disarms criticism by a full admission of his _rusticitas_, his lack of
culture, and acknowledges that as he grows old he feels his deficiency
more and more. It was even this consciousness of literary incompetence
that had hitherto withheld him from drawing up the _Confession_ which he
has at length resolved to write. Then he goes on to explain by passages
from his life how it was that, though he missed the early training which
is to be desired in a religious apostle, he had nevertheless presumed
to take in hand the work of converting heathen lands. His narrative
is designed to show that it was entirely God’s doing, who singled him
out, untrained and unskilled though he was; that there were no worldly
inducements to support the divine command, which he obeyed simply without
any ulterior motive, and in opposition to the wish of his kinsfolk. Here
he is meeting another imputation, which stung him more than the true
taunt of illiteracy. His detractors must have hinted that it was not with
perfectly pure and unworldly motives that he had gone forth to preach
among the Scots. He does not conceal that the island in which he had
toiled as a captive slave had no attraction for him; he implies that he
always felt there as a stranger in a strange land.[206] “I testify,”
he says, summing up, “in truth and in exultation of heart, before God
and His holy angels, that I never had any motive save the gospel and
promises of God, to return at any time to that people from which I had
formerly escaped.”[207] He repudiates especially the imputation that he
won any personal profit in worldly goods from those whom he converted, or
that he sought in any way to overreach the folk among whom he lived. To
show how discreetly he ordered his ways, how careful he was to avoid all
scandalous suspicion, he mentions that when men and women of his flock
sent him gifts, or laid ornaments on the altar, he always restored them,
at the risk of offending the givers.

[Sidenote: PATRICK’S DETRACTORS]

It is easy enough to read between the lines the kind of detraction that
wounded St. Patrick; it may seem less easy to determine in what quarter
the unfriendly voices were raised. But there are certain indications
which enable us to suspect that it was in his own country and by his own
countrymen that the charges to which he obliquely refers were brought
against him. At the end of the composition he says that he wrote it
“in Ireland”; and this gives us a reasonable ground for supposing that
it was addressed mainly to people outside Ireland. When he speaks of
“those peoples amidst whom I dwell,” when he mentions “women of _our_
race” (not “women of _my_ race”), in contrast with women of Scottish
birth,[208] we can hardly be wrong in thinking that he is addressing
not his Irish disciples, but some of his British fellow-countrymen. And
we may well believe that if this “apology” for his life had been meant
in the first place for Ireland, he would have taken some care to veil
his feeling of homelessness; he would not have shown so clearly that he
felt as an alien on outlandish soil, and that he was abiding there only
from a sense of duty, doing despite to the longings of his heart. This
inference is borne out by the writer’s express statement that he wishes
his “brethren and kinsfolk” to know his character and nature.[209] Nor
is it contradicted by the fact that he closely associates those whom
he addresses with his own work.[210] On the contrary, this enables us
to identify more precisely the origin of the detraction which evoked
the _Confession_. The unfriends who disparaged him were clearly some of
those British fellow-workers who had laboured with him in propagating
the Christian faith in Ireland. That jealousy and friction should occur
between the chief apostle and some of his helpers is only what we might
expect, as in any similar case; and it may be that some of those who
felt themselves aggrieved returned in disgust to Britain, and indulged
their ill-will by spreading evil reports about Patrick’s conduct of the
Irish mission. It was for the communities in Britain where such reports
were circulated, it was to refute those who set them afloat, that the
_Confession_ was in the first instance intended.

[Sidenote: ATTACKS ON PATRICK]

But Patrick had been exposed to one direct attack, which seems to have
caused him more distress and agitation of spirit than any experience
during his work in Ireland. Before he was ordained deacon, he had
confessed to a trusted friend a fault which he had committed at the age
of fifteen. His friend evidently did not consider it an obstacle to
ordination, and subsequently supported the proposal that Patrick should
be consecrated bishop for Ireland.[211] But afterwards he betrayed the
secret, and the youthful indiscretion came to the ears of persons whom
we may perhaps identify with some of Patrick’s foreign coadjutors.[212]
“They came,” he says in his rude style, “and urged my sins against my
laborious episcopate.” The words prove that he had already laboured for
some years—other indications suggest fifteen or sixteen years[213]—when
this attack was made. He does not tell us how he met or weathered the
danger; he ascribes his escape from stain and opprobrium to Divine
assistance. We can sympathise with him in his deep resentment of an
attack so manifestly unjust, of a friend’s treachery apparently so
inexcusable; but the incident clearly shows that there existed a party
distinctly hostile to him, men who were ready to seize on any handle
against him. His want of culture had been hitherto the chief reproach
which they could fling; when they discovered a moral delinquency, though
it was more than forty years old, the opportunity was irresistible.

But while the vindication was addressed to an audience beyond Ireland, it
was intended also for the Irish. It might almost be described as an open
letter to his brethren in Britain, published in Ireland. He describes
it himself as “a bequest to my brethren, and to my children whom I
baptized,” for the purpose of making known “the gift of God,” _donum Dei_.

The spirit and tone of this work are so consistently humble from first
to last, that it almost lends itself to a misconstruction, in the sense
that the measure of Patrick’s achievements was smaller and the sphere
of his work more restricted than our other sources give us to suppose.
It has even been said that the _Confession_ is a confession of a life’s
failure.[214] Any such interpretation misreads the document entirely. On
the contrary, the main argument, as we have already seen, is that the
success which Patrick had been led to hope and expect—through divine
intimations as he believed—had been brought to pass. If success is not
proved by vaunting, failure assuredly is not proved by the absence of
boasts. But the proud consciousness of the writer that his life had been
fruitful and prosperous comes out more subtly in the implied comparison
which he suggests between himself and the first Apostle of the Gentiles,
by quotations and echoes from Paul’s epistles.[215]

It is pathetic to read how the exile would fain visit Britain, his home,
and Gaul, where he had many friends, but feels himself bound by the
spirit to spend the rest of his life (_residuum aetatis meae_) in his
self-chosen banishment, to maintain his work, and especially to protect
by his influence the Christians, whom dangers constantly threatened. His
energy and undismayed perseverance had accomplished a great work, and he
decided not to desert it till death compelled him.

[Sidenote: REAL AND MYTHICAL PATRICK]

His two writings furnish the only evidence we possess for forming an idea
of his character. The other documents, on which we depend for the outline
of his life and work, preserve genuine records of events, but reflect the
picture of a man who must not be mistaken for the historical Patrick. The
bishop, of British birth and Roman education, is gradually transformed
into a typical Irish saint, dear to popular imagination, who curses men
and even inanimate things which incur his displeasure. He arranges with
the Deity that he shall be deputed to judge the Irish on the day of doom.
The forcefulness of the real Patrick’s nature is coarsened by degrees
into caricature, until he becomes the dictator who coerces an angel into
making a bargain with him on the Mount of Murrisk.[216] The stories of
the Lives, so far as they characterise Patrick, present the conception
which the Irish formed of a hero saint. The accounts of his acts were not
written from any historical interest, but simply for edification; and
the monks, who dramatised both actual and legendary incidents, were not
concerned to regard, even if they had known, what manner of man he really
was, but were guided by their knowledge of what popular taste demanded.
The mediaeval hagiographer may be compared to the modern novelist; he
provided literary recreation for the public, and he had to consider the
public taste. In regard to the process by which Patrick was Hibernicised,
or adapted to an Irish ideal, it is significant that the earliest
literature relating to his life seems to have been written in Irish. This
literature must have been current in the sixth century, and on it the
earliest Latin records are largely based.

The writings of Patrick do not enable us to delineate his character, but
they reveal unmistakably a strong personality and a spiritual nature.
The man who wrote the _Confession_ and the _Letter_ had strength of
will, energy in action, resolution without over-confidence, and the
capacity for resisting pressure from without. It might be inferred,
too, that he was affectionate and sensitive; subtle analysis might
disclose other traits. But it is probable that few readers will escape
the impression that he possessed besides enthusiasm the practical
qualities most essential for carrying through the task which he undertook
in the belief that he had been divinely inspired to fulfil it. A
rueful consciousness of the deficiencies of his education weighed upon
him throughout his career; we can feel this in his almost wearisome
insistence upon his _rusticitas_. Nor has he exaggerated the defects
of his culture; he writes in the style of an ill-educated man. His
Latin is as “rustic” as the Greek of St. Mark and St. Matthew. He was
a _homo unius libri_; but with that book, the Christian Scriptures, he
was extraordinarily familiar. His writings are crowded with Scriptural
sentences and phrases, most of them probably quoted from memory.


§ 3. _Patrick’s Death and Burial (A.D. 461)_

[Sidenote: HIS DEATH]

It would appear that some years before his death Patrick resigned his
position as head of the church of Armagh, and was succeeded by his
disciple Benignus.[217] If this is so, it seems probable that he retired
to Dalaradia, and spent the last three or four years of his life at Saul,
in the Island-plain. Here he may possibly have written his _Confession_;
here he certainly died. His death is encircled with legends which reflect
the rival interests of Armagh and Downpatrick, but attest the fact that
he died and was buried at the barn of Dichu. It was a disappointment
to Armagh not to possess his body, and it was a stimulating motive for
mythopoeic ingenuity to explain how this came to pass.

When the day of his death drew nigh, an angel came and warned him.
Forthwith he made preparations, and started for Armagh, which he loved
above all places. But as he went, a thorn-bush burst into flame on the
wayside and was not consumed. And an angel spoke—not Victor, the angel
who was accustomed to visit Patrick, but another sent by Victor—and
turned him back, bidding him return to Saul, and granting him four
petitions, as a consolation for the disappointment. Of these petitions
two are significant. One was that the jurisdiction of his church should
remain in Armagh; the other that the posterity of Dichu should not die
out. The first represents the interests of Armagh; the second clearly
originated in the Island-plain.

Patrick obeyed the command of the angel, who also predicted that his
death would “set a boundary against night.” The rite of the Eucharist
was administered to him at Saul by Bishop Tassach of Raholp, and at
Saul he died[218] and was buried. After his death there was no night for
twelve days, and folk said that for a whole year the nights were less
dark than usually. And other wonders were recorded. Men told how angels
kept watch over his body and diffused, as they travelled back to heaven,
sweet odours as of wine and honey.

[Sidenote: BURIAL LEGENDS]

But miracles of this kind were not the only legends which gathered round
the passing of the saint whom Armagh and Ulidia were alike eager to
appropriate. The old strife between the kingdom of Ulidia and the kingdom
of Orior[219] blazed up anew, in story, over Patrick’s grave. The men
of Orior advanced into the island-plain, and blood would have been shed
on the southern banks of Lake Strangford if a Divine interposition had
not stirred the waves of the bay, which by a sudden inundation dispersed
the hosts and prevented a battle.[220] This was before the burial; but
after the coveted body had been entombed, the men of Orior came again,
resolved to snatch it from the grave.[221] Finding a waggon drawn by two
oxen, they imagined the body was inside, and drove off, to discover, when
they were near Armagh, that no body was there. They had been the victims
of an illusion, designed, like the rising of the waters, to prevent the
shedding of blood.

From these two myths an inference of a negative kind can be drawn with
certainty. It is plain that, whatever controversy may have arisen
concerning the burial of Patrick, there was no armed conflict. For the
common motive of both legends is to account for the circumstance that the
event did not lead to a war between the two peoples. But it would not
be equally legitimate to draw the positive inference that the stories
preserve the memory of a dispute, though not with arms, on the occasion
of the saint’s death. They point undoubtedly to a controversy and
dispute, but this controversy and dispute may have arisen in subsequent
years. The story of the angel’s appearance reflects a conciliation
between the claims of Saul and the claims of Armagh, and the two legends
of the frustrated attempts of the men of Orior embody the same motive
of peace and concord. Armagh had to acquiesce in the fact that Saul
possessed Patrick’s body; Saul acquiesced in the assertion that it was
Patrick’s own wish to lie at Armagh.

       *       *       *       *       *

But this was not the only rivalry aroused by the desire of possessing
the saint’s mortal remains. When in later years a church was founded on
the hill beside Dún Lethglasse, and overshadowed the older foundations
of the neighbourhood, it was alleged that Patrick was buried in its
precincts, and that the church was founded on that account. The story
was invented that the angel gave him directions as to the fashion of his
sepulture. “Let two untamed oxen be chosen, and left to go where they
will.” This was done. The oxen, drawing the body in a waggon, rested at
Dún Lethglasse, and there it was buried.[222]

       *       *       *       *       *

It is clear that all these tales must have taken shape at a considerable
time after the saint’s death. If his burial had actually caused any such
commotion as the legends suppose, his tomb would assuredly have been
conspicuous or well known, and no doubt could have arisen as to the
place where he was laid. There would have been no room for the double
claim of Saul and Dún Lethglasse. But so great was the uncertainty that
it suggested a resemblance with Moses, whose grave was unknown. It is
recorded, though it is not a record which we can implicitly trust, that
St. Columba investigated and discovered the place of Patrick’s sepulchre
at Saul. These doubts and uncertainties justify us in concluding that
Patrick was buried quietly in an unmarked grave, and that the pious
excitement about his bones arose long after his death. And we can feel
little hesitation in deciding that the obscure grave was at Saul. Of the
three places which come into the story, Saul alone needs no mythical
support for its claim, a claim in which Armagh itself acquiesces. Legend
is called in to explain why the saint was not buried at Armagh; legend is
called in to explain why he should be buried at Downpatrick; no legend is
required to account for his burial at Saul.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Sidenote: RELICS OF PATRICK]

No visible memorial of Patrick has escaped the chances of time, with one
possible exception. In the Middle Ages the church of Armagh cherished
with superstitious veneration two treasures which were believed to
have belonged to him, a pastoral staff and a hand-bell. The crozier
was deliberately destroyed in the war of sixteenth-century zealots
against mediaeval superstition, but the four-sided iron hand-bell still
exists.[223] Both relics were very ancient, but to say that the bell
was certainly Patrick’s would be to go beyond our evidence, which only
establishes a probability that it existed at Armagh a hundred years or so
after his death.




CHAPTER X

PATRICK’S PLACE IN HISTORY


Two extreme and opposite views have been held as to the scope and
dimensions of St. Patrick’s work in Ireland. There is the old view that
he first introduced the Christian religion and converted the whole
island, and there is the view, propounded the other day, that the sphere
of his activity was merely a small district in Leinster. The second
opinion is refuted by a critical examination of the sources and by
its own incapacity to explain the facts,[224] while the first cannot
be sustained because clear evidence exists that there were Christian
communities in Ireland before Patrick arrived.

But the fact that foundations had been laid sporadically here and there
does not deprive Patrick of his eminent significance. He did three
things. He organised the Christianity which already existed; he converted
kingdoms which were still pagan, especially in the west; and he brought
Ireland into connexion with the Church of the Empire, and made it
formally part of universal Christendom.

These three aspects of his work have been illustrated in the foregoing
pages. His achievements as organiser of a church and as propagator of
his faith made Christianity a living force in Ireland which could never
be extinguished. Before him, it might have been in danger of extinction
through predominant paganism; after him, it became the religion of
Ireland, though paganism did not disappear. He did not introduce
Christianity, but he secured its permanence, shaped its course, and made
it a power in the land.

Not less significant, though more easily overlooked, is the rôle which
he played by bringing Ireland into a new connexion with Rome and the
Empire. Ordinary intercourse, as we have seen, had been maintained for
ages with Britain, Gaul, and Spain; but now the island was brought into a
more direct and intimate association with western Europe by becoming an
organised part of the Christian world. There had been constant contact
before, but this was the first link.

The historical importance of this new bond, which marks an epoch in the
history of Ireland as a European country, has been somewhat obscured
through the circumstance that after Patrick’s death the Irish Church,
though it did not sever the link which he had forged, or dream of
repudiating its incorporation as a part of Christendom, went a way of
its own and developed on eccentric lines. Relations with the centre were
suspended, and this suspension seems to have been due to two causes.
The instinct of tribal independence, co-operating with the powerful
attraction which the Irish found in monasticism, promoted individualism
and disorganisation; monastic institutions tended to over-ride the
episcopal organisation founded by Patrick, and the resulting lack of
unity and general order was not favourable to the practical maintenance
of that solidarity with Christendom which was inaugurated by the
sending of Palladius. But it was not entirely due to the self-will and
self-confidence of the Irish themselves that they drifted from his
moorings. The political changes on the continent must also be taken
into account. We can hardly doubt that but for the decline of the
Imperial power and the dismemberment of the Empire in western Europe,
the isolation[225] and eccentricity of the Irish Church in the sixth
century would not have been so marked. The bishops of Rome, between Leo
I. and Gregory the Great, were not in a position to concern themselves
with the drift of ecclesiastical affairs in the islands of the north. But
no sooner has Gregory accomplished his great revival and augmentation
of the authority of the Roman see in western lands than the movement
begins which gradually brings Ireland back within the confederation from
which it had practically, though never formally or intentionally, been
severed. The renewal of the union with continental Christianity in the
seventh century was simply a return to the system established by Patrick
and his coadjutors, and it would not be surprising if, in that period,
men looked back with intenser interest to his work and exalted his memory
more than ever.

It seems probable, as we saw, that the tendencies which asserted
themselves after Patrick’s death were partly of the nature of a relapse.
Men went back to some practices which had been adopted in the Christian
communities existent before his arrival on the scene. An old Easter
reckoning, which he had attempted to supersede, was resumed. Perhaps,
too, the Druidical tonsure from ear to ear had been used by earlier
Irish Christians, and when it afterwards prevailed over the continental
tonsure which he introduced, this was also a reversion to a pre-Patrician
practice.

The work of Patrick may be illustrated by comparing him with other
bearers of the same religion to peoples of northern and central Europe.
He did not go among a folk entirely heathen, like Willibrord among the
Frisians, or Adalbert among the western Slavs, or Bruno of Querfurt among
the Patzinaks. The circumstances of his mission have some resemblance
to those of Columba’s mission in Caledonia. Columba went to organise
and maintain Christianity among the Irish Dalriadan settlers and to
convert the neighbouring Pictish heathen, just as Patrick went to
organise as well as to propagate his faith. But while the conditions
of their tasks had this similarity, their works are contrasted. It was
the aim of Patrick to draw Ireland into close intimacy with continental
Christianity, but Columba, who represented in Ireland tendencies opposed
to the Patrician tradition, had no such aim, and he established a church
in north Britain which offered a strenuous, though not long-protracted,
resistance to unity.

The nearest likeness to Patrick will perhaps be found in St. Boniface,
the Saxon Winfrith. He, too, like Patrick and Columba, had both to
order and further his faith in regions where it was not unknown, and
to introduce it into regions where it had never penetrated. But, like
Patrick, and unlike Columba, he was in touch with the rest of western
Christendom. The political and geographical circumstances were indeed
different. Boniface was backed by the Frank monarchy; he was nearer Rome,
in frequent communication with the Popes, and the Popes of that day had
an authority far greater than the Popes before Gregory the Great. If
Patrick looked with reverence to Rome as the apostolic seat, Boniface
looked to Rome far more intently. In Patrick’s day the Roman Empire
meant a great deal more than the Roman see; in the days of Boniface the
Pope was still a subject of the Emperor, but the Emperor was far away in
Constantinople, and to a bishop in Gaul or Britain it was the Bishop of
Old Rome who, apart from the authority of his see, seemed to represent
the traditions of Roman Christendom. But the work of Boniface and Patrick
alike was to draw new lands within the pale of Christian unity, which was
closely identified with the Roman name.

St. Patrick did not do for the Scots what Wulfilas did for the Goths,
and the Slavonic apostles for the Slavs; he did not translate the sacred
books of his religion into Irish or found a national church literature.
It is upon their literary achievements, more than on their successes in
converting barbarians, that the fame of Wulfilas rests, and the fame of
Cyril. The Gothic Bible of Wulfilas was available for the Vandals and
other Germans whose speech was closely akin to Gothic. The importance of
the Slavonic apostles, Cyril and his brother Methodius, is due to the
fact that the literature which they initiated was available, not for
the lands in which they laboured—Moravia and Pannonia, which no longer
know them—but for Bulgaria and Russia. What Patrick, on the other hand,
and his foreign fellow-workers did was to diffuse a knowledge of Latin
in Ireland. To the circumstance that he adopted this line of policy,
and did not attempt to create a national ecclesiastical language, must
be ascribed the rise of the schools of learning which distinguished
Ireland in the sixth and seventh centuries. From a national point of
view the policy may be criticised; from a theologian’s point of view
the advantage may be urged of opening to the native clergy the whole
body of patristic literature, and saving the trouble of translation and
the chances of error. But the point is that the policy was entirely
consonant with the development of western, as contrasted with eastern,
Christianity. In the time of Patrick there was within the realm of the
Emperor Theodosius II. a Syrian, as well as a Greek, ecclesiastical
literature; in Armenia there was an Armenian; even in Egypt there was a
Coptic; whereas in the realm of his cousin and colleague Valentinian III.
there was only one ecclesiastical language, the speech of Rome itself.
The reason was that Latin had become the universal language, not a mere
_lingua franca_, in the western provinces, a fact which conditioned the
whole growth of western Christendom. In the East, where this unity of
tongue did not exist, no policy was adopted of imposing Greek on any
new people which might be brought into ecclesiastical connexion with
the Church of Constantinople. In the West the ideal of a common church
language was formed, just because, within the Empire, there were no
rivals to Latin, and so it was a matter of course, and not, at first, the
result of a deliberate policy, that the Latin language and literature
should accompany the Gospel. And this community of language powerfully
conduced to the realisation of the _unitas ecclesiae_. The case of
Ireland shows how potent this influence was. If Patrick had called into
being for the Scots a sacred literature such as Cyril initiated for the
Slavs, we may be sure that the tendencies in the Irish Church to strike
out paths of development for itself, which were so strongly marked in
the sixth century, would have been more effective and permanent in
promoting isolation and aloofness, and that the successful movement of
the following century which drew Ireland back into outward harmony and
more active communion with the Western Church would have been beset by
far greater difficulties and might have been a failure. Even if the
reform movement had been carried through in such conditions, there would
have been the danger of a grave schism, like that which rent the Russian
world in the seventeenth century when the reforms of Nicon the Patriarch
were carried, but at the cost of dividing the Church for ever by the
great _raskol_. The history of that episode illustrates the formidable
resistance which a national sacred literature, partly consisting of,
partly based on, translations, can offer to the ideal unity of a
universal religion. If Greek had been originally established as the
ecclesiastical language of Russia in the days of Vladimir, we may surmise
that in the days of Alexius all national peculiarities and deviations
which had been introduced in the meantime could have easily been
corrected without causing the great split. On the other hand, if Gaelic
had been established by Patrick as the ecclesiastical tongue of Ireland,
the reformers who in the seventh century sought to abolish idiosyncrasies
and restore uniformity might have caused a rupture in the Irish Church,
which would have needed long years to heal. The Latin language is one of
the _arcana imperii_ of the Catholic Church.

It is true that the Irish Church moved on certain lines which Patrick
did not contemplate and would not have approved. The development of the
organisation which it was his task to institute was largely modified in
colouring and conformation by the _genius terrae_. But it would be untrue
to say that his work was undone. The schools of learning, for which the
Scots became famous a few generations after his death, learning which
contrasts with his own illiterateness, owe their rise to the contact with
Roman ideas and the acquaintance with Roman literature which his labours,
more than anything else, lifted within the horizon of Ireland. It was not
only the religion, but also the language which was attached to it, that
inaugurated a new period of culture for the island, and opened a wider
outlook on the universe. The Irish were soon busily engaged in trying to
work their own past into the woof of ecumenical history, to synchronise
their insular memories with the annals of Rome and Greece, and find a
nook for their remote land in the story of the world.

These considerations may help to bring into relief the place which
Patrick holds in the history of Europe. Judged by what he actually
compassed, he must be placed along with the most efficient of those who
took part in spreading the Christian faith beyond the boundaries of
the Roman Empire. He was endowed in abundant measure with the quality
of enthusiasm, and stands in quite a different rank from the apostle
of England, in whom this victorious energy of enthusiasm was lacking,
Augustine, the messenger and instrument of Gregory the Great. Patrick
was no mere messenger or instrument. He had a strong personality and the
power of initiative; he depended on himself, or, as he would have said,
on divine guidance. He was not in constant communication with Xystus,
or Leo, or any superior; he was thrown upon the resources of his own
judgment. Yet no less than Augustine, no less than Boniface, he was the
bearer of the _Roman idea_. But we must remember that it was the Roman
idea of days when the Church was still closely bound up in the Empire,
and owed her high prestige to the older institution which had served as
the model for her external organisation. The Pope had not yet become a
spiritual Caesar Augustus, as he is at the present day. In the universal
order, he was still for generations to be overshadowed by the Emperor.
The Roman idea at this stage meant not the idea of subjection to the
Roman see, but of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire. It
was as impossible for Patrick as it was impossible for the High King of
Ireland to divorce the idea of the Church from the idea of the Empire.
Christianity was marked off from all other religions as the religion
of the Romans in the wider political sense of that Imperial name. If
Christianity aspired in theory to be ecumenical, Rome had aspired in
theory to realise universal sway before Christianity appeared. The poet
Claudian, in his brilliant sketch—written when Patrick was a boy—of the
amazing career of Rome, expresses her ecumenical aspiration in the line—

    Humanumque genus communi nomine fouit.[226]

That aspiration was destined to be fulfilled more completely in another
sense after her political decline. The dismemberment of the Empire and
the upgrowth of the German kingdoms brought about an evolution which
enabled the elder Rome to reassert her influence in a new way and a new
order. But it was the same idea, at different stages of development,
which was borne by Patrick, by Augustine, by Boniface, and by Otto.

In this book an attempt has been made to complete the picture of the
transformation which was wrought in Europe, during the century succeeding
the death of the great Theodosius, by showing how, while the visible
fabric of the Empire was being undermined and disjointed, one corner
of Europe which its peace had never reached was brought within the
invisible sway of its influence. We must remember that the phrase
“dismemberment of the Empire” is far from embracing all the aspects of
the momentous events which distinguish that eventful age. The process
of Romanising was going forward actively at the same time. The German
peoples who settled in the western provinces, at first as unwelcome
subjects, soon to become independent nations, were submitted there to the
influences of Roman culture, which were never more active and efficacious
than when the political power of Rome was waning. As the Roman conquest
of the Hellenic world had signified also that the Hellenic idea entered
into a new phase of its influence, so the Teutonic occupation of western
Europe meant a new sphere and a new mode of operation for the ideas which
it was Rome’s function and privilege to bestow upon mankind. And while
Goths and Burgundians, and Franks and Suevians and Vandals, were passing
on Roman soil, in greater or lesser degree, under the ascendency of an
influence which was to be the making of some and perhaps the marring
of others,—an influence which had begun before, but now became more
intense,—the folks of Hiverne were reached by the same ineluctable force.
But, while the Teutons came themselves into Rome’s domain to claim and
make good their rights in the imperial inheritance, the smaller share
which was to fall to the Scots of Ireland was conveyed to their own
gates. It was Patrick with his auxiliaries who bore to their shores the
vessel of Rome’s influence, along with the sacred mysteries of Rome’s
faith. No wonder that his labours should have been almost unobserved in
the days of ecumenical stress and struggle, when the Germans by land and
by sea were engaging the world’s attention, and the Huns were rearing
their vast though transient empire. But he was labouring for the Roman
idea no less than the great Aetius himself, though in another way and
on a smaller scene. He brought a new land into the spiritual federation
which was so closely bound up with Rome, _nexuque pio longinqua
reuinxit_.




APPENDIX A

SOURCES


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

The most important sources for St. Patrick’s Life are contained in a
manuscript known as the _Liber Armachanus_ (preserved in the library
of Trinity College, Dublin), to which frequent reference will be made
in Appendix A. For a full account of this Codex I must refer to the
_Introduction_ to Dr. Gwynn’s definitive, “diplomatic” edition of all the
documents which it contains. It is enough to say here that it was written
in the first half of the ninth century, part of it at least before A.D.
807-8 by Ferdomnach, a scribe of Armagh, who died in A.D. 846. He wrote
by the direction of the Abbot Torbach, and Dr. Gwynn has shown reasons
for believing that the documents relating to Patrick were executed after
Torbach’s death (A.D. 807). These documents were printed by Dr. W. Stokes
in the Rolls edition of _The Tripartite Life of St. Patrick_, Part ii.
(1887); and I have given my references, for the most part, to the pages
of this edition because it is the most convenient and accessible. The
quotations, however, are always taken from Dr. Gwynn’s reproduction of
the text of the MS. Another edition of these Patrician documents by Dr.
E. Hogan was published in vols. i. and ii. of the _Analecta Bollandiana_,
1882-3; see App. A, ii. 3, p. 263. The Irish parts, and the Latin
passages containing Irish names, have been included in the _Thesaurus
Palaeohibernicus_ of Dr. Stokes and Professor Strachan, vol. ii. 238
_sqq._, 259 _sqq._


I


1. _The Confession_

Our most important sources, the only first-hand sources we possess, for
the life of St. Patrick are his own writings, two in number, namely, the
document which is fitly known as his _Confession_ (from its last words,
_haec est confessio mea antequam moriar_), and his _Letter_ against
Coroticus. The motive and contents of the _Confession_ are dealt with in
the text and in subsequent notes. Its tradition and genuineness may be
considered here.

The _Confession_ is preserved in the _Codex Armachanus_ (ff. 22-24) along
with other Patrician documents which will claim our attention. But the
text is not complete. Considerable portions are missing, which are found
in later MSS. There is nothing in these portions to excite suspicion of
their genuineness; in fact we have positive evidence that one of these
missing parts was read in the text of the _Confession_ in the seventh
century, for Tírechán (310₅) refers to a passage (372₃₃) which is not
found in the Armagh MS., and on the other hand there is not the slightest
reason to suppose that the text of these later MSS. does not represent
the full extent of the original work.[227] The question arises, How are
the omissions in the oldest MS. to be accounted for? The theory that
the scribe omitted passages which were illegible in his exemplar cannot
be seriously entertained, as there are no proofs to support it. The
statements made by Todd,[228] Haddan and Stubbs,[229] and Zimmer[230] as
to the obscurity or defectiveness of the copy used by the Armagh scribe
are not borne out by the alleged evidence.[231] The nature and subject
of the omitted passages give us no clue, for, though it might be just
conceivable that one passage was deliberately left out because it refers
to a fault committed by Patrick in his boyhood, the omission of the other
portions cannot be similarly explained; and an explanation which does not
apply to them all will carry no conviction. It seems that the imperfect
state of this text of the _Confession_ may be due to no more recondite
cause than the haste and impatience of the scribe to finish his task.
There may have been some external motive for such haste and carelessness;
and as a matter of fact there is positive evidence that he stopped before
his proposed task was finished. The heading of the _Confession_ is:
_Incipiunt Libri Sancti Patricii Episcopi_. This shows, as has often been
observed, that the scribe intended to copy both the _Confession_ and the
_Letter_ against Coroticus. But he did not fulfil his purpose; he never
copied the _Letter_. The _Confession_ ends on f. 24 vᵒ b; the second
column is a blank; and therefore it is certain that the _Letter_ was
never included in this MS. Further, the paragraph[232] which the scribe
has attached to the end of the _Confession_ ought, possibly, to have
followed the _Letter_, though of course the autograph volumen may have
contained only the _Confession_. It seems then most simple to suppose
that the scribe was hurried, and that in writing out the _Confession_ he
“scamped” his work for the same reason which impelled him to omit copying
the _Letter_.

It is perhaps superfluous now to defend the genuineness of the
_Confession_, especially as Professor Zimmer, the most important critic
who impugned it, now admits it. Two considerations are decisive. (1)
There is nothing in the shape of an anachronism in the document, nothing
inconsistent with its composition about the middle of the fifth century.
(2) As a forgery it would be unintelligible. Spurious documents in the
Middle Ages were manufactured either to promote some interest, political,
ecclesiastical, local, or simply as rhetorical exercises. But the
_Confession_ does not betray a vestige of any ulterior motive; there
is no reference to Armagh, no reference to Rome, no implication of any
interest which could prompt falsification. And what Irish writer in the
sixth century[233] would have composed as a rhetorical exercise, and
attributed to Patrick, a work written in such a rude style? But besides
these considerations, which are decisive, the emotion of the writer is
unmistakable; and I cannot imagine how any reader could fail to recognise
its genuineness.[234]

A critical edition (the first accurate text) has been published by Rev.
N. J. D. White in the _Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_, 1904, to
which I may refer for an account of the MSS. and previous editions.


2. _The Letter against Coroticus_

The other extant work of St. Patrick is the _Letter_, which may be most
conveniently called the “Letter against Coroticus.” It is addressed to
Christian subjects of Coroticus, a ruler in north Britain; its motive
and contents will be dealt with App. B, p. 316. It is not contained in
the Armagh MS., but it was known to Muirchu in the seventh century;
and that the scribe of the Armagh MS. knew it and intended to copy it
may (as pointed out above, p. 226) be justly inferred from the heading
before the _Confession_: incipiunt libri sancti Patricii episcopi. The
document is preserved in a St. Vaast MS., from which it was printed in
the _Acta Sanctorum_ (March 17); in two Fell MSS., which were collated
for the edition of Haddan and Stubbs (_Councils_, ii. 314 _sqq._); and in
a Cottonian MS. (Nero EI), the text of which is given in Stokes’s edition
(_Trip._ vol. ii. 375 _sqq._).

The genuineness of the document[235] seems to be written on its face,
as in the case of the _Confession_; that a falsification should have
taken this form would be inexplicable. An analysis of the language and
style points clearly to the same authorship as the _Confession_; and the
occurrence of such phrases in both documents as _certissime reor_ or the
favourite _utique_ is characteristic of a writer who was _indoctus_ and
had no great command of language. It is noteworthy, and need not excite
suspicion, that in both documents he uses the same formula in describing
himself:—

    _Confession_, 374₃₆, _Patricias peccator indoctus scilicet
    Hiberione_ conscripsit.

    _Letter_, 375₁₁, _Patricias peccator indoctus scilicet
    Hiberione_ constitutus episcopum me esse fateor.

[Critical edition by Rev. N. J. D. White, in _Proc. of R.I.A._ 1904.]


3. _Dicta Patricii_

Besides these two works of St. Patrick, there is preserved (in the _Liber
Armachanus_) a brief section entitled _Dicta Patricii_, consisting of the
three following utterances:—

    I. Timorem Dei habui ducem itineris[236] mei per Gallias atque
    Italiam etiam in insolis quae sunt in mari Tyrreno.[237]

    II. De saeculo recessistis[238] ad paradisum,[239] Deo gratias.

    III. Ecclesia[240] Scotorum, immo Romanorum, ut Christiani
    ita ut Romani sitis, ut decantetur uobiscum oportet, omni
    hora orationis, uox illa laudabilis Cyrie[241] lession,[242]
    Christe lession.[243] Omnis ecclesia[244] quae sequitur me
    cantet Cyrie lession, Christe lession. Deo gratias.

In considering the question of the authenticity of these _dicta_ we
must take into account their position in the _Liber Armachanus_. The
section occurs between Muirchu’s life and Tírechán’s Memoir (see below),
immediately before the beginning of the latter, and consequently I
used to think that the scribe (Ferdomnach) had found them at the end
of the book from which he copied Muirchu’s Life. This assumption,
however, falls to the ground through a brilliant discovery of Dr. Gwynn.
Immediately before the _Dicta Patricii_, occupying the upper and middle
part of the same column (fol. 9 rᵒ a), is a paragraph (_Patricius uenit
... aeclessiae uestrae_) describing acts of Patrick in Connaught. Dr.
Gwynn recognised this as a section belonging to Tírechán’s Memoir (see
below, p. 250), and drew the conclusion that it had been accidentally
omitted from its context by the scribe of the exemplar of Tírechán which
Ferdomnach used, and had been afterwards inserted by that scribe at the
beginning of his MS., whence it was copied by Ferdomnach just as he found
it. The external indications fully confirm Dr. Gwynn’s discovery. (1)
The text of the preceding column (fol. 8 vᵒ b), containing the end of
Muirchu’s Life and some brief additions (obviously entered at the end of
the Muirchu exemplar), terminates before the foot of the column, leaving
seven lines blank. (2) The first word, _Patricius_, in fol. 9 rᵒ a, has
an enormous initial (the type in Dr. Gwynn’s edition fails to do justice
to its size), evidently marking the commencement of a new document.

It follows that the section of the _Dicta Patricii_ was copied into the
_Liber Armachanus_ from the Tírechán exemplar. We must suppose it to
have been written, in that exemplar, on the first page, in a blank space
which still remained after the scribe had written the omitted paragraph
of Tírechán. Now the entry of these _Dicta_ in the book containing
Tírechán’s Memoir may not be without significance, for a passage in this
Memoir furnishes direct evidence bearing upon the first _Dictum_.

Tírechán (see below, Appendix A, ii. 1) consulted a book which was lent
to him by Bishop Ultan of Ardbraccan, and from it he derived a number
of details regarding Patrick’s life before he came as a missionary to
Ireland. We may refer to this book as the _Liber apud Ultanum_,[245] and
its great importance lies in the fact that it is (after the _Confession_)
the earliest work bearing on Patrick’s life for which we have a direct
testimony. In it Tírechán found Patrick’s four names, and doubtless the
summary sketch which he gives of his captivity and travels,[246] and
probably the date of his death. This book existed in Ardbraccan in the
first half of the seventh century.

The account of the captivity in this book depended partly on the
_Confession_. The notice of Patrick’s travels on the Continent is as
follows:—

    Uii aliis annis ambulauit et nauigauit in fluctibus et in
    campistribus locis et in conuallibus montanis _per Gallias
    atque Italiam totam atque in insolis quae sunt in mari
    Terreno_, ut ipse dixit in commemoratione laborum.

The italicised words are identical with words in the first of the _Dicta
Patricii_; and the expression _ut ipse dixit_ permits us to infer that
this _Dictum Patricii_ was accepted before the _Liber apud Ultanum_ was
written (latest date, first half of seventh century).

It has been suggested that the words _in commemoratione laborum_ refer to
some lost work of Patrick. Such an assumption is quite unnecessary. The
words admit of two other explanations. (1) I formerly suggested[247] that
in the _Liber apud Ultanum_ the phrase _commemoratio laborum_ occurred
in reference to the autobiographical details in the _Confession_, and
that Tírechán, not knowing the _Confession_ at first hand, thought that
all the biographical facts furnished by his source were derived from
Patrick’s own account. But (2) I now think that the words _ut ipse ...
laborum_, “as he said himself in describing his labours,” merely refer
to the utterance preserved in the _Dicta Patricii_, and that the first
_Dictum_ was the source of the compiler of the _Liber apud Ultanum_.

I think we may go a step farther, and attempt to answer the question, How
did the _Dicta Patricii_ get into the copy of Tírechán’s Memoir? It seems
not unlikely that they were preserved in the very _Liber apud Ultanum_
which Tírechán used. One would judge from Tírechán’s extracts that it
contained miscellaneous entries about Patrick’s life, and it may well
have contained the _Dicta Patricii_. If so, we can easily understand that
they might have been copied at Ardbraccan from the Ardbraccan book into a
MS. of Tírechán—possibly by Tírechán himself.

It is obvious that these _dicta_ could in no case be correctly described
as a work of Patrick. So far as they were genuine utterances they
must have been remembered, and handed down, or put on paper, by one
of his disciples. The second _dictum_ is certainly Patrician, for it
occurs in the _Letter_ against Coroticus (379₂₂, _Deo gratias: creduli
baptizati de seculo recessistis ad paradisum_). It may be said that it
was simply transcribed from this context. But this assumption is in the
highest degree improbable. If any one conceived the idea of making a
collection of _dicta_, why should he have included only this particular
excerpt?[248] It seems far more likely that these words were a favourite
phrase of Patrick, and that he made use of his favourite phrase in the
_Letter_.

The first _dictum_ is, I have no doubt, genuine also. It is not at all
the sort of thing that any one would think of inventing; there was no
motive. And perhaps readers of the _Confession_ and _Letter_ will not
think me fanciful if I detect a Patrician ring in the words _timorem Dei
habui ducem itineris mei_.[249]

The third saying presents more difficulty. The genuineness of the first
two does not establish any strong presumption in favour of the third;
because if any one desired to father the introduction of a liturgical
practice on Patrick, nothing would have been more natural than to attach
it to the two genuine _dicta_. (In any case, we should be inclined to
reject the second part of the _dictum_, which repeats the first; the
expression _omnis aeclessia quae sequitur me_ suggests a period when
Patrician were strongly contrasted with non-Patrician communities.) The
question turns on the date of the introduction of the _Kyrie eleison_
into the liturgy. We know that it was not introduced into Gaul till not
long before the Council of Vaison in 529. Its use is enacted by the third
canon of this Council, where it is stated that the custom of saying
the _Kyrie_ had been already introduced (_est intromissa_) _tam in sede
apostolica quam etiam per totas orientales atque Italiae provincias_.
This shows that if Patrick introduced it, he got it not from Gaul but
from Rome.[250] Now M. Duchesne observes (_Origines du culte chrétien_,
3rd ed. p. 165, note 2) that the Council seems to regard the chant as
having been _recently_ introduced in Rome and Italy. “Recently” is
vague, but the inference cannot be pressed, since the same phrase _est
intromissa_ embraces the Eastern Churches, where the _Kyrie_ was in use
before the end of the fourth century. The question of the introduction
of the _Kyrie_ in the west has been discussed by Mr. Edmund Bishop, in
two papers in the _Downside Review_ (December 1899, March 1900), to which
Mr. Brightman kindly called my attention. His general conclusion is that
“it spread to the west through Italy, its introduction into Italy falling
in the fifth century at the earliest; probably in the second half rather
than in the first.” The truth is that there is no evidence what the Roman
divine service was, in its details, in the fifth century; and therefore
it is possible to hold that the _dictum_ of Patrick may be genuine, and
a testimony that the _Kyrie_ was used at Rome in the first half of that
century.

But while we admit this possibility, we can hardly build upon it. It must
be acknowledged that the expression _aeclessia Scotorum immo Romanorum_
suggests seventh or eighth century. If it is Patrician, _Romanorum_
ought to mean the Church of the Roman Empire. For it is very difficult
to conceive Patrick associating the Irish Church with Rome as opposed to
Gaul and the rest of western Christendom. But in this context _Romanorum_
(and _Romani_) supplies the ground for using the _Kyrie_, and would
therefore logically stand in contradistinction to Gaul and other parts of
the Empire where the _Kyrie_ was not in use.

Again, the tenor of this _dictum_ is in marked contrast to the other
two. It is not an emotional expression of Patrick’s experience, but an
ecclesiastical injunction. The _Deo gratias_ at the end is out of place.

On the whole I am strongly disposed to think that the third _dictum_
is spurious and was added, perhaps, after A.D. 700, to the two genuine
_dicta_.

I may refer in this connexion to the important discussion of the Stowe
Missal by Dr. B. MacCarthy in the _Transactions of the Royal Irish
Academy_, 1886, vol. xxvii. 135 _sqq._, a paper which seems to have
entirely escaped the notice of M. Duchesne. His general conclusion is
that the mass, which is the oldest part of the MS.—and which he separates
as B_ₐ_—is as old as the first half of the fifth century (pp. 164-5),
and he considers it to be the mass introduced by Patrick. He dates the
transcription to the seventh century (after A.D. 628).


4. _Ecclesiastical Canons of St. Patrick_

It would be strange if the organisers of the Church in Ireland in the
fifth century had not held synods, or some substitute for synods, and
committed their resolutions to writing;[251] and if so, there would be
every probability that the _Acta_ or canons would have been extant in the
eighth century, and would have been perfectly well known to the bishops
and clergy who sat in the synods of the seventh and eighth centuries; for
it was not till the ninth century that the destruction of books began
through the devastations of the Northmen.

It was clearly one of Patrick’s duties to take measures to establish and
secure harmony and unity of ecclesiastical administration between the
north of Ireland, the special field of his own activity, and the south,
which lay outside his immediate sphere of operations.

As a matter of fact, we possess evidence which, if it is genuine, records
a “synod” or meeting in which Patrick was concerned; but it has been
called in question, and is generally rejected. Nevertheless the last word
has not been said.

The evidence is twofold.

(1) We have thirty canons preserved in a MS. which once belonged to the
cathedral library of Worcester, and is now MS. 279 in the library of
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. It was written on the continent in the
ninth or tenth century, and an account of it and its contents will be
found in _The Early Collection of Canons known as the Hibernensis, two
Unfinished Papers, by Henry Bradshaw_, 1893. These canons are usually
described as the acts of a synod—Synodus I. Patricii—and were printed
inaccurately in the collections of Spelman (i. 52 _sqq._) and Wilkins (i.
2-3). An accurate text is given in Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, ii.
328-30.

The document begins thus:

    Gratias agimus Deo patri et filio et spiritui sancto.
    Presbiteris et diaconibus et omni clero Patricius Auxilius
    Isserninus episcopi salutem.

    Satius nobis negligentes praemonere [quam] culpare que facta
    sunt, Solamone dicente, Melius est arguere quam irasci. Exempla
    difinitionis nostrae inferius conscripta sunt et sic inchoant.

The canons follow.

Thus the document professes to be a circular letter addressed by
Patricius, Auxilius, and Iserninus to the clergy, and embodying
ecclesiastical rules and penalties on which the three bishops agreed. It
seems misleading to describe these rules as the canons of a synod; they
are canons laid down by a conclave of three bishops whose authority was
acknowledged, and a conclave of three bishops is not a synod in the usual
sense of the term.

It may be observed, before going farther, that the preface, instead of
arousing suspicion, prepossesses us in favour of the genuineness of the
document. Conferences and co-operation between Patrick and the southern
bishops Auxilius and Iserninus are, as I hinted above, just what we
should expect; and a forger who, say in the eighth century, desired to
foist upon Patrick canons of later origin would have been much less
likely to associate Patrick with these two bishops than with others, such
as Benignus, who appeared more conspicuously in the story of his life.
We may fairly argue that, if the canons themselves should turn out to be
spurious, at all events the forger must have founded his superscription
on the fact that genuine canons had been issued by the three bishops.
Consequently, the superscription seems to me, in any case, to be evidence
for the co-operation of Patricius, Auxilius, and Iserninus in organising
the Church in Ireland.

The early date of the canons was rejected by Todd, who assigned them
to the ninth or tenth century (pp. 486-8), by Haddan and Stubbs, who
place their origin between A.D. 716 and A.D. 777 or 809 (ii. 331, z),
and by Wasserschleben (_Die irische Kanonensammlung_, ed. 2, p. 1.).
Todd brought forward three arguments: (1) the injunction in canon 6
that clergy should wear the Roman tonsure; (2) the implication of “a
more near approach to diocesan jurisdiction, as well as a more settled
state of Christianity in the country than was possible in the days of
St. Patrick”; (3) the reference in canon 25 to the offerings made to the
bishop (_pontificialia dona_) as a _mos antiquus_. Haddan and Stubbs add
as another argument a point noticed by Todd, but not pressed by him as an
objection, that (4) canon 33 must have been enacted “when the Britons and
the Irish had become estranged, _scil._ by the adoption of Roman customs
by the latter (north as well as south) while the former retained the
Celtic ones”; and hence they derive their limits of date mentioned above.

Now, if we admit that all these objections are valid, it would not
necessarily follow that the whole document is spurious. There is the
alternative possibility that the document as a whole is genuine, but
interpolated. The interpolations would amount to canons 25, 30, 33, 34,
and a clause in canon 6.

Before I proceed to criticise the arguments of Todd, and Haddan and
Stubbs against the genuineness of the document, it will be convenient
to state the other evidence for Patrick’s activity in the shaping of
ecclesiastical canons, as it has a close and immediate bearing on the
present question.

       *       *       *       *       *

(2) The _Collectio Canonum Hibernensis_, which has been admirably edited
by Wasserschleben (_Die irische Kanonensammlung_, ed. 2, 1885), was put
together, it is generally agreed, at the end of the seventh or in the
first years of the eighth century. The external evidence is that two of
the thirteen manuscripts which contain the collection were written in the
eighth century. The internal evidence is that the latest authors cited
are Theodore of Tarsus (_ob._ 690) and Adamnan (_ob._ 704);[252] none of
Bede’s works are cited. As for the place of its origin, Wasserschleben
and Bradshaw, though they differed otherwise, agreed that it originated
in Ireland, while Loofs (_De antiqua Britonum Scotorumque ecclesia_, p.
76) argued for Northumbria on the insufficient grounds that the headings
_Hibernenses_, _Synodus Hibernensis_, implied an origin outside Ireland,
and that an Irish compiler would hardly have been acquainted with the
_Penitential_ of Theodore. A rubric in a Paris MS. (which came from
Corbie and was written in Brittany) may contain a clue:

    Hucusq; Nuben et cv. cuiminiae & du rinis.

Bradshaw infers that the collection was compiled by “an Irish monk or
abbot of Dairinis” near Youghal. Dr. W. Stokes acutely saw that the name
of Cucummne, a learned ecclesiastic (_ob._ 742 or 747, _Ann. Ult._) is
concealed in the corruption; and also amended _Ruben_ (_Academy_, July
14, 1888). Mr. Nicholson, in an ingenious article in the _Zeitschr. für
kelt. Philologie_, iii. 99 _sqq._ (1899), amends thus:

    _Hucusq; Ruben et cucuimini iae et durinis_,

and finds the names of Rubin (_ob._ 725) and “Cucuimne of Ia” (Hy). He
concludes that the collection was compiled in Hy and probably by Adamnan.
The question need not be discussed here, since for the present purpose it
is indifferent whether the compilation was made in Ireland or in Hy.

The Collection has been characterised by Bradshaw as “an attempt, and
there seems good ground for looking upon it as a first attempt, to form
a digest of all available authorities, from Holy Scripture, from the
decisions of Councils, native and foreign, and from Church writers,
native and foreign, arranged methodically under sixty-five several
titles; though the method has not been carried out so fully as to produce
an arrangement of the titles themselves in any but the most accidental
sequence” (_Early Collection of Canons_, p. 6).

A survey of the sources will be found in Wasserschleben’s Introduction.
Native sources are referred to under the headings _Hibernenses_, _Sinodus
Hibernensis_, _Patricius_, and also with other superscriptions which will
be mentioned below.

Among the canons attributed to _Patricius_ we find fourteen items which
are contained in the circular epistle of Patricius, Auxilius, and
Iserninus:

    _Patr., Aux., Is._   _Hibernensis._

        Preface          66. 18. a, b
          1              42. 25. c
          4              42. 26. a
          5              42. 26. a
          6 b            52. 7
          8              34. 2. b
         11              39. 10. b
         12              40. 8
         14              28. 10. c
         20              33. 1. e
         24              43. 4
         28              40. 9
         31              10. x
         34 b (cp. 3)    39. 11

It is to be observed that 43. 4 = 24 is quoted as from _Sinodus
Patricii_. Another canon of the Patrician conclave is also cited in the
Hibernensis, but under a different title, which will be noticed below.

Thus the evidence of the Hibernensis establishes that a considerable
portion of the matter in the circular letter of the three bishops was
held to be of Patrician origin (_c._ A.D. 700), and consequently it
would be impossible to accept the date assigned by Haddan and Stubbs for
the circular letter except in the sense that some interpolations might
have been introduced in the course of the eighth century.

The question now arises as to how far we can, _prima facie_, trust the
compiler of the Hibernensis as to the Patrician origin of the canons
which he labels Patrician, and which are also found in the circular
letter. In estimating the value of his evidence, one consideration, it
seems to me, is very important. There is another set of canons (extant
in more than one MS.) ascribed to Patrick, and generally referred to as
_Synodus II. Patricii_.[253] Of these thirty-one canons, nine are quoted
in the Hibernensis, but in no case attributed to Patrick; three others
are quoted in one MS. of the later recension (B-text) of the Hibernensis,
namely, in the Valicellanus (tenth century), and one of them is there
ascribed to Patrick. The correspondence is shown in the following
table:—[254]

    _Syn. II._
    _Patricii._             _Hibernensis._

        2     2. 23:      Sinodus Romana
        3    47. 8. d:    Romani
        4    40. 1. c:    Sinodus Romana
        8    28. 14. d:   Sinodus Romanorum
      [10    11. 1. b:    Sinodus]
      [11    47. 20:      Sinodus Romana]
       14    12. 15. c:   Sinodus
      [17    47. 20:      Paterius (Patricius)]
       23    35. 3:       Dominus in evangelio
       24    16. 4:       Sinodus Romana
       25    46. 35. b:   Romani
       30    36. 8:       Sinodus

The circumstance that the Hibernensis ascribes to Patricius the canons
(with one exception) which it quotes from “Synodus I.,” and does not
ascribe to him the canons which it quotes from “Synodus II.,” is a fact
which places the two “Synods” on a different footing, and furnishes a
certain _prima facie_ evidence in favour of the circular letter known as
Synodus I. For the claim of Synodus II. to authenticity is invalidated by
the fact that one canon (27) is in direct contradiction with a passage in
Patrick’s _Confession_.[255]

It will be observed that most of the quotations in the Hibernensis
which correspond to canons of Synodus II. are ascribed to _Romani_ or
_Sinodus Romana_. These headings are frequent in the Hibernensis,
and it is important to determine what they mean. There are, I think,
twelve quotations of this kind[256] which have been identified in
non-Irish sources, mostly in the _Statuta ecclesiae antiqua_. There are,
as shown in the above table, six quotations corresponding to canons
of Irish origin included in Synodus II. There is one quotation under
_Sinodus Romana_, 33. 1. e, which is found in the circular letter of
the three bishops. There are twenty-two (25) quotations which cannot be
controlled.[257] There seems to be no case in which a canon referred to
as _Sinodus Romana_ can be discovered in the Acts of a synod held at Rome.

Thus out of forty-two (45) “Roman” headings, it is remarkable that only
twelve can be identified in non-Irish sources, and of these four are
from non-Roman councils, six from the _Statuta eccl. ant._, two from the
decrees of a bishop of Rome. Seven others are from Irish sources. It
seems, on the face of it, much more likely that most of the remaining
quotations which have not been identified were derived from native
sources, seeing that the Acts of the Irish synods before A.D. 700 have
not been preserved; it is hardly likely that so many as twenty-two (25)
citations of this kind from foreign sources would remain unidentified.

There is a particular indication which seems to me of some significance;
33. 1. e cites a canon found in the circular letter of the three bishops
(can. 20), as from _Sinodus Romana_. 33. 1. f follows with a quotation,
evidently from the same context and under the heading _item_, but not
found in the circular letter.[258] The inference, I submit, is that both
sections are quoted from the Acts of an Irish synod, in which the canon
found in the circular letter was adopted, but without a reference to its
origin.

The only theory which seems to me to cover all the facts is that in the
Hibernensis, _Sinodus Romana_ (or _Romani_) designates synods held in
Ireland[259] in the seventh century in the interest of Roman reform,
and under the influence of its advocates. This view will explain the
two categories of canons which can be identified as of Irish origin,
and canons which are unidentified. It is also perfectly consistent with
the fact that twelve canons have been identified in foreign sources,
only that we have to suppose that the compiler took them, not from the
original sources, but from the Acts of Irish synods at which they were
adopted.

We may infer that the document known as _Synodus II. Patricii_ was taken
from the Acts of an Irish synod of the seventh century.

       *       *       *       *       *

Before we leave the Hibernensis, it must be mentioned that it contains
a number of other canons ascribed to Patrick which do not appear in
the circular letter. They are fourteen in number,[260] besides two
which are found only in one or two MSS.[261] The two most remarkable
of these quotations (chapters entitled _de eo quod malorum regum opera
destruantur_ and _de eo quod bonorum regum opera aedificent_)[262] are
found in the pseudo-Patrician treatise _De Abusionibus Saeculi_, c.
9.[263] The most important is 20. 5. b, ordaining an appeal to Rome (cp.
chap. iii. § A, and App. C, 16).

       *       *       *       *       *

The question has now to be considered whether the objections which
have been urged against the circular letter of Patricius, Auxilius,
and Iserninus amount to a valid proof that it is spurious or has been
interpolated.

(1) The sixth canon of this letter enjoins, under penalty of separation
from the Church, that the tonsure of clerics be _more Romano_. We
know that in the seventh century the Celtic tonsure _de aure ad aurem_
prevailed in the Irish, as in the British, Church, and this was one of
the chief questions in the Roman controversy. The conclusion has been
generally drawn that this was the tonsure of Irish clerics in the fifth
century, and that the Roman tonsure, the _corona_ (supposed to be an
imitation of the _spinea Christi corona_), was not known in Ireland until
the victory of the Roman party in the seventh century. This conclusion
relies on the support of a text in the _Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae_,
where it is said that in the first period of the Irish Church, including
the time of Patrick, one tonsure _ab aure usque ad aurem_ was worn (H.
and S., _Councils_, ii. p. 292). The particular statements, however, of
this document are not decisive. If this statement were entirely true, it
would follow that Patrick permitted or acquiesced in the native form of
tonsure, and cannot have promulgated the canon in question.

Another possibility, however, must be considered. It is equally
conceivable that (as Ussher held)[264] the native tonsure might have been
condemned by Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus—men who had been trained
on the continent, under Gallic and Roman influences—and that after their
time the prepossession of the Irish in favour of the native pagan tonsure
prevailed, and the prohibition of the three bishops became a dead letter.

It might therefore be argued that, if no other evidence is forthcoming,
and if there are no other insuperable objections to the circular letter,
the canon concerning the tonsure cannot be declared non-Patrician, but
that, on the contrary, we are entitled to appeal to it as a proof that
the foreign tonsure was introduced in the days of Patrick.

There is, however, a striking and interesting piece of positive evidence
which has been quite overlooked because it requires some interpretation.
It occurs in the Memoir of Tírechán, who, it is to be remembered,
belonged to the north of Ireland, and wrote before that part of the
island adopted Roman usages (see below, p. 248). The passage occurs in
_Lib. Arm._ f. 12 rᵒ a (Rolls ed. p. 317). The conversion and tonsure of
the two brothers Caplait and Mael is there recounted. Caplait believed
first, _et capilli eius ablati sunt_. Then Mael was converted:

    Et ablati sunt capilli capitis illius id norma magica in capite
    uidebatur airbacc ut dicitur giunnae.

This passage seems slightly corrupt, and it is not known what exactly the
_norma magica_, called in Irish _airbacc giunne_, was. This, however,
does not concern our present purpose. Mael, like Caplait, was shorn of
his hair. As both Mael and Caplait were magicians or Druids, they already
bore the native tonsure from ear to ear (the name Mael, tonsured one,
implies this), and the Christian tonsuring must evidently have removed
the hair from the back part of their head. Thus the story as told by
Tírechán and his source implies the tradition of a distinction between
the native and the Christian tonsure of Ireland in the time of St.
Patrick.

But the explanatory remark which Tírechán adds to his story throws new
light on the whole matter. He says:

    De hoc est uerbum quod clarius est omnib[us] uerbis Scoticis:
    similis est caluus contra caplit.

The _Tripartite Life_ (Rolls ed. 104₆) gives the proverb in the Irish
form: “cosmail Mael do Chaplait.”

A moment’s consideration will show that Tírechán cannot be right in
supposing that this saw “Mael is like to Caplait” arose out of the
story which he tells. Both Mael and Caplait were magicians converted
to Christianity and tonsured under Patrick’s direction; in this they
resembled each other; but how could such a resemblance become enshrined
in a popular saying, unless there were some typical contrast to give
it a point? There is, however, no contrast in the story, except that
Mael was more obstinate and aggressive, and was converted subsequently
to his brother. We cannot hesitate to conclude that the saying did not
arise from the story, but, as we should _a priori_ expect, the story was
invented (or adapted) to account for the saying. What was the origin of
the saying?

The clue lies in our hands. _Caplait_ is a loan word from the Latin
_capillatus_ “de-capillated, shorn”; and a proverb declaring that the
_mael_ is like to the _caplait_ proves that the two were not the same.
The _mael_ being the man with the native tonsure, the _caplait_ was the
man with a foreign tonsure, as his foreign name implies. This proverb,
which was current in the seventh century, preserves the memory of a
Christian tonsure (distinct from the native) formerly used in Ireland.

But the proverb gives us still more information than this. It directly
confirms the view, which I suggested above as possible, that the foreign
tonsure was at first (in Patrick’s time) enforced, and afterwards yielded
to the native one. The proverb is evidently a surviving witness of the
struggle (probably in the latter part of the fifth century) between the
two forms of tonsure. The clerics who clung to native customs cried:
There is no distinction between a _mael_ and a _caplait_—that is, the
old national tonsure is as good a mark of his calling for the Christian
cleric as the foreign tonsure which removes all the hair from the crown.

The story of the conversion of the two magicians, as told by Tírechán,
was evidently designed to illustrate this proverb, but without any
comprehension of the proverb’s real significance. In other words, it
was invented, or reshaped, at a time when the native tonsure had so
completely ousted its rival that men almost forgot that there had been a
rival. The story indeed bears upon it an obvious mark of manufacture, in
that it represents one of the Druids as named Caplait. He could not have
borne this name till after his conversion. That the story was entirely
invented for the purpose of explaining the proverb is extremely unlikely.
I suggest as probable that in the original story there was only one
Druid, who on his conversion received the Christian tonsure, and thus
from being _Mael_ became _Caplait_. The proverb suggested the duplication
of Mael-Caplait into two brethren.

       *       *       *       *       *

It is another question—and for the present purpose does not
matter—whether the Christian tonsure of the fifth century was the tonsure
of the seventh century, the _corona_, or not. It may have been a total
shaving of the head, no fringe being left. The earliest mention of the
_corona_ seems to occur in Gregory of Tours, _Liber Vitae Patrum_, xvii.
1 (p. 728, ed. M.G.H.), and it may not have become general before the
sixth century. We have no particulars as to the exact nature of the
tonsure referred to in Socrates, _H.E._, 3. 1. 9, or in Salvian, _De gub.
Dei_, 8. 21. Once the coronal tonsure was introduced in the west,[265]
the total tonsure was distinguished as the Greek or St. Paul’s tonsure
(see Bede, _H.E._, iv. 1); but it seems not improbable that the total
tonsure was universal in the early part, at all events, of the fifth
century. There is a passage in Tírechán which seems to me to preserve the
memory of the practice of total tonsure in the days of St. Patrick. It is
the name of Patrick’s charioteer, fol. 13 vᵒ b (322)₂₆:

    Et sepiliuit illum aurigam totum id totmael caluum.

The hybrid name _Tot-mael_ contrasts the Christian tonsure with the
native semi-tonsure, but it suggests total rather than coronal tonsure.
It is, in any case, another undesigned testimony to the difference
between the ecclesiastical and the native tonsures in Patrick’s time;
while it possibly indicates that the _mos Romanus_ introduced into
Ireland in the fifth century may have been partially different from the
_mos Romanus_ which was reintroduced in the seventh.

But the passage in Tírechán on which I have commented appears to me to
demonstrate that the foreign tonsure had at one time been customary for
clerics in Ireland; and therefore the objection to the genuineness of the
circular letter, which has been founded on the inclusion of a canon on
this subject, falls to the ground.

(2) The second objection urged by Todd is that some of the canons imply
a nearer approach to diocesan jurisdiction, and a more settled state
of Christianity, than was possible in the days of St. Patrick. (So far
as a relatively settled state of Christianity is concerned, it must be
remembered that Todd did not realise how far Christianity had spread in
Ireland before St. Patrick; and if we take into account that the letter
of the three bishops is designed both for those parts of the island where
Christian communities had existed many years before, as well as for those
(like Connaught) where churches had only recently been planted, there is
nothing in the canons that need surprise us on this head).

The canons which imply spheres of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are 30 and
34:—

    30. Aepiscopus quislib_et_ qui de sua in alteram progreditur
    parruchia_m_ nec ordinare p_rae_sumat nisi p_er_missionem
    acceperit ab eo qui in suo principatu[m] _est_; die dominica
    offerat tantum susceptione et obsequi hic contentus sit.

    34. Diaconus nobiscu_m_ similiter qui inconsultu suo abbate
    sine litteris in aliam parruchiam absentat [MS. adsentiat] nec
    cibum ministrare dec_et_ et a suo p_re_sbitero quem contempsit
    per penitentiam uindic_et_ur.

The first of these canons implies that a bishop has a defined _paruchia_
and that he cannot perform episcopal acts in another _paruchia_ without
the permission of its _princeps_. The second deals with the case of a
deacon belonging to a monastic community, the head of which is not a
bishop but a presbyter; he is forbidden to betake himself to another
district without a letter from his abbot.

Canon 30 corresponds to the 22nd canon of the Council of Antioch (A.D.
341, Mansi, _Conc._, ii. 649), ἐπίσκοπον μὴ ἐπιβαίνειν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πόλει ...
εἰ μὴ ἄρα μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ οἰκείου τής χώρας ἐπισκόπου.[266] _Paruchia_
means an episcopal diocese[267] as in Eusebius, _Hist. ecc._ v. 33, 1
and 3. For the considerations which show that Patrick must have defined
spheres of episcopal jurisdiction, I must refer to Excursus 18 in
Appendix C on the Patrician Episcopate.

In canon 34 _paruchia_ seems to have a different meaning, and refer to
the district which the church of the abbot’s monastery served. It is the
district of a presbyter, not of a bishop. This ambiguity would not be
fatal to the genuineness of the canon. In the passage of Eusebius, cited
above, παροικίαι also occurs in the sense of rural districts, several of
which were under one bishop, as Duchesne has pointed out.[268] But the
canon may well be a later addition to the genuine document, belonging to
an age when the monastic communities had acquired greater importance.

(3) The _mos antiquus_ of canon 25 may refer not to Ireland but to the
Christian Church generally.

(4) Another objection is founded on canon 33, which enjoins:

    Clericus qui de Britanis ad nos ueniat sine epistola etsi
    habit_et_ in plebe non licitum ministrare.

It is suggested that this must belong to a period when the British and
Irish churches were estranged by the latter’s adoption of Roman customs,
that is, not earlier than A.D. 716. I cannot see the cogency of this
argument. The canon does not seem to me to imply hostility to the British
Church, but to be a natural precaution and safeguard against unauthorised
and possibly heretical clerics coming over from Britain. It is an
application to Irish circumstances of the 7th canon of the Council of
Antioch (Mansi, ii. 644), μηδένα ἄνευ εἰρηνικῶν δέχεσθαι τῶν ξένων.[269]
In Patrick’s time, when there was Pelagianism in Britain, some such
precaution may have been specially necessary; and it is conceivable that
a case of a heretic coming over to Ireland and attempting to propagate
his views may have occurred and called forth this ordinance. The words
_sine epistola_ (ἄνευ εἰρηνικῶν) show that no hostility to the British
Church is implied.

The outcome of this investigation is that the case for rejecting the
circular letter of the three bishops on internal evidence breaks down;
and otherwise an early date is suggested, as Todd admits when he says
that some of the canons “were certainly written during the predominance
of paganism in the country.” Hence, the external evidence being in its
favour, we need not hesitate to accept the document as authentic.


[Note on the _Liber de Abusionibus Saeculi_]

This treatise[270] is ascribed to Patrick in some MSS., but the
authorship has been generally rejected, on account of the Latin style,
which is very different from that of the _Confession_ and the _Letter_,
and on account of the Scriptural quotations, which are taken from St.
Jerome’s version. In itself, the difference in the quality of the Latin
might not be decisive, for we have a conspicuous example of similar
difference in style between the _Historia Francorum_ and the _Gloria
Martyrum_ of Gregory of Tours.

In MSS. this treatise is variously ascribed to Cyprian and Augustine.
The external evidence for Cyprian is best, because Jonas of Orleans, who
lived in the first half of the ninth century, quotes it as Cyprian’s: _De
institutione regia_, c. 3, Migne, _P.L._ 106, 288-9. This testimony and
the testimonies of the MSS. are directly contradicted by the internal
evidence, namely, by the Scriptural citations from the Vulgate, which
render the authorship of Cyprian or Augustine untenable.

There is earlier evidence which points in a different direction. In the
eighth century the tract was regarded as the work of Patrick both in
Ireland and in Gaul. (1) The ninth Abuse is quoted almost entirely in the
_Hibernensis_ (above, p. 239) and ascribed to Patricius. (2) Extracts
from the same section are quoted in a letter of Cathuulfus (apparently
otherwise unknown), addressed _c._ A.D. 775 to King Charles the Great,
and preserved in a ninth-century MS. (_Epp. Karolini Aevi_, ii. p. 503.
The editor, E. Dümmler, leaves the quotation unidentified).

This evidence proves that the treatise is older than A.D. 700, and
strongly suggests that its origin is Irish, that it was ascribed in
Ireland to Patrick, and travelled to Gaul under his name. The twelfth
Abuse, _populus sine lege_, is consonant with the origin of the work
outside the Roman Empire.


5. _Irish Hymn ascribed to Patrick_

The LORICA of St. Patrick is an unmetrical quasi-poetical composition of
great antiquity. It is called the _Faeth Fiada_, interpreted the “Deer’s
Cry,” and hence the Preface in the _Liber Hymnorum_ connects the hymn
with the story of the deer metamorphosis in Muirchu (p. 282). But it
seems (cp. Atkinson, _Lib. Hymn._ ii. 209) that the phrase really meant a
spell or charm which had the power of rendering invisible, and that the
story of the deer arose from a popular etymology.

We need not hesitate to identify this work with the _canticum Scotticum_
which was current before the ninth century under Patrick’s name, as we
learn from a note in the _Liber Armachanus_ (p. 333₁₀). Whether Patrick
was really the author was another question. The verdict of Professor
Atkinson is as follows:—

“It is probably a genuine relic of St. Patrick. Its uncouthness of
grammatical forms is in favour of its antiquity. We know that Patrick
used very strange Irish, some of which has been preserved; and the
historians who handed down _mudebroth_ as an ejaculation of his would
probably take care to copy as faithfully as they could the other curious
Irish forms which the saint had consecrated by his use” (_Lib. Hymn._ ii.
p. lviii).

If it can be proved that some of the forms in the _Lorica_ could not
have been used by a native Irish writer, this would be a very strong
argument for its composition by Patrick. It seems possible that
Patrick’s expression _mudebroth_ was remembered as the solecism of a
foreigner. “The oath _dar mo De broth_ is mere jargon; _De broth_ ought
to mean something like ‘God’s doom-day’; but even then there would be a
difficulty, because the genitive _Dé_ could not precede its governing
noun” (Atkinson, _ib._ ii. 179).

It may be said, then, that the Lorica _may_ have been composed by
Patrick; but in any case it is an interesting document for the spirit of
early Christianity in Ireland.

The latest editions are Atkinson’s in the _Liber Hymnorum_ (i. 133
_sqq._) with translation (ii. 49 _sqq._), and that of Stokes and Strachan
in _Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus_, vol. ii. 353 _sqq._


6. _Hymn of St. Sechnall_

The Latin HYMN of St. Sechnall or Secundinus, the coadjutor of
Patrick,[271] preserved in the MSS. of the _Liber Hymnorum_, is certainly
very ancient. It might be rash to affirm that its ascription to
Secundinus is correct; but Patrick is spoken of throughout as if he were
alive, and the absence of all references to particular acts of the saint
or episodes in his life confirms the view that it was composed before
his death; hymnographers of later times would hardly have omitted such
references. There is no mention of miracles. As the author thus confined
himself to generalities, the hymn supplies no material for Patrick’s
biography. It is worth while noticing that, if the hymn is contemporary,
as it seems to be, the verse

    Testis Domini fidelis in lege Catholica

may be allusive to the event commemorated in _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 441 (see
below, p. 367).

The hymn, in trochaic metre, is unrhymed, and does not exhibit the
characteristics of later Latin hymns composed in Ireland. It takes no
account of elision, or quantity, except in the penultimate syllable of
the verse, which is always short.[272]

The best text will be found in Bernard and Atkinson, _Liber Hymnorum_, i.
3 _sqq._ On the metre see Atkinson, _ib._ xiii., xiv.


7. _Life of Germanus, by Constantius_

Constantius, who wrote the Life of Germanus of Auxerre, has a place in
literary history, for Sidonius Apollinaris published his Letters at his
suggestion and dedicated them to him. Constantius (for whose character
see Sidonius, iii. 2) composed the Life at the wish of Patiens, Bishop of
Lyons (who also appears in the correspondence of Sidonius), and one of
the two letters which are prefixed to the Life is addressed to Patiens.
The other is addressed to a Bishop Censurius (see Sidonius, vi. 10). The
episcopate of Patiens gives the years 450 and _c._ 490 as the limits
for the composition of the work, but the author implies in the first
prefatory letter that some time had elapsed since the death of Germanus.
W. Levison (_Neues Archiv_ 29, pp. 97 _sqq._ 1903) suggests (p. 112) _c._
480 or some years later as the probable date.

The editions of the Life in the collection of Surius (iv. 405 _sqq._, ed.
1573) and the _Acta Sanctorum_ (July 7, p. 200 _sqq._) do not represent
the original work, but a text with extensive additions. The older text
of Mombritius (_Sanctuarium_, i. 319 _sqq._ 1480) comes much nearer to
the original (Levison, p. 101). The original work is preserved, without
the later interpolations, in various MSS., and its extent was recently
defined by the Bollandists, _Bibl. hagiographica Latina_, i. 515, _n._
3453, cp. ii. 1354. A critical edition is promised in the last volume of
the _Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum_ (M.G.H.), but in the meantime Dr.
Levison has given not only the results of his researches on the MSS.,
but also a study of the Life in the important monograph cited above. The
compass of the original work, and the subsequent additions, are set out
clearly in tabular form on p. 113.

The motive of the Life—its main interest for its author—was to represent
Germanus as a miracle-worker; he states as his object (in the letter
to Patiens) _profectui omnium mirabilium exempla largiri_. The Life
accordingly is full of miracles, and largely of typical miracles, some of
which have a pronounced family likeness to some recorded in the Life of
St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus (Levison, pp. 114 _sqq._). Constantius
forms no exception to the general rule that authors of hagiographies
did not condescend to trouble themselves with chronology; there is not
a single date in the book. But the main outline of the biography—though
there may be inaccuracies in detail (cp. note, p. 297)—seems to be
trustworthy, and has sustained the detailed criticism to which it has
been subjected by Levison.


II


1. _Memoir of Patrick, by Tírechán_

The earliest extant document that gives an account of St. Patrick’s
life is a memoir written in the second half of the seventh century
by TÍRECHÁN, a bishop, who had been the alumnus or disciple of
Bishop Ultan of Ardbraccan in Meath. He speaks of Ultan as no longer
living,[273] so that his work was compiled after A.D. 657, the year of
Ultan’s death.[274] The mention of the recent plague (_mortalitates
novissimae_) suggests that Tírechán was engaged on his memoir soon
after the disastrous years A.D. 664-668.[275] The presumption is that
it was compiled in the late sixties or the seventies; and as there is
a presumption that Muirchu’s biography (see below) was composed in the
eighties or nineties, there is a presumption that Tírechán’s work is
earlier than Muirchu’s. At all events, we may take it as highly probable
that it was not later.

Tírechán was attached to some community in north Connaught, probably in
Tirawley.[276] His memoir, which is incomplete,[277] is divided into two
books, of which the first (after a preliminary summary of Patrick’s early
life) deals with the saint’s work in Meath, the second mainly with his
work in Connaught.

The first was probably compiled in Meath, the second certainly in
Connaught.[278] The author wrote in the interests of the _paruchia
Patricii_ (diocese of Patrician communities), of which Armagh claimed
to be the head. He speaks of attacks and encroachments made upon that
paruchia, and asserts the theory that by divine donation almost the whole
island belongs to it.[279] The object of his work is to set forth the
circumstances of the foundations of communities of Patrician origin, and
for this purpose he collected material. Much of it he may have collected
“on the spot,” and he may have travelled to gather local traditions with
a view to his work.[280] We know from his own statements that he had
visited Armagh, Tara, Alofind, Saeoli, L. Selce, Baslick.[281] We know
that he derived information not only from Bishop Ultan but from many
_seniores_[282] whom he consulted, presumably, in different places.

But he used written sources as well as oral traditions.

1. For his prefatory account of Patrick’s early life he refers to a book
in the possession of Bishop Ultan,[283] of which I have spoken above
(p. 229). It is uncertain whether his reference to the _Confession_
in another place (310₅, _in scriptione sua_) implies a first-hand
acquaintance with that document; the reference might have been derived
from the book of Ultan, which contained matter based on the _Confession_.

2. Certain passages in Tírechán are based on common sources with
corresponding passages in Muirchu.[284] These sources were in Irish (see
below, p. 258).

3. Two chronological passages imply written sources.[285]

4. Epigraphic source: inscribed stones near L. Selce.[286]

5. The confusion which I have traced in Tírechán (see Appendix C, 13)
between different journeys of Patrick in Connaught can be most easily
explained by assuming that he had some older written notes before him.

6. In the same paper in which I pointed out the use of Irish poetical
sources by Muirchu (“Sources of the Early Patrician Documents,” _E.H.R._,
July 1904) I showed that the story of the conversion of Loigaire’s
daughters is a Latin reproduction of an Irish poetical source, the
evidence being of the same nature as in the case of the Muirchu passages,
namely, graphic indications in the _Liber Armachanus_, combined with
the rhythmic, assonant, quasi-poetical character of the Latin. There is
perhaps some room for doubt whether it was Latinised by Tírechán himself
or by an intervener.

7. Written sources are implied by the author’s uncertainty as to numerals
in three passages (302₃₀, 321₁, 300₂₇ [see next paragraph]).

       *       *       *       *       *

The work of Tírechán stops abruptly, and is almost certainly
incomplete—that is, it was left unfinished by the author.[287] But it
has recently received a new accession by the convincing discovery of Dr.
Gwynn that an isolated anonymous paragraph which precedes the Memoir
in the _Lib. Arm._ (f. 9, rᵒ a, Patricius uenit—aeclessiae uestrae) is
really part of the Memoir. Its place in the text can be approximately
determined (it must come in f. 12, vᵒ 2, before the arrival at Selce).
For proof and details I must refer to Dr. Gwynn’s _Introduction_ to _Book
of Armagh_, chap. iii. (and see above, p. 229).

The Memoir was put together without any regard to literary style. In this
respect it contrasts with the _Life_ by Muirchu, as also by the fact that
Tírechán supplies a number of chronological indications, while Muirchu’s
work furnishes no dates. In regard to contents, while the two works have
a few incidents in common, Tírechán is mainly concerned with Patrick’s
work in parts of Ireland, especially Connaught, on which Muirchu does
not touch at all. It is also to be observed (a point first emphasised by
Dr. Gwynn) that Tírechán assumes on the part of his readers familiarity
with the general story of the saint’s life. For instance, he refers to
the call of the children of Fochlad as a familiar fact. We infer that the
outline of the Patrician story was current in north Ireland in the time
of Tírechán.

Though Tírechán had little idea of literary form, he has endeavoured
to string together his information as to Patrick’s activity in various
places on a geographical thread. Critical examination shows (as I pointed
out in a paper on Patrick’s _Itinerary_,[288] and show more fully in a
separate note, Appendix C, 13) that he has thrown the events of several
journeys into one _circulus_ or circular journey (setting out from Tara
and returning to Meath) through Meath, Connaught, and Ulster.[289] It may
be noted that Tírechán conceives all the events related in his Memoir as
having happened during the year or two immediately following Patrick’s
arrival in Ireland, long before the foundation of Armagh;[290] and the
fact that he makes Patrick, starting from Tara, return _finito circulo_
to Loigaire and Conall seems to show that he conceived the bishop making
his central quarters in Meath before he set up in Armagh.

An analysis, as well as criticism, of the Memoir will be found in Dr.
Gwynn’s _Introduction_, c. iii.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Additions to Tírechán._—In the _Lib. Arm._ a few notices are appended
to the Memoir of Tírechán (ff. 15 vᵒ 2, 16 rᵒ a). They are the subject
of a minute and careful discussion in Dr. Gwynn’s _Introduction_, chap.
vi. The first, on the three Petitions, was probably found in the MS.
from which Ferdomnach copied the Memoir. It is separated by the word
_Dairenne_, which has not been explained, from a number of notices
which are probably (as Dr. Gwynn shows) due to Ferdomnach himself: (1)
Patrick’s age and the periods of his life; (2) comparison with Moses;
(3) the contest for his body and Colombcille’s discovery of his grave;
(4) Patrick’s mission by Celestine; Palladius also called Patricius;
(5) Patrick’s fourfold honour in Ireland; (6) a table of contents to
“this _breviarium_” (I pointed out that this table refers not only to
Tírechán’s Memoir, but also to Muirchu’s Life, _Eng. Hist. Rev._ April
1902, p. 237). Dr. Gwynn has shown in detail that these notes were
suggested by passages in the preceding documents in the MS. (Muirchu and
Tírechán), to which they may be regarded as editorial observations.


2. _Additional Notices in the “Liber Armachanus”_

These notices (ff. 16-19) are described by Ferdomnach as _serotinis
temporibus inuenta_, and collected “by the diligence of the heirs”—that
is, of Patrick’s successors at Armagh. First comes the foundation of the
Church of Trim, in Latin, but with Irish names and phrases; then a few
notices, chiefly of grants to Patrick in Connaught, Sligo, and Leitrim,
also in Latin strewn with Irish forms; then the text suddenly changes
into Irish (338₅), diversified here and there by a Latin sentence,
describing ecclesiastical grants, and acts of Patrick, in Connaught and
Leinster. Then the scribe concludes with this apology:—

    Finiunt haec pauca per Scotticam imperfecte scripta, non quod
    ego non potuissem Romana condere lingua, sed quod uix in sua
    Scotia hae fabulae agnosci possunt. Sin autem alias per Latinam
    degestae fuissent, non tam incertus fuisset aliquis in eis
    quam imperitus quid legisset aut quam linguam sonasset pro
    habundantia Scotaicorum nominum non habentium qualitatem.

He adds four Latin hexameters (with several false quantities), evidently
of his own composition, formally declaring the completion of his task,
and asking his readers to pray for him.

       *       *       *       *       *

The scribe’s explanation as to the language of his material is worthy
of attention. It is clear that he had Irish material before him. Part
of this material he translated into Latin, including the foundation of
Trim, and the following notices up to 338₅; but at this point, coming to
a passage in which there were so many irreducible Irish words that there
seemed little use in translating the few that could be translated, he
simply transcribed his original. And he continued to do this to the end,
although the same consideration does not apply to all the remaining text,
with the exception of one or two passages which he turned into Latin
(340₂₋₁₀, 342₁₋₁₁).

The importance of this lies in the fact that it reflects light on
Tírechán. The similarity in character between these notices and those
which Tírechán has wrought into his _Itinerary_ is unmistakable, and
points to the conclusion that he made use of Irish material, resembling
in form and style that which the Armagh scribe partly translated
and partly transcribed. The scribe, in fact, performed, though more
slavishly, a task similar to that of Tírechán.

The scribe’s own description of his additional material as _serotinis
temporibus inuenta_, “discovered in late times,” naturally suggests a
doubt whether these notices were not _inuenta_ in a more pregnant sense
than he intended to convey. We cannot control their antiquity, but their
character is quite consistent with the supposition that they had escaped
Tírechán when he was collecting local material, and had more recently
been brought to the knowledge of Armagh, or collected by the care of
the abbots. One passage (337₂₂) shows Armagh editing, and the whole
collection is, like Tírechán’s Memoir, in the interest of the Paruchia
Patricii. But it is wholly different in character from the Armagh (eighth
century) fiction, the _Liber Angueli_, and we can hardly be mistaken in
supposing that genuine local records are here transcribed or translated.

(1) The Trim narrative is evidently translated from an Irish document.
It contains a list of the lay succession at Trim from Fergus, grandson
of Loigaire, and the last name is Sechnassach, tenth in succession from
Loigaire. This, Dr. Gwynn observes, points to the later part of the
eighth century as the date of Sechnassach, so that “this record was
written at (or up to) a date which was almost recent when Ferdomnach used
it.” Probably the date of Sechnassach represents the time at which the
record was obtained from Trim by an abbot of Armagh.

(2) The series of Connaught records and copies of grants begins a
new leaf in the MS., and are evidently copied from a distinct batch
of documents. An analysis of them will be found in Dr. Gwynn’s
_Introduction_, chap. vi.

(3) The Leinster records also begin a new leaf, the second half column
of the preceding page being left blank. It may be conjectured that these
notices were communicated to Armagh by Bishop Aed of Slébte (cp. below,
p. 255) towards the close of the seventh century. This is strongly
suggested by the circumstance that a notice of Aed’s visit to Armagh
immediately follows (346₂₁). The juxtaposition is almost irresistible.
Dr. Gwynn (_Introduction_, chap, vi.) arrived independently at the same
conclusion.

       *       *       *       *       *

It would seem that after finishing his work the Armagh scribe gained
access to a collection of Irish material describing St. Patrick’s acts.
He did not undertake the task of transcribing or translating it, but
simply indexed it. This long list of abbreviated memoranda, which he
has appended in small script, consists of names of places and people,
associated with acts of St. Patrick, not recorded in the preceding
documents. The traditions which these headings represent—they are almost
entirely in Irish—are for the most part found in the _Vita Tripartita_
(see below, p. 272); and Dr. Gwynn, who has made a careful study of the
material, has pointed out that it is disposed in groups corresponding
more or less to geographical regions (see his _Introduction_, chap. vi.).

Probably, however, he did not index the whole of his document. It may be
shown, I think, that the scribe had before him part of the same material
which Tírechán used, and that the object was to note those parts of it
which Tírechán had not incorporated in his Memoir. The ground for this
conclusion is that he has, through inadvertence, inserted references to
a few acts which are found in Tírechán. Thus the first two jottings[291]
correspond to Tírechán 313₄ and 314₁₃₋₂₂. Dr. Gwynn, however, has made
(_ib._) the important suggestion that Ferdomnach simply transcribed
memoranda which were left among the papers of the Abbot Torbach, under
whose direction he undertook the task of copying and putting together
the Patrician documents. If he completed the MS., as is probable, after
his master’s death, he would feel bound to include the matter, collected
by Torbach, as he found it, however obscure. This hypothesis seems very
probable. If it is true, my view would still hold, with the substitution
of Torbach for Ferdomnach.

An interesting proof of the antiquity of this material has been
discovered by the acuteness of Dr. MacCarthy. Patrick’s dealings with
the sons of Forat in Múscraige Tíre are described in _Vit. Trip._ 210,
and indicated in _Lib. Arm._ f. 19 rᵒ b (351₃: Fuirg Muindech Mechar, f.
Forat). Patrick is alleged to have given a lasting blessing to Mechar,
who believed, whereas Fuirg, who did not believe in him, is “to be in
misery till doom.” Dr. MacCarthy has pointed out that these prophecies
are inconsistent with the history of the descendants of both brothers.
The seed of Mechar did not survive. We learn this from the Genealogy of
Múscraige Tíre (in _Book of Ballymote_, 141 b, and _Book of Leinster_,
323 f.; extracts in MacCarthy’s paper).[292] Dr. MacCarthy thinks that
the extinction of the line is to be placed about the middle of the sixth
century. On the other hand, the descendants of Fuirg prospered; they were
a distinguished and important clan in the ninth and tenth centuries (see
the evidence which Dr. MacCarthy has collected from the _Annals_, Note
D.).

The inference is that the record of Patrick’s dealings with the sons of
Forat had taken shape before the respective destinies of the posterities
of Mechar and Fuirg could be foreseen.


3. _Life of Patrick, by Muirchu_

The first formal biography that we possess, perhaps the first formal
biography that was written, was composed by MUIRCHU towards the end of
the seventh century. Muirchu is designated as _maccu Machtheni_, son or
descendant of Machthene. He refers to his father Coguitosus,[293] and
there may be room for doubt whether a natural or spiritual father is
meant. If the suggestion[294] that Coguitosus is a Latin rendering of
Machthene (as connected with _machtnaigim_, “I consider with wonder”) is
correct, Cogitosus was Muirchu’s father in the flesh.

There can be no doubt that Muirchu lived in North Laigin, and perhaps
he may be specially associated with Co. Wicklow. The evidence is (1)
his close association with Bishop Aed of Slébte (on the borders of
Co. Carlow), to whom he dedicated his book, addressing him _mi domine
Aido_, and from whom he derived material for it; (2) the existence of
Kilmurchon “Church of Muirchu” in Co. Wicklow;[295] and, we may add (3),
the connexion of Muirchu’s “father” Cogitosus with this part of Ireland,
a connexion fairly to be inferred from his writing a Life of Brigit of
Kildare.

The fact that Muirchu lived and wrote in the latter part of the
seventh century is established by the date of his friend Bishop Aed’s
death, which is recorded in the _Annals_ as A.D. 700,[296] and by
the circumstance that he as well as Aed attended the Synod known as
“Adamnan’s,” which met shortly before that date (A.D. 697, _Ann.
Ult._).[297] As Muirchu’s book is dedicated to Aed (as still living),
A.D. 699 is the lower limit for its composition.

Or perhaps more strictly for the composition of Book I. For Muirchu
has divided his work into two Books. The ground of the division is not
quite evident. One might have thought that Book I. would naturally have
terminated with the episode of Loigaire, where the chronological order
ceases. Now at the end of the Table of Contents to Book I. there occurs
a notice (of which more will be said below) that Aed helped him; and it
might be held that the distinction between Book I. and Book II. was based
on the fact that he had Aed’s co-operation in Book I. and not in Book II.
In that case Book I. might have been composed before, and Book II. after,
Aed’s death.[298] If so, the Preface was written before Book II.

In this interesting dedicatory preface, written in a most turgid
style, and partly modelled on the opening verses of St. Luke’s Gospel,
Muirchu declares, or seems to declare, that he is venturing upon a
novel experiment, which had been tried before (in Ireland) only by his
father Cogitosus. It is of considerable importance to know on Muirchu’s
authority that the Life of Brigit by Cogitosus[299] was a new departure
in hagiography in Ireland. As Cogitosus must have written in the seventh
century, it follows that before the seventh century hagiographical
literature in Ireland must have differed materially in character from
the works of Cogitosus and his son. One difference possibly was that the
earlier writings, some of which Muirchu used (see below), consisted of
_acta_ and _memorabilia_, and were not regular biographies; but there are
grounds, as will be shown, for inferring a more important difference,
namely, that they were written in Irish.

Muirchu aspired to do for Patrick what his father had done for Brigit.
But in venturing into what he calls the “deep and perilous sea of sacred
story,” he may have been helped by Aed. From the lemma[300] which is
found at the end of the Table of Contents to Book I., one might think
that Aed has even more claim to be considered the author than Muirchu.
_Haec ... Muirchu ... dictante Aiduo ... conscripsit._ Taken by
itself, this might almost suggest that Muirchu’s share in the work was
little more than that of a scribe. But such an inference is completely
contradicted by the dedicatory preface, in which Muirchu takes upon
himself the whole responsibility, though he acknowledges that he had
undertaken the work in obedience to a wish of Aed.[301] If, then, the
lemma has any good authority,—it may be doubted whether it is due to the
author himself,[302]—we must interpret it to mean that Aed furnished
Muirchu with some of the material. But it is possible that the note has
no good authority, and merely expresses the misconception of a copyist.

Muirchu used written sources. He refers to them in his Preface in
the phrase _incertis auctoribus_, which seems rather to imply that
the documents were anonymous than that he was sceptical about their
statements. In regard to the character of the sources, it is important
to observe that there is a strongly marked contrast between the early
portion of the biography up to Patrick’s arrival in Ireland and the
rest of the book. The early portion is free from the mythical element;
whereas the narrative of Patrick’s work in Ireland is characterised
by its legendary setting. These two parts must therefore be carefully
distinguished.

In the first part, the best of all authorities, the _Confession_, is
followed (though not without errors in interpretation[303]) so far as it
goes; then another source succeeds, dealing with Patrick’s studies on
the Continent and his ordination, and including a notice of Palladius.
It seems, however, not unlikely that for Muirchu these two sources may
have been one; that he may not have used the _Confession_ itself, but a
document in which the _Confession_ and the other source had been already
condensed. In any case, that other source is marked by the absence of
mythical elements and stamps itself as dependent on early and credible
records.[304] Nor are other possible traces of this source entirely
lacking. It may well be that it was also utilised by the author of the
_liber apud Ultanum_ which was consulted by Tírechán.

But when Muirchu’s story passes to Ireland it assumes a different
complexion. We enter a world beset by legends. But here too Muirchu used
written sources. A legendary narrative had been shaped and written down
before his time. The evidence that he used written material here is as
follows:—

(1) He refers to writings himself (295₁₆): _miracula tanta quae alibi
scripta sunt et quae ore fideli mundus celebrat_. This seems to imply
some stories that were known to him only by oral tradition.

(2) The accounts given by Muirchu and Tírechán of the destruction of
the magician who was shot into the air depend on a common written
source;[305] and their notices of the angel’s footsteps at Scirte point
in the same direction.[306] A comparison of these passages suggests that
they are independent translations of a common Irish original.

(3) I have shown[307] that the Lives which are known as _Vita Secunda_
and _Vita Quarta_ depend on a document (W), whose compiler probably used
not only Muirchu but Muirchu’s source, which must have been written in
Irish.

(4) This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence which I collected in
a paper on “Sources of the Early Patrician Documents” (_Eng. Hist.
Review_, July 1904). It is there shown that (_a_) the prophecy of the
magicians (p. 274), and (_b_) the description of MacCuill’s character
(p. 286) reproduce Irish poetical sources. The proof lies in the tabular
(columnar) arrangement of these passages in the _Liber Armachanus_,
combined with their rhythmic and assonant character. In that article I
also pointed out that the Irish material used by Muirchu began with the
account of Patrick’s ordination (if not at an earlier point), the proof
being the form _Amathorege_ for Amator of Auxerre. “Muirchu’s _Amatorege_
represents _Amathorig_ and betrays that his source was in Irish.” (On the
form compare Zimmer, _Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 123 _note_).

       *       *       *       *       *

The question arises whether part of the written material used by Muirchu,
under Aed’s guidance, originated at Sletty (Slébte). There is nothing
decisive on this point in the text of Muirchu; for the notice of Fíacc’s
presence at Tara may have been inserted by him, from Sletty tradition,
in a narrative which did not otherwise depend on Sletty tradition. That
this was really the case seems to me to be shown by the fact that (as
mentioned above) Tírechán used the same source as Muirchu for an incident
in the Tara episode. This fact makes it difficult to suppose that
Muirchu’s account of that episode was based on Sletty tradition derived
from Fíacc. The legend naturally arose in the regions of Tara and Slane.

There is, however, another fact which must be considered. There is
a presumption that the hymn _Genair Patraicc_, ascribed to Fíacc,
was composed at Sletty, and this presumption is strengthened by the
remarkable correspondence of the argument of the hymn with the argument
of Muirchu’s biography. The hymn will be discussed below, and it will be
pointed out that its author used either Muirchu or (part of) Muirchu’s
material. In the latter case it would follow that this material existed
at Sletty. But even then it need not have been derived from Fíacc or
Sletty traditions contemporary with Patrick. Sletty might in the meantime
have obtained copies of records existing at Armagh or elsewhere.

For these reasons I do not feel able to speak of a Sletty tradition with
as much confidence as Dr. Gwynn. He traces this, or at least Leinster,
tradition, not only in the narrative of Slane and Tara, but also in the
Gallic portion.[308]

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the Ulidian portions of
Muirchu depend on a Ulidian or Down tradition. This has been set forth
fully and lucidly by Dr. Gwynn. I think, however, that it must remain
an open question whether Muirchu, as Dr. Gwynn is disposed to believe,
visited Down and collected information on the spot. The local colouring
might have been taken from a written source. In any case he used a
written source (also used by Tírechán) for the Slemish episode.

       *       *       *       *       *

For a full running analysis of Muirchu’s work I may refer to Dr. Gwynn’s
_Introduction_ (chaps, ii. and iii.); but I must indicate the remarkable
construction of Book II., which he was the first to explain. The theme
with which it opens is Patrick’s diligence in prayer (sect. 1), which is
illustrated (sect. 2) by the story of the dead man and the cross, which
leads to another story (sect. 3) told on the authority of the auriga
of Patrick. Then the narrative passes to the circumstances connected
with Patrick’s death and burial; after which there is a final section
in which the author (with the words _Iterum recurrat oratio_) recurs to
the initial subject, _De diligentia orationis_.[309] The sections which
recount the saint’s death and burial form a separate unity within the
framework, and there is external evidence which Dr. Gwynn has with great
probability interpreted as showing that this narrative was a distinct
document which Muirchu incorporated. The evidence consists in two
numerals (ui and uiii) which occur in the MS. (fol. 8, rᵒ b), and must
be explained as two of an original series of numbers which occurred in
the exemplar which the scribe Ferdomnach had before him. These numbers
could not have represented the numbers of the sections of the whole Book
(as given in the Table of Contents), but they correspond exactly to the
sections of the narrative of the death and burial. This will be best
shown by a tabular arrangement.

           Sections of Book II.

    De Patr. delig. orationis                1
    De mortuo ad se loquente                 2
    De inluminata dom. nocte, etc.           3

                                                    Sections of
                                                   incorporated
                                                     document.

    De eo quod anguelus, etc.                4   =   [i]
    De rubo ardente, etc.                    5   =   [ii]
    De quatuor Patr. petitionibus            6   =   [iii]
    De die mortis, etc.                      7   =   [iiii]
    De termino contra noctem possito    }    8   =   [u]
    De caligine xii. noctium abstersa   }
    [De sacrificio accepto]                  9   =   ui
    De vigilis primae noctis, etc.          10   =   [uii]
    De consilio sepulturae, etc.            11   =   uiii
    De igne de sepulchro, etc.              12   =   [ix]
    De freto sussum surgente, etc.          13   =   [x]
    De felici seductione populorum          14   =   [xi]

    De diligentia orationis                 15

This incorporated document, however, with its signs of distinct numbering
of its chapters, was composed (as the style testifies) by Muirchu
himself; it was not a mere transcription. I therefore think that the
sectional numberings did not belong to Muirchu’s source; but rather that
this narrative was compiled first by Muirchu with the intention that
it should form Book II. and that he numbered its sections accordingly;
so that its opening words, _Post uero miracula tanta_, etc., were
the transition from Book I. to Book II. Afterwards he changed his
arrangement, by the introduction of the three chapters, which he made the
beginning of Book II.; this altered the numbering of the chapters, and
in transcribing his narrative of the death and burial he was obliged to
leave out the numbers; but he transcribed two of them by inadvertence,
and they were faithfully retranscribed by Ferdomnach.

       *       *       *       *       *

In regard to the Tables of Contents, it might perhaps be suggested that
they may have been added by an editor, and not drawn up by Muirchu
himself. It is important to show that such a suggestion is untenable.
A definite proof that Muirchu is responsible may be found in the last
heading of the Table of Book I. There we read _aduersum Coirthech regem
Aloo_, whereas in the text of the corresponding section, though the Irish
form of the name Coroticus (MS. _Corictic_) occurs, he is not described
as _rex Aloo_. Obviously the title is not due to an editor summarising
the contents of the Latin text, but to Muirchu himself, who had before
him an Irish document containing the legend of the metamorphosis of
Coroticus. This is sufficient to establish Muirchu’s authorship for the
Tables.

       *       *       *       *       *

Muirchu belonged to that part of Ireland which had conformed to Roman
usage since c. A.D. 634, and in this interest he took part in Adamnan’s
Synod which brought about the conformity of the north. It would indeed
be erroneous to suppose that these facts are required to explain the
expression which he uses of the Roman see (_caput omnium ecclesiarum
totius mundi_)—an expression which he might readily have used even if he
had been an adherent of the Celtic celebration of Easter. But it may be
asked whether the Life which Muirchu wrote at the wish of Aed had any
tendency beyond its mere hagiographical interest. There is, I think, some
reason for supposing that it had a particular motive. When Muirchu wrote,
the church of Slébte had just been brought into close connexion with
Armagh. The record stands thus in the _Liber Armachanus_ (fol. 18, rᵒ b;
p. 346 Rolls ed.), as translated by Stokes:—

    Bishop Aed was in Slébte. He went to Armagh. He brought a
    bequest to Segéne of Armagh. Segéne gave another bequest to
    Aed, and Aed offered a bequest and his kin and his church to
    Patrick for ever.

We cannot hesitate to bring this visit of Aed to Armagh, and his
dedication of Slébte to Patrick, into connexion with the Muirchu to
undertake the biography. So much seems clear. It is another question
what was the motive of policy which drew interest which he evinced in
Patrick’s life, when he stimulated Aed so closely to Armagh; and it
is yet another whether we can discover any reflexion of such a motive
in Muirchu’s work. Segéne, the abbot of Armagh, died in A.D. 688,[310]
so that Aed’s visit must have occurred before that date. During the
penultimate decade of the century many must have been trying to prepare
the way for bringing about uniformity between northern and southern
Ireland, by inducing the north to accept the Roman usages which had, more
than a generation ago, been accepted by the south. It is a reasonable
conjecture that Aed, who took part in the Synod which afterwards brought
about this result, was working towards it in his dealings with Armagh.
And it certainly is not impossible that, in giving such a prominent place
in his narrative to the legend of Patrick’s first Easter in Ireland,
Muirchu was thinking of the Easter controversy.[311]

In any case, it is significant that just at the time, or just on the
eve, of the reconciliation of north and south, an ecclesiastic of south
Ireland, whose name is associated with that reconciliation, should have
given to the world a Life of Patrick, which, if it had come down to us
anonymously, we should assuredly suppose to have been written in the
north, and perhaps guess to have emanated from Armagh. No mention is made
of traditions connecting Patrick with south-eastern Ireland—with the
country of Muirchu—though such traditions existed. The notice of Fíacc’s
relics at Slébte is indeed a local touch, but one which could never have
suggested a clew, since there is a precisely similar notice of Ercc’s
relics at Slane. Muirchu was eclectic; he had much more material than he
used; so he expressly tells us, _pauca haec de multis sancti Patricii
gestis_. It is to be noticed that apart from the events connected
with the celebration of the first Easter, and apart from a number of
unlocalised miracles, the _gesta_ of Patrick which Muirchu describes are
entirely laid in Ulster—at Armagh and in Ulidia. The tradition of Daire
was, of course, preserved at Armagh; and the legend of the appearance of
the angel to Patrick before his death bears on the face of it its Armagh
origin. It seems probable, therefore, that some of Muirchu’s written
material was derived directly from Armagh; and we can hardly be charged
with going beyond our data if we regard Muirchu’s biography as setting a
seal upon the new relation which had been established between Slébte and
St. Patrick’s church.

Muirchu’s Life had a marked influence on all subsequent Patrician
biographies. It established a framework of narrative which later
compilers adopted, fitting in material from other sources.

The text of Muirchu is preserved incompletely in A, the missing parts are
supplied by a late MS. preserved at Brussels;[312] and later compilations
(_Vita Secunda_, _Vita Quarta_, _Probus_) furnish help for criticising
the text. See Bury, “The Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” _cit. supra_.


(4) _Hymn Genair Patraicc_

An Irish hymn on the life of St. Patrick, generally known as the HYMN OF
FÍACC, or (from its first words) the hymn GENAIR PATRAICC, is included
in the collections of Irish hymns preserved in two MSS. of the eleventh
(Trinity College, Dublin, E, 4, 2) and eleventh or twelfth (Library of
Franciscan Convent, Dublin) century. The MSS. ascribe the authorship to
the poet Fíacc, who lived in the time of Patrick and became bishop of
Slébte (Muirchu, 283₃); but this ascription is clearly false, not only
from philological considerations, since the language points to a date
which could not be much anterior to A.D. 800, but also from the evidence
of the first verse—

    Patrick was born in Nemthur, this is what he _narrates in stories_,

and the 12th verse—

    He read the Canon with Germanus, this is what _writings narrate_,

expressions which show that the sources of the author were written
documents, and that he could not have been a contemporary. There is
also in v. 44 a reference to an event which occurred in A.D. 561, the
abandonment of Tara, but this (see below) was probably not part of the
original poem.[313]

The hymn was acutely analysed by Professor Zimmer in his _Keltische
Studien_, ii. 162 _sqq._,[314] and more soberly and judiciously by
Professor Atkinson in the Introduction to the _Liber Hymnorum_ (ed.
Bernard and Atkinson, vol. ii.), pp. xl. _sqq._ Professor Atkinson
submits it to a careful criticism from the metrical side, dealing also
with linguistic points and the literary construction, and his analysis
leads to the same general conclusion as Professor Zimmer’s, namely, that
the hymn has been largely interpolated, and that its original compass
was very much smaller. I examined the work independently, from the
literary side, and found that most of the stanzas which from this point
of view arouse suspicion are those which Professor Atkinson, applying his
objective metrical tests, branded as interpolations. It may be useful
to give here the original uninterpolated hymn, as it emerges from these
criticisms. It contained 15, instead of 34, stanzas.[315] I have adopted
Professor Atkinson’s translation, but with some changes, using the new
lights furnished in the version of Dr. Stokes and Professor Strachan.

                          HYMN GENAIR PATRAICC

   1. Patrick was born in Nemthur, this is what he narrates in stories;
      A youth of sixteen years, when he was brought under tears.

   2. [Sucat his name, it was said; what his father was, were worth
        knowing;
      Son of Calpurn, son of Potid, _grandson of deacon Odisse_.]

   3. He was six years in bondage; _men’s good cheer he shared not_.
      _Many were they whom he served, Cothraige_ (servant) _of four
        households_.

   4. Said Victor to Milchu’s bondsman, that he should go over the waves:
      He struck his foot on the stone, its trace remains, it fades not.

   5. (The angel) sent him _across all Britain_—great God, it was a
        marvel of a course!
      So that he left him with Germanus in the south, in the southern
        part of Letha.

   6. _In the isles of the Tyrrhene Sea he fasted, in them he computed_,
      He read the Canon with Germanus, that is what writings narrate.

   7. A help to Ireland was Patrick’s coming, which was expected;
      Far away was heard the sound of the call of the children of
          Fochlad wood.

   8. His druids from Loigaire hid not Patrick’s coming;
      The prophecy was fulfilled of the prince of which they spoke.

   9. Hymns and Apocalypse, the Three Fifties, he used to sing them;
      He preached, baptized, prayed; from God’s praise he ceased not.

  10. Patrick preached to the Scots, he suffered great labour widely.
      That around him they may come to Judgement, every one whom he
        brought to life.[316]

  11. When Patrick was ailing, he longed to go to Armagh:
      An angel went to meet him on the road at mid-day.

  12. He said, “(Leave thy) dignity to Armagh, to Christ give thanks;
      To heaven thou shalt soon go: thy prayers have been granted thee.”

  13. (Patrick) set a boundary against night that no light might be
        wasted with him:
      Up to the end of a year there was light; that was a long day of
        peace!

  14. Patrick’s soul from his body after labours was severed;
      God’s angels on the first night kept watch thereon unceasingly.

  15. Patrick, without sign of pride, much good he meditated;
      To be in the service of Mary’s son, it was a pious fortune to which
        he was born.

It has been supposed that the author of the hymn made use of Muirchu’s
Life. This was suggested by Loofs (_Ant. Britonum Scotorumque Ecclesiae_,
42 _sqq._), and seems plausible not only on account of the resemblances,
but also because Muirchu was connected with Aed of Slébte, and the
attribution of the hymn to Fíacc of Slébte suggests that it was composed
there. But there are some statements which are not found in Muirchu (I
have indicated them by italics in the foregoing text), so that Muirchu’s
Life cannot, in any case, have been the only source. There is no reason
why the author might not have used some of the documents which supplied
Muirchu himself with information.[317] If so, the hymn would be an
independent testimony for that lost material (whereas if it is based on
Muirchu it has no historical importance whatever, except in so far as
the few statements not found in Muirchu might depend on an older source
than any that we possess). In support of this view it may be urged that,
if the writer’s main source was Muirchu, it is strange that he has not
embodied any of the portions of Muirchu which rest on Ulidian tradition.
This circumstance suggests that he used the documents on which the other
parts of Muirchu’s Life were based. It is perhaps significant that the
statements concerning Cothraige in 3 and the Tyrrhene islands in 6 are
found in Tírechán, in connexion with the fact that one source of Muirchu
had also been used by Tírechán.

[It may be noted that, in the interpolated stanza 26, the hymn, which is
to be a _lorica_ (lurech) to every one, is not the Hymn of Secundinus,
as has been generally held, but, as Professor Atkinson has pointed out
(_Lib. Hymn._ ii. xliv.) the “lorica” of Patrick.]

The most recent editions of the Hymn with the glosses are that of
Atkinson (_Liber Hymnorum_, i. 96 _sqq._; English version in ii. 31
_sqq._), and that of Stokes and Strachan (_Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus_,
ii. 307 _sqq._), who date the hymn about A.D. 800.


5. _Early Acts in Irish_

It has appeared in the foregoing pages that an analysis of Tírechán,
Muirchu, and the Additional Notices discloses the existence of an early
Patrician literature in Irish, of which a writer in the seventh century
could avail himself; and it may be useful to emphasise this important
conclusion by stating it under a distinct heading.

The Preface to Muirchu’s Life is weighty in this connexion. The novel
movement of which he designates his father Cogitosus and himself as
pioneers was the writing of hagiography (_narratio sancta_) _in Latin_.
Hagiography already existed in Ireland; he implies, and refers to,
written documents; and analysis shows that he used Irish documents.
Thus before the seventh century the hagiographical literature which
entertained the pious in Ireland was composed in their own language; and
it was not till the age of Cogitosus and Tírechán that a new departure
was made, and men began to write Latin works on Irish saints. But the
demand for Irish Lives, for the mass of the folk who could not understand
Latin, continued; and the _Vita Tripartita_ (see below) may be regarded
as a descendant from the early Irish _acta_.

Some of these _acta_, such as the account of the episode of Slane and
Tara, may have had wide circulation in different kingdoms; and there
may have been different versions. Others may have had only local
circulation, such as the Ulidian stories garnered by Muirchu, and the
Connaught traditions collected by Tírechán. Besides, many communities
which ascribed their foundation to Patrick seem to have preserved written
records of grants, which, whether genuine or not, were old and drafted in
Irish.

The Acts of Patrick which circulated in the sixth century supplied the
public with what they liked—miraculous legends in a historical setting.
But the legends which Muirchu derived from this source differ strikingly
from the ordinary apparatus of the hagiographer—from the miracles, for
instance, so colourless and monotonous which Adamnan has strung together
in his wearisome Life of Columba. The Patrician legends, to which I
refer, were worked up in the cells of ecclesiastics; but the arguments
of the stories, which they moulded, were created by popular imagination,
and suggested by the motives of “folklore.” Such, for instance, is the
story of the first Easter, inspired by a transference of Beltane customs
to Easter Eve. Such are the Ulidian stories associated with the salt
marshes at Lake Strangford. Such, we may conjecture, is the story of
the ogre MacCuill, who tempts Patrick, is converted, and then, sent to
drift in a boat of skin, without oar or helm, reaches the Isle of Man,
of which he becomes bishop. Some old legend, connecting Man with the
coast of Dalaradia, seems here to have been hooked on to Patrick; and
perhaps MacCuill, of Cyclopean type, may be the mythical MacCuill, “son
of hazel,” husband of Banba. But in any case we may take it that the
name of a mythical ogre, familiar in the folklore of the regions of Lake
Strangford, supplied popular imagination with a motif for a story of
Patrick’s power.

But historical tradition was also present, determining and contributing.
The Ulidian legends were determined by the memory of Patrick’s actual
and close association with Ulidia; the legend of his appearance at Tara,
by the memory of an actual visit; the whole story of his relations with
Loigaire, by Loigaire’s loyalty to paganism. And we can detect genuine
details, handed down by tradition, and embedded, like metallic particles,
in the myth. Such is the notice of the presence of the poet Dubthach at
Tara, when Patrick was there. It has all the appearance of being a true
historical tradition, like the incident of Simon of Cyrene in the story
of the Crucifixion of Jesus.

The character as well as the language of the hagiographical stories,
which were doubtless read aloud in the pulpit, was determined by the
needs of the public for which they were intended. The excellent remarks
of Professor W. Meyer, in the introduction to _Die Legende des h.
Albanus_ (1904), apply here. The chief object in these compositions
was to produce “a strong impression” on the faithful (_ein starker
Eindruck auf die Glaubensgenossen_). “Die Legenden wurden christliche
Unterhaltungsliteratur. Solche Literatur schmiegt sich dem Empfinden des
Volkes an und das Volk schafft selbst dabei mit. Die glänzenden Gedanken
und die glänzende Darstellung der Caecilialegende entspricht der feinen
Kultur Roms im 5. Jahrhundert; die phrasenhafte oder die unbeholfene
Darstellung, mit welcher die so verschiedenen Freunde Fortunat und Gregor
von Tours platte Kleinigkeiten umhüllen, entspricht ihrer Zeit, wo der
Massstab des Schönen gänzlich fehlte” (p. 5).


6. _Vita Secunda (V₂) and Vita Quarta (V₄)_

The two anonymous Lives, most conveniently distinguished by their order
in the _Trias Thaumaturga_ of Colgan, who first published them,[318]
are closely related, and taken together have considerable importance
for the criticism of Muirchu’s Life. A full comparison between the two
documents will be found in my paper on the “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text”
(_Hermathena_, 1902, 186 _sqq._). Both follow the order of Muirchu up
to the end of the Tara episode, and at this point our text of V₂ stops
abruptly. There is a close parallelism throughout. V₄ is rather more
prolix, and has some notices which are not in V₂; but V₂ has also notices
which are not in V₄, and has some Irish sentences which do not appear,
or appear in a Latin equivalent, in V₄.[319] In the parts dependent on
Muirchu, V₂ is closer to Muirchu. The comparison shows that neither
document depends on the other, but both on a common source which I
have designated W, the tenor of which can be, almost mechanically,
reconstructed. It can then be shown that W was not simply a MS. of
Muirchu, but “a document which was sometimes a free paraphrase, sometimes
a close copy” of Muirchu (but derived from a MS. of Muirchu of different
lineage from that contained in the _Lib. Arm._). But it must have been
something more. For there are a number of passages in V₂ and V₄ which are
not in Muirchu, and “the close parallelism between V₂ and V₄ throughout,
and not merely in the Muirchu portions, makes it practically certain
that, in the other portions too, they were both following” the same
source, namely W. Thus W was a compilation based on Muirchu and some
other source (or sources).

The antiquity of this source is proved by the following facts: (1)
Cothraige, the Goidelic form of Patricius, appears in an older form with
initial _q_ (_Quadriga_, _Quotirche_), which points to a document older
than the seventh century (since Tírechán has initial _c_); (2) this
Goidelic name, not Patricius, appears in the part of W which related
Patrick’s dealings with Miliucc; (3) the name Succet takes the place of
“Quadriga” where his sister Lupita recognises him, as it is the name by
which she would have known him: such traits of verisimilitude are not
likely to have been introduced by late compilers. It is probable that
this source was in Irish. This would account for the Irish bits in W
preserved in V₂. And the Irish source, from which W supplemented Muirchu,
probably resembled (being based on the same material) the Irish source
which Muirchu used for his Life. In this connexion it is to be observed
that W and Muirchu give variant renderings of the prophecy of the Druids,
pointing to variant versions of the Irish original.

As for the latter part of V₄, where V₂ fails us, it seems probable that
W was also a source, though there may have been other sources (cp. Bury,
_Tradition_, etc., p. 195).[320]


7. _Vita Tripartita_

A Life of Patrick written in Irish (but largely interspersed with Latin
passages and clauses) is extant. A Latin translation of it was published
by Colgan, who named it the _Vita Tripartita_ because it is divided into
three parts. This translation represents a different text from that
preserved in the two existing MSS. from which Dr. Stokes published the
_editio princeps_ of the Irish text (Rolls Series, 1887). This edition
can hardly claim to be critical, as no attempt whatever is made to
establish the mutual relations of the MSS.[321] It is clear, even on a
superficial examination, that the two extant MSS. imply an archetype
representing a tradition different from the text which Colgan followed.

A study of the language of the Life, which is full of “Middle-Irish”
forms, led Dr. Stokes to conclude that it was compiled in the eleventh
century (_Introd._ pp. lxiv _sqq._). The text contains several references
to events of the ninth century (_ib._ p. lxiii); and Joseph, bishop of
Armagh, who is mentioned at the end of Part III. (p. 266), is evidently
identified rightly by Stokes with the bishop who died A.D. 936.[322] But
this passage has further significance. The writer, having enumerated
the members of Patrick’s household, says: “and that is the number that
should be in Joseph’s company.” It is a clear inference that he was a
contemporary of Joseph, and that this appendix (found in the Egerton
MS. and in Colgan’s version) was written in the first half of the tenth
century. This consideration suggests that, if the linguistic forms prove
that the Life _could not_ have assumed its present shape before A.D.
1000, then the work of the eleventh-century compiler was practically
confined to “modernising” an older compilation and substituting new for
ancient forms. In its older shape the Life existed in the time of Bishop
Joseph, when the enumeration of Patrick’s household was appended. But
there is nothing to show that the Life as a whole was not put together
at an earlier period. The references to events and persons of the ninth
century may be significant. There is one passage which especially
suggests the second half of the ninth century. “Quod probavimus: Connacán
son of Colman came into the land with a host” (p. 174). Connacán’s
death fell in A.D. 855; he was killed in Ulster.[323] The expression
_quod probavimus_, instead of “which was fulfilled,” suggests that the
event was within the recollection of the writer. This, taken along with
the reference to Cenngecán, king of Cashel (_ob._ 897), may raise a
presumption that the Life took shape in the latter part of the ninth
century. It may, of course, be argued by those who would ascribe greater
antiquity to the work that these references were posterior insertions,
not due to the original compiler. I am inclined to think, however, that
this involves an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses. The material
used by the compiler was older than the ninth century, but there is no
positive indication to suggest that the compilation was older.

The tendency of the work is strongly marked. Like Tírechán’s Memoir, it
is intended to support the claims of Armagh. Dr. M’Carthy even describes
it as, in its present form, “rather a plea for the privileges of the
primatial See than a eulogy of the apostle of Ireland.”[324]

It is to be observed, indeed, that the tendency is entirely absent from
Part I. This, however, would hardly justify us in assuming a different
authorship or date for the composition of Part I.; inasmuch as the
subject matter of this part (Patrick’s childhood, youth, arrival in
Ireland, and the Tara legend) did not offer opportunities for urging the
Armagh claims. It may also be observed that all the references to events
later than A.D. 800 occur in Parts II. and III.

The last paragraphs of Part I. (pp. 60-62), which are omitted in the
Rawlinson MS., have clearly been inserted here from the end of Part III.
(pp. 256-8). The motive of this repetition is, doubtless, supplied by
a remark of Dr. M’Carthy: “That upon the recurrence of his festival a
sketch of the life and labours of St. Patrick should be delivered in
the churches of Ireland would be a procedure in mere conformity with
ecclesiastical usage.” The _Tripartite Life_ was practically used as
material for sermons, though we may not feel warranted to go so far as to
say that it represents sermons reduced to literary form. The particular
paragraphs in question were added to Part I. as a “wind-up” for pulpit
purposes. There is a similar but shorter wind-up to Part II.

Among these added paragraphs (p. 60 = p. 256) occurs a bibliographical
notice:—

“These are the miracles which the elders of Ireland declared and
connected with a thread of narration. Colombcille, son of Fedlimid,
first declared Patrick’s miracles and composed them. Then Ultan, son of
Conchobar’s descendant; Adamnan, grandson of Tinne; Eleran of the wisdom;
Ciarán of Belach Duin; Bishop Ermedach of Clochar; Colman Uamach;[325]
presbyter Collait of Druim Roilgech” (trans. Stokes).

Of these works we know nothing, though we may suspect that “Ultan” may
refer either to the memoir of Tírechán (cp. the lemma in the _Lib.
Arm._) or to the book which Ultan lent to Tírechán. Observe that no
mention is made of Muirchu’s Life. But Muirchu was certainly a source of
the _Tripartite_. If, therefore, this list represents the works which
were used in the compilation, the compiler did not use Muirchu’s Life
directly, but some later work in which it had been wholly or partly
incorporated. This agrees with a conclusion which I had entertained on
other grounds, namely, that the compiler used W (the common source of
V₂ and V₄) in which the Muirchu narrative had been incorporated with
non-Muirchu material. The inference would be that the author of W is to
be sought in the list. For instance, Ciarán of Belach Duin, who died A.D.
775,[326] would suit chronologically.

The material of Tírechán appears almost entirely in Parts II. and III.
But there are considerations which suggest that it was not derived
merely from Tírechán, but from the older written material from which
Tírechán himself selected the memoranda which he has recorded. The
compiler certainly used Tírechán’s memoir, which was accessible to him
if he wrote at Armagh; but he has added supplements which produce the
impression of having belonged to the original records and not of being
later interpolations. (Cp., for example, the account of the altar in
Sliab Húa-n-Ailella, p. 94, and of the inscriptions at Selce, p. 106.)
It would, perhaps, be impossible to prove this directly, but there is
another fact connected with the sources of the Life which enables us to
establish the probability indirectly.

The Life contains a great number of notices of acts of Patrick in various
parts of Ireland which are not recorded by Tírechán, but which are
closely similar in character and style to the acts which he records. Now
we know that this material existed in the eighth century. For in the
_Additional Notices_ in the _Liber Armachanus_ (ff. 18 vᵒ b, 19 rᵒ), as
we have already seen (above, p. 254), we find the greater part of it
indicated by a series of memorial words (names of men and places), most
of which (not all) are explained in the _Tripartite Life_, Parts II. and
III.

The _Tripartite Life_, therefore, contains a considerable body of ancient
material, homogeneous with the material which Tírechán worked into his
memoir, and not to be found elsewhere. We have a means for controlling it
in the collection of jottings in the _Liber Armachanus_, and an attempt
to discriminate later accretions might be successful within certain
limits.

For an analysis of the _Tripartite Life_ in connexion with the jottings,
see Dr. Gwynn’s _Introduction_, chap, vi., with _Appendix_.


8. _Vita Tertia_

An anonymous _Life of Patrick_, dating perhaps from the ninth century,
is preserved in MSS. representing two different recensions, which I have
investigated and attempted to reconstruct in “A Life of St. Patrick”
(_Transactions of R.I.A._ xxxii. C, Part iii.) 1903. A corrupt text,
with large accretions at beginning and end, was published by Colgan in
the _Trias Thaum_. as his “Tertia Vita,” and this designation may be
conveniently retained. The Life was written in Ireland by an Irishman,
but the archetype of our MSS. was written in West Britain, as is shown
by Brythonic (Welsh or Cornish) interpolations. One interpolation,
which has led to vain speculation, must be noticed here. The passage
in c. 21, alleging a visit of Patrick to Martin, can be shown to have
been intruded into the context (which otherwise depends on Muirchu) and
caused confusion in the sense. The interpolator states that an angel
told _Martin_ to go to the _insula Tamarensis_; modern biographers have
supposed that the command was given to Patrick, though it can hardly be
held that there is any ambiguity in the Latin, and have conjectured many
things about the mysterious island. The island is St. Nicholas at the
mouth of the Tamar in Plymouth Sound, as Mr. C. J. Bates discerned. St.
Martin was popular in south-west Britain; and this interpolation enables
us to connect the archetype specially with south-west Britain. From it
was derived a lost Glastonbury copy which is the parent of two of our
existing MSS., which contain an interpolation claiming Glastonbury as
Patrick’s burial-place.

The author of the _Life_ used the _Confession_, Muirchu, Tírechán; but he
also incorporated a number of stories and incidents not found in any of
the documents in the _Liber Armachanus_. Some of these stories are also
found in the _Vita Tripartita_ or the _Vita Quarta_, but others are not
found elsewhere (see my enumeration, _op. cit._ 221-2).

[The _Vita Patricii_, in the _Sanctilogium_ of John of Tinmouth (see Text
in Horstman’s _Nova Legenda Anglie_, vol. ii.) is an abridgment of the
_Vita Tertia_; cp. Bury, _op. cit._ 223-4.]


9. _Life by Probus_

A Life of St. Patrick, published in the Basel edition of Bede’s works
1563, and reprinted by Colgan as the _Vita Quinta_, has for author
a certain Probus, who compiled the work at the request of a certain
Paulinus (_Ecce habes, frater Pauline, a me humili Probo_, etc. ii. 41).
Of Probus we know nothing otherwise. Colgan (p. 219) conjectures that he
is to be identified with Cœnachair of Slane, whose death by the Northmen
is noticed in the _Annals_ of the Four Masters, _sub a._ 948. Paulinus,
he suggests (p. 64), may be the Mael Póil who is described in the same
chronicle as bishop, anchorite, scribe, and abbot of Indedhnen (near
Slane), _sub a._ 920, where his obit is noticed. If these conjectures
were right the date of the Life would be prior to 920. But the
conjectures have no basis, the identification of Probus resting merely
on the possibility that this name might have been chosen as a Latin
equivalent of Cœnachair. There is internal evidence that the author was
Irish (see Colgan’s note, p. 61), but the only indication of date is the
prophecy that Patrick should baptize _Scotiam atque Britaniam, Angliam et
Normanniam caeterasque gentes insulanorum_ (i. 10). Colgan supposes that
Gallic Normandy is meant, and if so the Life could hardly be much earlier
than the middle of the tenth century.

Probus made use of Muirchu’s Life, but reconstructed certain parts of it,
introducing matter from other sources. Thus he adopts the two captivities
in Ireland from Muirchu, but while he identifies the first with the
captivity of the _Confession_, he connects Miliucc with the second.
His story of the second captivity is that Patrick’s parents and family
were in Armorica when it was devastated by the sons of Rethmitus (read
_Sethmiti_) king of Britain. Patrick, his brother Ructi, and a sister
were carried captive to Ireland, where Patrick served Miliucc. [Ructi was
married by another chief to his sister. This incident is obviously the
same as Miliucc’s attempt to marry Patrick to his sister, as recounted
in the W document (V₂ and V₄); so it may be inferred that Ructi is an
error for Sucti, and that Sucat-Patrick has been split by Probus or his
source into two brothers.] But Miliucc’s abode is placed near Mount Egli
(instead of Mount Miss). On escaping Patrick is taken to Gaul by a man
who sells him there into slavery,[327] but at “Trajectus” he is redeemed
by Christians.

The story of the fictitious second captivity is thus composed of (1)
matter derived from the true story of the first captivity, as told in
Muirchu and the _Confession_; (2) the Armoric legend; (3) the story
of the marriage of the brother and sister; and (4) the escape to
_Gaul_, with the mention of two towns: _Venit cum Gallis ad Brotgalum,
inde Trajectum_. Brotgalum, Colgan suggests, is meant to represent
_Burdigalam_, Bordeaux (cp. Appendix C, 6).

After this Patrick goes through a number of experiences before he comes
to sit at the feet of Germanus; or, in other words, Probus, before he
resumes the narrative of Muirchu, interjects material derived from other
sources. Patrick goes

(1) to St. Martin of Tours, who tonsures him;

(2) to the _plebs Dei_, who are barefooted hermits;

(3) to an “island between mountains and sea” where a great beast infested
a fountain;

(4) to St. Senior, bishop, _in monte Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani
et vallata est civitas eius septem muris_; this bishop ordained Patrick
_in sacerdotem_, and he read with him for a long time; here Patrick heard
in a vision the voice of children summoning him to Ireland; then he
went with nine men, and held converse with the Lord, who made him three
promises;

(5) to Ireland, where he is unsuccessful;

(6) to Rome; whence having received the apostolic blessing _reversus est
itinere quo venerat illuc_ (c. 20).

At this point the narrative of Muirchu is resumed most awkwardly. The
author might have made Patrick visit Germanus on his way back through
Gaul, but, instead, he proceeds: _transnavigato vero mari Britannico_,
following Muirchu literally, without any attempt to make the extraneous
matter fit in speciously to Muirchu’s story.

Some of these incidents are also found in the _Vita Tertia_, namely,
the visit to Martin, the visit to Rome, and the visit to _Mons Arnon_;
besides which the visit to a hermit who gives Patrick the staff of Jesus
is recorded.

Now the author of the _Vita Tertia_ and Probus undertook the same problem
of working these incidents into the main thread of the Muirchu story,
and they solved it in different ways. Probus solved it by a single
interpolation, grouping all the new matter together and finding a place
for it before the sojourn with Germanus. In the _Vita Tertia_ there are
three distinct interpolations arranged as follows:—

(Muirchu) Reads with Germanus.

(Interp.) Sojourns with Martin.

(Muirchu) Germanus sends Segitius with him to Rome.

(Interp.) Visits a hermit in _quodam loco_ and receives staff of Jesus.

(Muirchu) Is ordained bishop by Amator.

(Interp.) Visits Rome, and goes thence _ad montem Arnon_ when he salutes
the Lord.

It is difficult to say which of the arrangements is the more unskilful.
The same matter is found in a more expanded and “advanced” form in the
_Tripartite Life_, where the arrangement is as follows (Rolls ed. p. 25
_sqq._):—

(1) Patrick reads with Germanus; (2) is tonsured by Martin; (3) visits a
cave, in the Tyrrhenian sea, “between mountain and sea,” where there were
three other Patricks, and a beast infested a fountain; (4) Victor bids
him go to Ireland, and Germanus sends Segitius with him; (5) Patrick goes
to sea, with nine, and visits an island, where he found a young married
couple who had lived there since the time of Christ; and (6) goes thence
to Mount Hermon, near the island, where the Lord gives him the staff of
Jesus and grants him three requests; (7) goes to Rome.

In these three documents we have the same matter differently combined,
variously modified and augmented. Probus presents it in a more advanced
stage than the _Vita Tertia_, the _Tripartite_ in a more advanced stage
than Probus. The matter, however, is not homogeneous. The visit to Pope
Celestine at Rome has no legendary superstructure, and is found in the W
document (V₂ and V₄) which does not contain any of the other incidents.
The rest of the common material depends on three motives: (1) the
association of Patrick with Martin; (2) the staff of Jesus; (3) converse
with the Lord. The _Vita Tertia_ presents these motives in their simplest
form: (1) it is not stated that Patrick was tonsured by Martin; (2) the
staff of Jesus is received from a hermit, not from the Lord; (3) there is
no account of the conversation, we are simply told _salutavit Dominum ut
Moyses_. The _Tripartite Life_ brings the second and third motives into
the same setting.

In this legendary material the only thing which, for our purpose,
requires investigation is the description of the place in or near which
Patrick saluted the Lord. In the _Vita Tertia_ it is designated: _montem
Amon ar mair Lethe supra petram maris Tyrreni in civitate quae vocatur
Capua_, where the Irish words, _ar mair Lethe_ are equivalent to _super
mare Latinum_, that is, _super mare Tyrrhenum_. Probus has _in monte
Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani et vallata est civitas septem
muris_. The _Tripartite_ has _hisliab Hermóin_, “to mount Hermon.”

What was the name of the mountain? The MSS. of the _Vita Tertia_ give
_Arnon_, Probus and _Trip. Hermon_. As the form Hermon may well have had
a scriptural motive, we might suppose that the original name was Arnon.
But the description in the _Vita Tertia_ points in another direction.
_Supra petram maris Tyrrheni_ is clearly intended to represent the Irish
words preceding. But why _petram_? It points to _montem ar maen ar mair
Lethe_. And so, in view of _Hermon_, _Hermóin_ in the other sources, it
looks as if _Arnon_ is a corruption of _Armóin_ or _Armain_, which the
writer took to mean the Irish _ar maen_ = _supra petram_.[328]

The account in Probus of Patrick’s visit to this place deserves
attention. The city on the mountain is the seat of a bishop, who ordains
Patrick priest. While he is there he hears the voices of children in a
vision, and the angel bids him go to Ireland. Now here we have happening
in the city of the bishop on Mount Hermon exactly what, according to the
narrative of Muirchu (271-2), happened at Auxerre, the city of Germanus.

The conclusion is strongly suggested that the _sanctus senior episcopus_
of Mount Hermon is simply a double of Germanus. In the transference of
Germanus from Auxerre to the shores of the Mediterranean we have a step
in the _Tripartite Life_ where he instructs Patrick in the _Aralanensis
insula_ (p. 26 Rolls ed.). That, however, is a conscious combination of
known sources; but, if the bishop of Mount Hermon masks Germanus, we have
the Germanus episode coming down to us through a different channel of
tradition.

Is it possible that this channel was British? There is a place, Llanarman
in Wales, which means the church of Germanus. “Pen-arman” would mean the
mountain of Germanus; and it is worth considering whether the presumable
_mons Armain_ of _Vita Tertia_, and _mons Hermon_ of Probus, may not be
explained as the “mountain of Germanus,” being derived from a British
source.

The rest of the work of Probus is based, entirely or almost entirely, on
Muirchu and Tírechán.


10. _Notice of Patrick in the Historia Brittonum_

It is unnecessary to discuss here the complicated question of the gradual
evolution of the _Historia Brittonum_ through successive recensions. In
its oldest form it seems to have been mainly founded on a lost legendary
Life of Germanus of Auxerre, in which the British chief Vortigern played
a prominent part. This, the oldest form to which we can get back, though
there may have been a still older text behind it, can be fixed to the
year 679, and there can be no doubt that it contained the Arthurian
chapter (c. 56).[329] In the course of the following century a recension
of this, with some additions, was executed, and we possess it in an
incomplete form in a MS. preserved at Chartres. Then towards the year
800 the work was rehandled and considerable additions were made to it
by Nennius, a native of Wales. All our MSS., except that of Chartres,
are derived from the compilation of Nennius, but represent different
recensions.

Among the other additions which Nennius, pupil of Elbodug, Bishop of
Bangor,[330] made to the _Historia Brittonum_, was a sketch of the life
of St. Patrick (caps. 50-55). It is to be observed that in another
interpolation concerning the migrations of the Scotti (c. 15) Nennius
refers to oral information which he received from Irish scholars (_sic
mihi peritissimi Scottorum nuntiauerunt_), and it is possible that for
the Patrician section also he may have received help from the same
source. (1) The account of the mission of Palladius, the ordination of
Patrick, and his departure for Ireland, is derived directly from Muirchu,
but with some additions.[331] (2) The description of Patrick’s experience
on “Cruachan Eile” seems not to be derived directly from Tírechán, but
to depend on another source, in which the words _ut uideret fructum sui
laboris_ occurred (_Hist. Britt._ 197₁₈, Tírechán, 323₅), and some other
expressions common to both. The date of the fifth year of Loigaire
(196₆) might have been, but need not have been, taken from Tírechán. (3)
The three petitions of Patrick (197) are identical with and correspond
verbally to those which are added in the _Liber Armachanus_ to the
incomplete text of Tírechán (331); and the four points of comparison with
Moses (198) are also found in the same order among these _Additions_ to
Tírechán (332).

The dates in c. 55 do not correspond to the dates in the _Additions_ to
Tírechán. The statement that he was ordained in his twenty-fifth year
seems to stand alone. But the period of eighty-five years assigned to
his preaching in Ireland has arisen, we may surmise, from a confusion of
numerals (lxxii. and lxxxu.).

       *       *       *       *       *

It is unnecessary to deal here with the notices of Patrick in the
Chronicles of Marianus Scotus (_ob._ A.D. 1083: text in Pertz, M.G.H.,
V., and Migne, P. L. 107, but these are superseded by MacCarthy’s _Codex
Palatino-Vaticanus_, No. 830, 1892 [Todd Lecture Series III.], to which I
may refer for a discussion of the dates). Nor need I speak of Jocelin’s
biography (twelfth cent.) since it is founded on sources which we
possess, and the only value which it may have for Patrician researches
is that a minute examination might conceivably show that Jocelin used
different recensions of some of our documents. For the purpose of the
present biography, such pieces as the Homily on St. Patrick in the Lebar
Brecc (printed by Stokes in _Vit. Trip._ vol. ii.), or the prefaces to
the Hymns of Sechnall and Fíacc, do not demand particular notice.


III


1. _The Irish Annals_

The extant chronicles which supply material for the history in the fifth
century are: (1) Annales Ultonienses, or Annals of Ulster, compiled
by Cathal MacManus of the island of Shanad (Bellisle) in Lough Erne,
who died 1498. The chronicle begins at A.D. 431, and comes down to the
compiler’s own time (continued to 1504). For the early Middle Age, at
least, it is the most valuable of the extant Irish Annals. Its greatest
merit consists in the fact that the compiler did not attempt to solve
chronological difficulties, but copied the data which he found. In his
introduction to the Rolls series ed. of the work (vol. iv. p. ix.) Dr.
MacCarthy says: “The sustained similarity between these and the other
native Annals proves that the work of MacManus consisted in selection,
mainly with reference to Ulster events, from the chronicles he had
collected.... Unlike O’Clery and his associates [the ‘Four Masters’],
he neither tampered with the text, vitiated the dating, nor omitted the
solar and lunar notation, but, side by side with the chronological errors
he was unable to correct, preserved the criteria whereby they can with
certainty be rectified.”

The years are distinguished by the ferial incidence, and the lunar epact,
of January 1, as well as by the A.D. and the Annus Mundi. Up to the
year 486 the A.D. corresponds correctly to the other criteria, but from
this point on up to A.D. 1014, it lags one year behind. Dr. MacCarthy
was the first to fix the precise point at which the error arises and to
explain its cause. It was due to the accidental omission of a blank year,
corresponding to A.D. 486, before the A.D. numeration was inserted. The
_Kal._ which represented 486 having fallen out, 486 was annexed to the
_Kal._ which really represented 487, (_Introduction_, pp. xcvi.-ix.).
Thus it is only the A.D. data that are wrong; the ferial, lunar, and
mundane data are right.

(2) Annals of Inisfallen (in Kerry). The entries in this chronicle are
much fewer than in the _Ann. Ult._, and the ferial and lunar data have
been very imperfectly preserved in the only extant copy. Dr. MacCarthy,
who has shown how the fifth-century portion can be reconstructed (_Cod.
Pal.-Vat._ 830, pp. 352-3), regards it as “the most ancient body of
chronicles we possess” (p. 369). He has shown that the early part was
based on the Victorian cycle.

(3) Tigernach (_ob._ 1088) composed a chronicle at Clonmacnois, beginning
in the remotest ages, of which only portions are preserved. They have
been published by Dr. W. Stokes in the _Revue celtique_ (vols. v. and
vi.). The second fragment ends at A.D. 361, and the third begins at A.D.
489, so that his record of the Patrician period is lost. His incompetence
in chronology has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy.[332] He drew mainly from
the same sources as the compiler of _Ann. Ult._, but as he was not
influenced in his selection by the same Ultonian interest, his work
contains many additional records.

(a) The _Chronicon Scotorum_ is an abridgment of Tigernach. This was
disputed by its editor (Hennessy, Rolls series), but has been established
by Dr. MacCarthy,[333] who has at the same time shown the incompetence of
the abbreviator (MacFirbis). For the fifth century its value consists in
showing what entries were to be found in Tigernach.

(4) The _Annals of the Four Masters_, a chronicle in Irish from the
earliest times, compiled in Donegal by O’Clery and three others in the
seventeenth century, has some value for the early Middle Ages, because
it preserves notices derived from older chronicles that are not extant.
But its dates are untrustworthy because the compilers had no skill in
chronological computation. This has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy (_op.
cit._ p. 370 _sqq._). One of their sources was the _Annals of Ulster_,
which supplies a means of correcting their mistakes. Among their other
authorities were the _Book of Clonmacnois_ (Tigernach?) and the _Book of
the Island of Saints_ (in Lake Ree).

From these compilations it might be possible to reconstruct the common
annalistic structure on which they are based; with the help of the
chronological tracts and poems which are contained in the _Book of
Leinster_, the _Book of Ballymote_, etc. It is clear that for such a
reconstruction the _Annals of Ulster_ would supply the clearest traces of
the plan.

The Irish seem to have had a special taste and faculty for chronological
computations,[334] and in the early part of the seventh century, if not
sooner, they were laying the foundations for national Annals on the model
of the Roman Annals. In the _Annals of Ulster_ a number of entries,
ranging from A.D. 467 to A.D. 628, are justified by references to the
_Liber Cuanach_. Zimmer, with great probability, identifies Cuana, the
author of this lost work, with Cuana mac Ailcene, a king of Fermoy, whose
death is noted in _Chron. Scot._ and in _Annals of F. M._ under A.D.
640.[335] The references under the year 482 show that the _Book of Cuana_
dealt with (the chronology at least of) the pre-Christian period. The
authorship of a south Irish prince is consistent with the circumstance
that many of the entries in question relate to the affairs of South
Ireland.[336] For chronological studies I may refer also to the evidence
of Tírechán, on which I have dwelt in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ April 1902,
244-5.

The _Annals of Ulster_ (and Tigernach) have some entries in Latin and
others in Irish. Of the Latin entries, some relate to Roman history,
others to native history. So far as the fifth and sixth centuries
are concerned, it is reasonable to conjecture that the Latin entries
represent an early and generally accepted synchronistic reconstruction,
which had been made with the help of Roman annals, and especially the
Chronicle of Marcellinus. It has been proved by Dr. MacCarthy, from the
synchronistic treatises which he has studied in connexion with Tigernach,
that the chronology of pre-Patrician history was based on Jerome’s
edition of the Chronicle of Eusebius. For the fifth and sixth centuries
Isidore and Bede are referred to, as well as Marcellinus; but most of the
foreign entries are taken verbally from Marcellinus. The difficulties
and uncertainties of the synchronisers seem to be reflected in the
alternative dates of the _Annals of Ulster_, where an event given under
one year often appears in another place, with the addition _hic alii
dicunt_, or something of the kind.

In regard to the few and brief entries relating to Patrick, the internal
evidence testifies to the antiquity of the tradition, and excludes
any suspicion of fabrication on the part of the annalistic compilers.
While the legendary date of Patrick’s death, which had become vulgar
in the seventh century, was admitted and emphasised, the true date,
notwithstanding the inconsistency, was allowed to remain; and in the
second place, not a single notice based on the assumption that Patrick
was still alive appears in the interval between the true date and the
false date. A fabricator who was concerned to invent notices about
Patrick would not have been likely to leave thirty years a complete
blank. Thus if the few Patrician entries prior to A.D. 461 were
fabrications, it would seem that they must have been invented before
the legendary date of his death in A.D. 493 had become current. This
consideration establishes a strong presumption of their antiquity; if
they are not genuine, they must have been very early inventions. But
intrinsically they offer nothing to arouse suspicion; on the contrary,
it is incredible that a fabricator, producing annalistic records in the
interest of a “Patrician legend,” would have confined himself to the
interpolation of just these slender notices. These entries will be found
under the years 432, 439, 441, 443, 444, 461; the notices of the deaths
of Secundinus, 447 (_Ann. Inisf._ 448), and Auxilius, 459, may perhaps
be added.

Dr. MacCarthy has made it highly probable that the Paschal Table formed
the nucleus or framework of the early (from A.D. 432) portion of the
original Annals (_loc. cit._ p. c. _sqq._). On this hypothesis he is able
to give so satisfactory an explanation of the notice of Patrick’s advent,
that the truth of the hypothesis may almost be said to be demonstrated.
The mission of Palladius is recorded, in the words of Prosper, under
A.D. 431, with which the Inisfallen and Ulster Annals begin. But it is
assigned to the wrong consuls in _Ann. Ult._; A.D. 431 was the year of
Bassus and Antiochus; but it is here described as the year of Aetius and
Valerius, who were consuls in A.D. 432. Obviously, therefore, the words
_Aetio et Valerio consulibus_ have been erroneously transferred from the
notice _s.a._ 432 to the preceding year; as is borne out by a passage
in a chronological tract in the _Book of Ballymote_, where we read:
“The year after that [the sending of Palladius], Patrick went to preach
the gospel to Ireland. Etius and Valerianus were the two consuls of
that year” (_loc. cit._ p. cix. _note_). Now, seeing that the advent of
Patrick is not recorded in any Roman chronicle, and that Irish events are
not dated in the Irish Annals by consular years, the question arises how
the advent of Patrick came to be associated with the consuls of the year.
Dr. MacCarthy solves the problem, simply and I think convincingly, by
pointing out that Patrick drew up (before he left Gaul) and took with him
to Ireland a prospective Paschal Table, which, like other western Paschal
tables, would have had its initial year distinguished by the consuls.
Even if we had no definite testimony that Patrick took with him a Paschal
Table, we could have no doubt that he must have done so;[337] it was an
inevitable precaution. But we have the definite testimony of Cummian,
who mentions the 84 Paschal cycle, “quem sanctus Patricius, papa noster,
_tulit_ et fecit.”[338] The initial year in this table would naturally
be the year in which Patrick started for Ireland, A.D. 432; and thus the
year of his advent was recorded with a consular date.

As for the other Patrician notices in the Annals enumerated above, the
most probable origin seems to be that they were derived from brief
entries made in the margin of this or another Paschal Table dating from
the fifth century.[339] This view best accords with the paucity and the
nature of the notices, which were certainly not composed by any one
wishing to work the incidents of St. Patrick’s life into existing Annals.

       *       *       *       *       *

The old Welsh Annals (_Annales Cambriae_: the edition in the Rolls series
has been superseded by that of Mr. E. Phillimore in _Y Cymmrodor_, ix. p.
141 _sqq._ 1888) contain a few notices of Irish ecclesiastical history.
This chronicle extends from A.D. 444 to 977, but the first entry is under
453 and the last under 954, the preceding and the following years being
respectively blank. Mr. Phillimore gives reasons for supposing that the
Annals in their present form were finished in 954 or 955 (p. 144).

Now it is to be observed that before the year 516 (to which the battle of
Badon is falsely assigned) there is no entry bearing on British history.
Before this year there are only five entries, of which four relate to
Ireland, and the fifth to the celebration of Easter. They are as follows:—

    an’ [A.D. 453] Pasca commutatur super diem dominicum cum[340]
    papa leone episcopo rome.

    an’ [A.D. 454] Brigida sancta nascitur.

    an’ [A.D. 457] Sanctus Patricius ad dominum migratur.

    an’ [A.D. 468] quies benigni episcopi.

    an’ [A.D. 501] Episcopus ebur pausat in christo anno. cccl.
    etatis suae.

The Irish dates do not coincide exactly with those of the Irish Annals.
In _Ann. Ult._ 452 and 456 are given as alternative dates for the birth
of Brigit; 467 for the death of Benignus; and the death of Ibar appears
under three years, 500, 501, and 504. Tigernach gives 502, and adds the
legendary age (cuius etas ccciii. annorum erat). The date of Patrick’s
death corresponds to the entry in _Ann. Ult._ A.D. 457. _Quies senis
Patricii ut alii libri dicunt._

In these (and one or two other Irish dates in the sixth century) there is
nothing to suggest a British chronological tradition independent of the
Irish Annals. The dates were clearly taken from Irish books, just like
the Irish dates in the _Historia Brittonum_; and throw no additional
light on the chronology.[341]

Leaving out the Irish dates, which were certainly inserted at a late
period in the growth of the chronicle,[342] we have a long and empty
enumeration of years, unrelieved except by the notice of Pope Leo’s
decision as to the celebration of Easter in 455. This notice, which
appears under 453, properly belongs either to 454 or 455. (It might
appear under 454, because in that year Leo notified his decision to the
bishops of the west).[343] This blank table of years, with one Paschal
notice, seems a confirmation of Dr. MacCarthy’s theory, and suggests that
the original basis of the Cambrian Annals was a Paschal Table.

If this be so, the circumstance that the initial year is A.D. 444
should have some significance. I hazard the guess that it may have some
connexion with the second visit of Germanus to Britain. In A.D. 444
Germanus was at Arles, where he took part in the deposition of Bishop
Celidonius.[344] The investigation of Levison shows that the second visit
probably occurred between this year and the death of Germanus, which
happened before A.D. 450.[345] If, as is possible, 445 is the date, a
Paschal Table with 444 as initial year might have been brought to Britain
by Germanus.


2. _The Catalogus Sanctorum_

The _Catalogus sanctorum Hiberniae secundum diversa tempora_ is a very
brief sketch of the ecclesiastical history of Ireland from the time
of St. Patrick to the year 665 A.D. Its composition may belong to the
first half of the eighth century, but is generally admitted not to be
later. The text has been printed by Ussher, _Brit. Eccl. Ant._, 913
_sqq._ ed. 1639 = Works, vi. 477 _sqq._ (from two MSS.), and by Fleming,
_Collectanea_, 430-1 (from a MS. which is supposed to be a Codex
Salmanticensis at Brussels). From these two texts it has been printed
by Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, ii. 292-4. There is a translation in
Todd’s _St. Patrick_, 88-9.

The framework of this sketch is patently artificial. Three definite
periods are distinguished, and to each is assigned a different category
of saints. The chronology is marked by the reigns of the kings of
Ireland, and the three periods are as follows:—(1) 432-544 A.D. _ordo
sanctissimus_; (2) 544-598 A.D. _ordo sanctior_ or _sanctus sanctorum_;
(3) 598-665 A.D. _ordo sanctus_. There is thus a decline in saintliness
in the second order of saints, and a further decline in the third.

The distinctive features of the first period, which includes the time of
St. Patrick, are noted as follows:—(1) All the saints were bishops; (2)
There was unity in the Church, one liturgy, one tonsure (the Celtic), one
mode of observing Easter, and all obeyed the guidance of Patrick; (3) The
saints did not disdain the ministration and society of women.

The second period differed in all three respects from the first: (1) This
order of saints consisted chiefly of presbyters, there were few bishops;
(2) The unity of the Church was not wholly maintained; it was maintained
in regard to the tonsure and the Paschal cycle, but different liturgies
were introduced, and different monastic rules; it could no longer be said
that _unum ducem Patricium habebant_; (3) Women were separated from the
monasteries.

The third order consisted of presbyters and only few bishops. The
conversion of the south of Ireland to Roman usages falls into this
period, so that it is marked by still more diversity than the second,
since two different modes of tonsure and of the determination of Easter
prevailed in Ireland. There was, moreover, a tendency among the saints to
betake themselves to the solitary life of hermits.

The artificiality of this arrangement is emphasised by the circumstance
that the author conceives each period to be coincident with exactly
four reigns. This is contrary to fact in the case of periods 1 and 3.
In period 1 the reign of Muirchertach, which lasted twenty years, is
omitted; in period 3, three reigns are omitted.

Thus historical accuracy has been sacrificed to symmetry. But there
is also a fundamental chronological error. The author’s date for the
beginning of his second period is too late, for the activity of some of
the leading saints whom he places in it, such as Ciarán of Clonmacnois
and Finian of Clonard, began earlier than A.D. 544.[346]

These examples of looseness do not predispose us to accept the author’s
particular statements without further evidence. But the most important
point in his conception of the development, namely, the decline from
uniformity and the rise of individualism after the Patrician period
(though he puts the beginning of this movement too late), is in
consonance with probability and with other evidence.


3. _Liber Angueli_

This document, contained in the _Liber Armachanus_ (printed in Rolls
ed., 352 _sqq._), is a clumsy invention, fabricated at Armagh, probably
early in the eighth century, in the interests of the Armagh jurisdiction.
It has importance for the ecclesiastical history of Ireland, but none
for the acts of Patrick. Its motive, however, illustrates the confessed
motive of Tírechán’s _Memoir_, the interest of the _Paruchia Patricii_.
It has been, for the first time, critically treated by Dr. Gwynn, who
makes it highly probable that it consists of two different compositions:
(1) the _Colloquy_ with the angel, and (2) _Decrees_ concerning the
rights of Armagh. These parts are separated by a space in the MS. at the
top of fol. 21 rᵒ a (Part ii. begins _de speciali reuerantia_), and Dr.
Gwynn shows by a careful comparison that they are probably of distinct
origin, the _Decrees_ being the older, and the _Colloquy_ being composed
as a sort of introduction to them with the view of supporting their
validity by divine authority (see Gwynn, _Introduction_ to the _Book of
Armagh_, chap. vi.).

For the mention of the appeal to the Roman see in last instance, see App.
C, 16.




APPENDIX B

NOTES


CHAPTER I

P. 12.—The intercourse of Ireland with the Roman provinces is illustrated
by coins found in the island. See _Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy_,
ii. 184-8 (1843), on a find of coins (early imperial, from Vespasian to
the Antonines) in Faugh Mountain, near Pleaskin, Giant’s Causeway, Co.
Antrim; cp. also _ib._ 186-7; _ib._ vi. 441 _sqq._ (1856), a paper by
Petrie on coins of the Republic found near Rathfarnham, Co. Dublin; _ib._
525, on eight coins (imperial, from Tiberius to Constantine) found near
Downpatrick; _Proc. of Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland_, xxx. p. 176
(1900), fifteen coins (Constantine) at Tara.

P. 14.—Gaelic settlements in S.-W. Britain. Sources: Cormac’s _Glossary_,
s.v. mogeime (ed. Stokes); the text (of which an extract was printed by
Zimmer in _Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 85) from Bodleian MSS. Rawlinson, B.
502 f. 72 c., and Laud 610 f. 100 a. 1, edited with translation by Kuno
Meyer (_Y Cymmrodor_, 14, 101, _sqq._). Cp. also _Historia Brittonum_,
§ 14, p. 156, ed. Mommsen. See Zimmer, _ib._ on these settlements. He
determines the date of the composition of the Rawlinson-Laud document as
about A.D. 750. The question as to the survival in West Britain of the
descendants of an ancient pre-British Goidelic population (maintained by
Professor Rhŷs, combated by Professor K. Meyer, see _Transactions of Hon.
Soc. of Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, p. 55 _sqq._) does not affect the reality
of a later Goidelic settlement in historical times. On the Dessi cp.
Rhŷs, _Studies in Early Irish History_, p. 56; _Origin of Welsh Englyn_,
pp. 26, 73, 179 (in _Y Cymmrodor_ xviii. 1905); _Celtic Britain_ (ed. 3),
p. 247 _sqq._

P. 10.—The statement that Man was never conquered by Rome might have
to be modified if, as has occurred to me, the words of Tacitus at the
beginning of _Agricola_ 24, _naue prima transgressus ignotas ad id tempus
gentes crebris simul ac praeliis domuit_, record a descent of Agricola on
that island. In the context an expedition to Caledonia seems excluded.
[_Prima_ is unintelligible. It may be an instance of the common confusion
of _un_ with _im_, _ima_ (for _una_) having been taken as an abbreviation
of _prima_.]

P. 14.—“Perhaps were conditions of military service.” A stone of
Killorglin (now in the Dublin Museum) bears the ogam inscription
GALEATOS, which Professor Rhŷs explains as genitive of Latin _galeatus_,
a helmed soldier. He thinks that it was a name “first given to a Goidel
who had worn the Roman _galea_, that is one who had served in the Roman
army. For one cannot help comparing it with _Qoeddoran-i_ as connected
with _Petrianae_, and the name _Sagittarius_, of which the genitive
_Saggitari_ was found in ogam on a stone discovered at Burnfort, in the
neighbourhood of Mallow, in Co. Cork. All three names are presumably
to be explained on the supposition of Goidelic touch with Roman
institutions, especially the military system; not to mention such Latin
names as _Marianas_, _Latinus_, and _Columbanus_, or their significance,
so to say, in this context” (reprint from _Proceedings of Royal Society
of Antiquaries of Ireland_, Part i. vol. xxxii. 1902, p. 16).


CHAPTER II

P. 16.—Calpurnius: _Confession_, 357₄ (Armagh MS. has _Calpornum_; Cotton
MS. _Calpornium_; Brussels MS. of Muirchu, _Cualfarni_, 495₇). Properly
a _nomen_, but, like other _nomina_, adopted as a _cognomen_. As such,
however, it does not seem to occur often. Cp. _C.I.L._ xiv. 570; iii.
Suppl. Pars post. 14354²⁸; viii. 9157.

_Ib._—Potitus: _Confession_, 357₅ (Armagh MS. _Potiti presbyteri_, and in
the margin _filii Odissi_ added in the same hand. It is to be noted that
the copy of the _Confession_ used by Muirchu seems to have had simply
_Potiti presbyteri_, 494₇. Hence the inference is suggested that _filii
Odissi_ was not in the original text of St. Patrick’s work, but was added
in the margin from some other source, and inserted by the scribe of the
Cotton MS. in the wrong place—before, instead of after, _presbyteri_.
Potitus, not Odissus, was the presbyter. In the hymn _Genair Patraicc_,
l. 4, Odissus is described as a deacon). Potitus was a common cognomen
in the Roman empire; examples will be found in almost any volume of the
_C.I.L._ (_e.g._ v. 834, 970, 6125, 7436; ii. 1172, 3799, 4006; xiv.
1332₁₁,₇, 3964, etc.).

P. 16.—Calpurnius a decurion: _Corot._ 377₂₀ decorione patre nascor. That
Patrick’s family were British provincials and lived in Britain there
can be no question: _Confession_, 370₁₀,₁₂, and 364₁,₂ (cp. _Corot._
375₂₃), passages which prove that Patrick regarded Britain as his native
land, and that his family lived there continuously from the time of his
captivity till his old age. There is no evidence whatever that they had
come and settled in Britain during his boyhood, and his biographer in
the seventh century writes unhesitatingly that he was _Brito natione, in
Britannis natus_ (Muirchu, 494, 6). Patrick does not say himself that he
was of British descent, but the presumption that his family was British
is confirmed by his Celtic name Sucat (see below, 291).

P. 17.—Decurions in smaller towns. The evidence is collected in Kübler’s
article _Decurio_ in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft_. The _canabae_ which grew up at military stations
sometimes received self-governing privileges and had decurions (the
evidence is for Apulum in Dacia, Moguntiacum, and Brigetio). There is
also evidence for decurions in _pagi_, but only for Africa. _Vici_ and
_castella_ were attributed to the larger towns near which they were
situated, and had no _ordo decurionum_ (see _Cod. Just._ 5. 27. 3. 1;
10. 19. 8). We can therefore infer that Calpurnius was a member of
the municipal senate of some town in the neighbourhood of the _vicus_
Bannaventa.

_Ib._—The condition of decurions or _curiales_ in the fourth and fifth
centuries. Chief source: _Codex Theodosianus_, esp. xii. 1. The subject
is well treated and elucidated in Professor Dill’s _Roman Society in the
Last Century of the Western Empire_, Bk. iii. chap. 2 (On the Decay of
the Middle Class).

P. 18.—“Sixteen acres or upwards”: _ultra uiginti quinque iugera priuato
dominio possidens_, _Cod. Th._ xii. 1, 33.

_Ib._—“Sinews of the republic”: _nerui reipublicae_, _Novell. Maioriani_,
vii. 1.

P. 19.—Curials who took orders. Julian’s rescript: _Cod. Th._ xii. i, 50.
Enactments of Theodosius I., _ib._ 121 (A.D. 390); 123 (A.D. 391; cp.
esp. § 5).

P. 20.—Married clergy. Calpurnius and his father are instances of married
clergy, belonging to the period of transition, before the principle of
celibacy had been generally recognised. Enjoined by the Spanish Council
of Elvira in A.D. 305, this principle had not been universally accepted
even in Spain, for it was in answer to an appeal from a Spanish bishop
that Pope Siricius wrote his Decretal of A.D. 385, laying down the
necessity of celibacy. This ruling expressed the rapidly growing tendency
in the western churches, yet at a much later time Gallic councils found
it necessary to legislate against married clergy. There is therefore
nothing surprising in finding married deacons and presbyters in Britain
in the fourth century. It is open to any one who chooses to _believe_
that Calpurnius and Potitus gave up family ties before they took
orders; but such a belief would be a pure act of faith, superfluous and
ungrounded.

P. 23.—The names _Patricius_ and _Sucat_. The statement of medieval
biographers that the name _Patricius_ was first assumed on the occasion
of ordination must be regarded as a conjecture to explain the tradition
that he had four names. The earliest mention of the four names (Sucat,
Magonus, Cothrige, and Patricius) is in Tírechán (p. 302), who found
them in a written source. There is no difficulty about Cothrige; it has
been recognised (by Todd, Rhŷs, Thurneysen, Zimmer) that it is simply
an Irish equivalent for Patricius, with the regular mutation of _p_ to
_c_, which we find in early loan words from the British language (_e.g._
_casc_ = _pascha_, _cruimthir_ = _premter_ for _presbyter_, cp. Zimmer,
_Early Celtic Church_, p. 25). I have pointed out traces of an older
(labio-velar) form: _Qatrige_ (“Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 200).
I have also shown (_ib._ p. 201) that, in early tradition, this name
was specially connected with Patrick’s captivity, and this supports the
view that he was named Patricius as a child (his Irish captors rendered
it _Qatrige_ or _Qotrige_). The genuineness of the name Sucatus (also
recorded by Muirchu, _Sochet_, p. 494), which corresponds to the modern
Welsh _hygad_, “warlike” (cp. Stokes, _Trip._ p. 616, and the explanation
in the scholia on the hymn _Genair Patraicc_, l. 3), is generally
admitted and derives some support from a similar consideration (Bury,
_ib._ p. 201). It is probable that when Patricius went to Ireland as
a bishop his name was generally rendered Patraicc (with _p_), because
it now came in its Latin form, and not as a Brythonic word (Patric?).
But we have traces of the use of the other form in _petra Coithrigi_ at
Uisnech (Tír. 310₂₅) and _petra Coithirgi_ at Cashel (_ib._ 331). Before
the seventh century, the _Sprachgefühl_ for the mutation of foreign _p_
to _c_ had so completely disappeared that the equation _Cothrige_ =
_Patricius_ was not recognised, and an absurd derivation for _Cothrige_
was invented (Tír. 302); but it is significant that this etymology was
connected with the captivity.

The fourth name _Magonus_ (Tír.: _Magonius_ in later documents) appears
in the _Historia Brittonum_ as _Maun_. It seems to me to be simply the
Roman cognomen Magonus (see _C.I.L._ v. 4609; viii. 9515).[347]

P. 23.—Concessa. There is no reason to doubt the tradition (Muirchu,
p. 494) that this was the name of Patrick’s mother. No credit can be
attached to the names or existence of numerous sisters (Lupita, etc.)
mentioned in later documents. The tradition that Secundinus (Sechnall)
was his sister’s son might be regarded as a ground for assuming that he
had at least one sister. But it is to be observed that the tradition
appears in an extremely suspicious form. In the preface to the _Hymn_
which is called by his name (_Lib. Hymnorum_, i. p. 3), Secundinus
is described as “son of Restitutus of the Lombards of Letha and of
Darerca, Patrick’s sister.” But a woman named Dar-erca must have been
an Irishwoman, not a Briton; and the expression “Lombards of Letha”
for Italy suggests that the statement was not derived from a very
ancient source. Secundinus does not appear in Muirchu; in Tírechán he
is only mentioned in a list of bishops ordained by Patrick; and in the
_Additional Notices_ (p. 346), where he occurs once, nothing is said of
kinship. But he is mentioned twice in the Annals.[348] In A.D. 439 (_Ann.
Ult._) he arrives in Ireland, already a bishop, to help Patrick; and this
record must be preferred to Tírechán’s statement that Patrick ordained
him. Under A.D. 447 his death is recorded (_Ann. Ult._ A.D. 448, _Ann.
Inisf._), in the seventy-fifth year of his age. At that time Patrick
cannot have been much more than fifty-eight (see Appendix C, 3), so that
he would have been about seventeen years younger than his nephew. This is
impossible, except on the supposition that the mother of Secundinus was
half-sister of Patrick, daughter of a former wife of Calpurnius.

In _Add. Notices_ Lomman (p. 335) is described as his sister’s son, and
four brothers of Lomman are named as bishops in Ireland; and (p. 340) a
brother of Patrick is mentioned as father of Náo and Naí. It is to be
observed that none of the names are Latin. Does Patrick’s statement in
the _Letter against Corot._ 377₁₅ (quis me compulit—alligatus spiritu—ut
non uideam aliquem de cognatione mea?) justify the inference that none
of his _cognati_ were in Ireland?

[The story which places Patrick’s capture in Armorica (_Vit. Trip._ p.
16; _Probus_, i. 12; Schol. on hymn _Gen. P._, etc.) has obviously no
historical value, being clearly prompted by the motive of connecting
Patrick with Brittany. It has an interest, however, in preserving the
name “Sechtmaide, king of the Britons”—a reminiscence apparently of the
Emperor Septimius Severus.]

P. 26.—Men-servants and maid-servants. This addition to the data of the
_Confession_ comes from the _Letter against Coroticus_, 377₁₉.

P. 31.—Port to which Patrick escaped. He mentions the distance himself:
_ducenta milia passus_ (_Conf._ 361₃₃). Wicklow would suit either theory
of the place of captivity. Of course the distance must not be pressed
too closely, but it is to be remembered that Patrick wrote when he had
fuller knowledge of the geography than he can have had at the time of
his escape. The reason for conjecturing Wicklow is that it seems to have
been a port where foreign ships might be looked for; both Palladius and
Patrick landed there. Muirchu calls it _portum apud nos clarum_ (275₁₂).

P. 32.—Suck their breasts: _sugere mammellas eorum_, _Conf._ 362₁₈. I
conjecture that the origin of this remarkable phrase, which clearly means
to enter into a close intimacy, was a primitive ceremony of adoption.
Among some peoples, when a child is adopted, a rite of mock-birth is
performed; for instance, the child is placed under the dress of the
adoptive mother, and creeps out. For the custom of mock-suckling see
Frazer’s _Golden Bough_,² vol. iii. p. 380, _note_. The make-believe
suckling is analogous to, and has the same emblematic meaning as, a
make-believe parturition; and it will be admitted that this explanation
satisfies perfectly the present context: “I declined to let myself be
adopted by them.” It is not necessary to infer that a literal adoption
was proposed to Patrick by any of the crew; the expression is merely
figurative for a close and abiding intimacy (just as we use colloquially
the phrase “to be adopted”).

It has been thought that the expression is taken from the Vulgate
rendering of Isaiah lx. 16: _suges lac gentium et mamilla regum
lactaberis_. Even if it were so, the point of the phrase would not be
explained, but Mr. White has shown on other grounds the improbability of
such a reference. There are no other vestiges of the use of the Vulgate
in Patrick’s citations from the O.T., whereas there is unmistakable
evidence of his use of an Old-Latin version (see White, _Proc. of R.I.A._
1905, p. 231, and the note on the passage).

P. 34.—They came to the habitations of men: _Conf._ 363₃₁,₃₄ _ad
homines_. This is certainly the right reading, and stood in the MS. used
by Muirchu (495₃₂). The _Cod. Arm._ gives _omnes_, which is unsuitable in
the context.

_Ib._—“Thou shalt remain with them two months.” Patrick refers here to a
second captivity (363₂₅), and his words (which are not lucid) misled his
biographers (beginning with Muirchu) into supposing that he was captured
on some later occasion. But I cannot think that his words: _et iterum
post annos multos adhuc capturam dedi_, refer to the two months which
he spent with the traders. They come in curiously after the incident
of the dream, and before the mention of the two months. _Post annos
multos_ cannot naturally be taken of the six years of his captivity in
Ireland, but must mean a term of years after his escape. I believe that
the sentence is a parenthetical reference to his life-work in Ireland,
conceived as a second captivity. “And again, after many years, my
captivity was continued.” The motive of this abrupt observation was the
preceding dream, to which he attributes great significance; it furnishes,
in fact, the interpretation of the dream. The second banishment to
Ireland is prefigured by the great stone which lay upon his body, and
which he could not resist; the sun which lightened its weight is the
divine guiding which made that banishment endurable.


CHAPTER III

P. 37.—Patrick at Lérins. _Dictum Patricii_, see above, App. A, i. 3;
Tírechán, 302₂₃ _erat hautem in una ex insolis quae dicitur Aralanensis
annis xxx, mihi testante Ultano episcopo_. It seems obvious that the
Bollandists and Todd were right in supposing that _Aralanensis_ arose
from _Lerinensis_. The more recent view that Arelate is meant seems very
improbable; though the name Arelate may conceivably have influenced the
corruption (cp. App. C, 6, _ad fin._).

P. 38.—Island monasteries: Gallinaria, Gorgon, Capraria, Palmaria. See
Ambrose, _Hexaem._ 3, c. 5, _insulas uelut monilia_; Jerome, _Epist._
73 § 6 (Migne, 22, 694) [c. 400 A.D.]; Sulp. Severus, _V. Mart._ 6, 5
(_Gallinaria_). For Capraria, see Rutilius Namatianus, _De reditu suo_
[c. A.D. 417], i., 439 _sqq._—

    squalet lucifugis insula plena uiris,

and for Gorgon _ib._ 517 _sqq._ For cloisters in the Dalmatian Islands
see Jerome, _Epist._ 92. For the Stoechades: Cassian, _Coll._ 18, Praef.
(Migne, 49, p. 1089); Ennodius, v. _Epiphanii_, 93, _medianas insulas
Stoechadas_ (so Sirmond and Vogel; _cycladas_, MSS.) _Lerum ipsamque
nutricem summorum montium planam Lerinum_, described as _sanctarum
habitationum loca_.

P. 38.—Monastery of Lérins. For the names Lero, Lerina (Lirinus is the
form in the best MSS. of Sidonius), see Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 3, 5. Strabo,
4, 1, 10 gives the names Planasia and Leron.

The exact date of the foundation of the monastery by Honoratus is
unknown, but it cannot have been later than the first years of the fifth
century. The earliest reference seems to be in a letter of Paulinus of
Nola in A.D. 410, or a few years later (_Ep._ 51 to Eucherius and Galla
in island of Lero; this letter seems to show that the foundation was
recent). Tillemont in his note on the question (_Mém. ecc._ xii. p. 675)
quotes and contests the statement of Baronius and Barralis, that the
monastery was founded in A.D. 375 (so Alliez), but he does not give the
source for this statement. So far as I can discover, the only foundation
for it is indicated by Barralis (_Chronologia sanctorum ... monasterii
sacrae insulae Lerinensis_, 1613), p. 190, where he says he found it
_in quodam membr. codice perantiquo Lerin. MS._ We cannot attach any
importance to this. Tillemont points out the objections to this date, and
founds one of his arguments on the age of Saint Caprasius.

The chief sources for the history of the monastery during the first
forty years of its existence are: Hilary, _Sermo de vita s. Honorati_;
Eucherius, _De laude eremi_, cp. also his other writings; Vincentius,
_Commonitorium primum et secundum_; Honoratus, _Vita s. Hilarii_. All
these works will be found in Migne, _P.L._ vol. l. Further information
is to be gathered in Paulinus, _Ep._ 51; Faustus, _Epp._ ed. Krusch
(M.G.H.), and ed. Engelbrecht (_Vienna Corp. Scr. Ecc._); _Homilia de
S. Maximo_ in _Eusebii Emiseni ep. homeliae_, p. 84, vᵒ _sqq._ (ed.
Gagneius, 1589); Sidonius Apollinaris, _Carmen_, 16.

Consult Barralis, _op. cit._; Silfverberg, _Hist. Mon. Lerinensis usque
ad ann._ 731 (Copenhagen, 1834); Tillemont, _Mém. eccl._ (xii. art.
on Saint Honoratus, with notes; _ib._ xv. arts. on Hilary, Eucherius,
Vincentius, Maximus of Riez; _ib._ xvi. art. on Faustus); Alliez, _Les
îles de Lérins, Cannes, et rivages_ (1860), and _Histoire du monastère
de Lérins_, vol. i. 1862; the articles on Honoratus, Hilary, etc. in the
_Dict. of Christian Biography_; Krusch’s and Engelbrecht’s prefaces to
their editions of Faustus.

Pp. 38-9.—Snakes at Lerinus: Hilary, _Sermo_, c. 3 (1257, ed.
Migne).—Fresh water flows _in media maris amaritudine_, _ib._ 1258.—_In
mare magnum recedentia_: Eucherius, _De laude eremi_, c. 1 (701 ed.
Migne).—Vines, etc., _ib._ c. 42.—Anecdote of the tablet of Honoratus:
Hilary, _Sermo_, c. 4, 1261 (_mel suum ceris reddidisti_).—“Break through
the wall of the passions.” etc.: Eucherius, _Hom._ ii. 836.—_Venire
ad eremum_, etc., _Id._, _Hom._ iv. 842.—Manual work was practised at
Lérins, Gennadius, _de scr. ecc._ lxix.

P. 40.—Faustus. Engelbrecht (preface to his ed.) gives reasons for
placing the birth of Faustus _not long_ before 410; but they are not
absolutely decisive.

P. 47.—Semi-Pelagianism at Lerinus.—Vincentius, author of the
_Commonitorium_ (which Neander justly describes as “ein für die
Geschichte des Begriffs von der Tradition epochemachendes Buch,”
_Kirchengeschichte_, iii. 262), held semi-Pelagian views (cp. _ib._ iv.
405). Faustus was also a strong exponent of modified Pelagianism, though
severe in condemnation of Pelagianism; his work, _De gratia dei et libero
arbitrio_, is extant (_Opp._ ed Engelbrecht; Migne, 58, 783 _sqq._). On
the other hand, Hilary of Arles was a follower of Augustine, and Lupus
a decided anti-Pelagian. Cp. Duchesne, _Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne
Gaule_, pp. 129-30.

P. 42.—Victoricus: appears transformed into an angel in Muirchu; and in
later biographers the name is changed to Victor. In Tírechán (330₂₂) we
meet a Victoricus whom Patrick ordained bishop for Domnach Maigen.

P. 43.—Pelagius, a Scot, but probably born in Britain. See Bury, “The
Origin of Pelagius,” in _Hermathena_, xxx. p. 26 _sqq._, where the
evidence is set out. Zimmer holds that he was born in Ireland (_Pelagius
in Ireland_, pp. 18-20). For a general account of the Pelagian theory and
the course of the controversy, see Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vol. x.

P. 47.—Patrick’s reluctance to go to Ireland: cp. esp. _Conf._ 365₁₉,
_contra_, _Hiberione non sponte pergebam donec prope deficiebam_ (cp.
_Ps._ 18.37, White).

P. 49.—Autissiodorum.—For the connexion of Patrick with Auxerre see
Muirchu, pp. 496, 272; cp. Hymn _Gen. Patr._ 19, 20 (p. 98, _Lib. Hymn._
vol. i.). The authenticity of the record that Patrick received his
theological training in Gaul is borne out by the desire to visit the
brethren in Gaul which he expresses in the _Confession_, 370₁₂.—For
Amator, see Appendix C, 9. For Iserninus and Auxilius: Muirchu, p. 273;
_Add. Notices_, p. 342 (_Patricius et Isserninus_, 1. _epscop Fith, cum
Germano fuerunt in Olsiodra ciuitate_, etc., a passage which shows that
Iserninus was an Irishman); and Appendix C, 9. The notice in _Ann. Ult.
s.a._ 439 might seem to imply that Iserninus was already a bishop when
he went to Ireland in that year; but Tírechán says that Patrick ordained
Eserninus at Killcullen. See below, p. 310.

Pp. 49-50.—Patrick ordained _deacon_: _Confession_, 365₁₂ (see Appendix
C, 9). Patrick discouraged in his enterprise: _Conf._ 371₁₁, _multi hanc
legationem prohibebant_, etc.

P. 50.—Germanus: see Appendix A, i. 7, on the _Vita Germani_ of
Constantius, and W. Levison’s monograph there cited. On the apparent
inconsistency of the statement that he held a military command with the
fact of his civil career (see Levison, _op. cit._ p. 117).

P. 51.—Germanus in Britain: Prosper, _Chron._ _s.a._ 429—the source for
the fact that Germanus was sent by Celestine as his representative _ad
insinuationem Palladii diaconi_. We are not told whether Palladius was a
deacon of Rome or of Auxerre. It is to be observed that this notice is
strictly contemporary; the first edition of the Chronicle was published
only four years later. Constantius, in the _V. Germani_, does not mention
the part played by Celestine. He represents the mission of Germanus, with
whom Lupus of Troyes was associated, as decided by a synod of Gallic
bishops which assembled in response to an appeal from Britain (c. 12).
It is difficult to say how far we should be justified in accepting the
statement of Constantius and reconciling it with Prosper’s, in the sense
that a Gallic synod decreed the mission and Celestine sanctioned and
approved it (so Tillemont, _Mém. ecc._ xv. 15, and others). But it may be
so far correct, that an appeal was made from Britain to Gaul, probably to
Auxerre, and that Auxerre enlisted the intervention of Rome. The question
is discussed in Levison, _op. cit._ pp. 120-2.

_Ib._—British Pelagians: Agricola was prominent. Writings of a British
Pelagian are edited by Caspari, _Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus
den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Alterthums_ (1890), who
ascribes them to Agricola. For Fastidius cp. Tillemont, xv. 16, 17;
but Mr. H. Williams seeks to defend him against the charge of heresy
(_Transactions of Society of Cymmrodorion_, 1893-4, p. 71 _sqq._).

P. 52.—Pelagianism in Ireland: see Zimmer, _Pelagius in Ireland_, 22-24.

_Ib._—Patrick’s false friend: _Confession_, p. 365, 366: esp. 366₁₃,
et comperi ab aliquantis fratribus ante defensionem illam [see below,
note on p. 202], quod ego non interfui nec in Brittanniis eram, nec a me
orietur [I would read _oriebatur_: “without any prompting from me”], ut
et ille in mea absentia pro me pulsaret.

P. 54.—Mission of Palladius: Prosper, _Epit. s.a._ 431, _ad Scottos in
Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Celestino Palladius primus episcopus
mittitur_. It has been pointed out by Zimmer that this notice probably
owes its insertion in the Chronicle to the circumstance that Prosper was
at Rome in this year (_Celtic Church_, p. 32). The mission of Palladius
is also referred to rhetorically by Prosper in his _Contra Coll._ c.
xxi.; Migne, _P.L._ li. p. 271: _ordinato Scotis episcopo dum Romanam
insulam studet seruare catholicam, fecit etiam barbaram Christianam_ (sc.
_Caelestinus_).

P. 56.—Churches said to have been founded by Palladius: See V₂24 = V₄28
(= W source) = _V. Trip._ p. 30. In Cell Fine “he left his books and
the casket with relics of Paul and Peter, and the board on which he
used to write” (_V. Trip._ trans. Stokes). In Donard were preserved the
relics of “Sylvester and Solinus” (V₄; Solonius, _V. Trip._). Acc. to
V₄ the Tech na Romhan was founded by the disciples of Palladius. For
the identification of this name with _Tigroney_, see Shearman, _Loca
Patriciana_, p. 27. Shearman has attempted to identify the site of Cell
Fine with the ancient cemetery of Killeen Cormac (near Colbinstown in
Kildare on the borders of Wicklow). He supposed that Killeen has not here
its usual sense of “little church,” but stands for “Kill Fhine,” so that
the name would mean “the church of the clan of Cormac”; and he supposes
that the saint Abbán maccu Cormaic was buried here. It cannot be said
that he has made out his case. His argument largely depends on his view
that the remarkable bilingual inscription preserved in the graveyard
is connected with the poet Dubthach maccu Lugair—a view which must be
rejected (see below, p. 305). The same sources mention the landing-place
of Palladius. Muirchu (p. 272) has no local details, and only notes his
failure in general terms. The _feri et inmites homines_, who would not
receive his doctrine, evidently mean especially Nathi son of Garrchu, who
is mentioned in other sources as opposing Palladius.

P. 59.—Patrick’s preparations. Cp. Muirchu, 275₁₀.

P. 59.—Companions of Palladius: _Augustinus et Benedictus_, Muirchu,
272₃₁. The thought strikes one that they might have brought some
intimation from Ireland that Patrick would be acceptable as successor to
Palladius. If Palladius died in Dalaradia, and these companions came with
a message from Dalaradian Christians, this might have been a motive for
Patrick’s special connexion with that region of Ireland.

Pp. 61 _sqq._—Position of the Roman see. For what I have said on this
subject I must acknowledge my particular obligations to the important
study of M. E.-Ch. Babut, _Le Concile de Turin_, 1904. His chief object
is to determine the date and circumstances of the Council of Turin (Sept.
417), but the book is of much wider scope. For the position of the
apostolic see in the latter half of the fourth century, Rade’s _Damasus,
Bischof von Rom_, 1882, is important.


CHAPTER IV

P. 70.—Kingdom of Cashel. Cp. the remarks of Rhŷs, _Studies in Early
Irish History_, p. 31.

P. 74.—Solar worship. Patrick, _Confession_, p. 374. Cormac’s _Glossary_,
_s.v._ indelba. It has been suggested that a circle on an inscribed
(ogam) stone, which seems to be oriented, at Drumlusk, near Kenmare, is
connected with solar worship (Macalister, _Studies in Irish Epigraphy_,
ii. 116-7). Cp. H. Gaidoz, “Le dieu gaulois du soleil et le symbolisme de
la roue,” _Rev. arch._ 1884 and 1885.

_Ib._—Pillar worship. Patrick, _ib._ p. 369. For the idol Cromm Cruach,
see p. 306. Cp. the stone of worship (_ail adrada_) in _Ancient laws_,
iv. 142.

P. 76.—For white dress of Druids, see Tírechán, p. 325-6. For their
tonsure see Appendix A, i. 4.

P. 79.—Muirchu, 273-4. “Adzehead” was evidently meant as a nickname for
the tonsured monk. I have given the oracle as it is found in Muirchu’s
Latin rendering. He must have known the prophecy in a different form from
the Irish version which is preserved in the glosses on the Hymn _Genair
Patraicc_ (_Liber Hymnorum_, i. p. 100): “Adzehead will come, over the
mad-crested sea, his cloak hole-head, his staff crook-head, his table in
the west of his house; all his household will answer Amen, Amen.” See
Atkinson, _ib._ ii. 181-2, and my article on the “Tradition of Muirchu’s
Text,” p. 203 (in _Hermathena_, 28, 1902).


CHAPTER V

P. 81.—Patrick’s landing-place in Ireland. Muirchu, p. 275. Palladius had
landed at the same place (_Vit. Trip._ p. 30; V₂, 24 and 25). Todd (_St.
Patrick_, 338 _sqq._) thought that the circumstances of the landing of
Palladius were transferred to Patrick, it being unreasonable to suppose
that both missionaries should have landed at the same place. This is a
bad argument. For, in the first place, Inber Dee may have been the usual
port for ships from South Britain; and, in the second place, nothing was
more natural than that Patrick should first go to the region in which his
predecessor had been active. And if this is admitted there is nothing
unreasonable (Todd’s second objection) in supposing that the chieftain
Nathi MacGarrchon, who (according to _Vit. Trip._ p. 30, V₂, 24) opposed
Palladius, should also have opposed Patrick (V₂, 25). It is more to the
purpose that Muirchu says nothing of Nathi, but it may be observed that
his opposition might help to explain why both bishops remained such a
short time in Wicklow.

P. 83.—Sea-journey from Wicklow to Ulidia. Dr. Gwynn suggests that
Muirchu (who seems to have visited Ulidia, see Appendix A, ii. 3)
made this journey himself. Patrick’s visit to Inis Patrick is also
mentioned by Tírechán (p. 303), who seems almost to imply that it was
the first place he visited in Ireland. According to Tírechán’s account
he proceeded from the islands off Skerries directly to the plain of Breg
(the visit to Ulidia is not mentioned). Here we have a Meath tradition,
at variance with the Ulidian tradition reproduced by Muirchu. It is
perhaps impossible to decide between them. There can be no doubt that
Patrick was active both in Down and in Meath; the question at issue is
only one of chronological order. Muirchu worked the Ulidian episode into
a narrative which originated in Meath, but this proves nothing for the
superior authenticity of either. And on the other hand, the motive which
probably influenced Muirchu in accepting the Down tradition that Mag Inis
in Ulidia was the first field of Patrick’s labours—namely the bishop’s
desire to visit and convert his old master, and pay him the price of his
freedom—cannot have very much weight, even if we accept the tradition
that Patrick was a captive in north Dalaradia. In my narrative I have
adopted Muirchu’s order, but without any decided opinion that it is
right. If, as I think, Dalaradia was the destination of Palladius when he
left Wicklow, there may have been a good reason for Patrick’s proceeding
thither first. If the tradition that his first Easter in Ireland A.D. 433
was celebrated at Slane is accepted, very little time is left for his
labours in Ulidia.

P. 84.—Patrick’s landing-place in Dalaradia. Muirchu, p. 275. The _ostium
Slain_ was identified by J.W. Hanna in a rare tract, _An Enquiry into
the True Landing-place of St. Patrick in Ulster_, printed at Downpatrick
in 1858. The river flows into the lake at Ringban, about two miles from
Saul, dividing the townlands of Ringban and Ballintogher (see Ordnance
Map). Mr. Hanna discovered that the name Slaney was still in use for
the river, and this furnished him with the identification. Since he
wrote, the name has been forgotten. The church of Ballintogher is called
the church of Bally-_bren_ in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas; offering
the same word by which the mouth of Strangford Lough, _fretum quod est
Brene_, was known to Muirchu (see further on the locality, O’Laverty,
_Diocese of Down and Connor_, i. 216 _sqq._).

_Ib._—Dún Lethglasse. For the striking remains of the fort, also called
Rathceltchair, see Mr. Westropp’s valuable study on the forts of Ireland
in _Transactions of R.I.A._ vol. xxxi. p. 586, where it is cited as an
instance of the mote type of fort. It has a platform separate from the
central mound, and the mound is surrounded by three ramparts thirty feet
wide.

_Ib._—Dichu. The proof of Dichu’s reality[349] is supplied by the
petition (Muirchu 296₁₀) _ut nepotes Dichon qui te benigne susceperunt
misericordiam mereantur et non pereant_. _Nepotes Dichon_ means the Hy
Dichon, Dichu’s tribe; and, though _susceperunt_ may be an error for
_suscepit_, the text is not inconsistent with the story. There is further
confirmation in the independent testimony to the existence of Rus or
Ros, son of Trechim, said to have been Dichu’s brother. (See Appendix,
C, 12; on the _Senchus Mór_.) Rus is said to have lived at Derlus (V₂ c.
31 = V₄ c. 37, _Vit. Trip._ p. 38, cp. V₃ c. 33), which was at Mrechtan,
now Bright. It has been conjectured that the Castle of Bright stands on
the site of Derlus (O’Laverty, _op. cit._ i. p. 148), and the Protestant
church is supposed to be on the site of the ancient church (_ib._ 147).

P. 86.—For Skerry, cp. Reeves, _Eccl. Ant._ pp. 83-4.

P. 87.—Sabul, Saul (see Reeves, _op. cit._ pp. 220 _sqq._).

P. 90.—Tassach at Raholp. That he was stationed in the neighbourhood
of Saul is implied in Muirchu 297₁₀. For his connexion with Rathcolpa
see _Mart. Dung._ April 14; schol. on _Genair Patraicc_ hymn, l. 53
(_Lib. Hymn._ i. p. 102). There are ruins of an ancient church, known as
Church-Moyley, described in Reeves, _Eccl. Antiq._ p. 39.

P. 90.—Loarn at Bright. _V. Trip._ p. 38, V₄ c. 37, V₂ c. 31. It was
recorded in a common source of _V. Trip._ (p. 40) and V₂ (c. 32) that
near Bright Patrick converted Mochae, who afterwards founded a church at
Noendrum, now Mahee island in L. Strangford (_ob._ 497, _Ann. Ult._ and
Tigernach). O’Laverty has much to say on this, _op. cit._ i. 143-4. For
Bright, cp. Reeves, _op. cit._ p. 35; for Noendrum, _ib._ pp. 10, 148
_sqq._, 187 _sqq._ It is a legitimate inference from the silence of our
authorities, that no church at Dún Lethglasse was founded by Patrick.
For its history see Reeves, _op. cit._ 141 _sqq._, 220 _sqq._ The first
bishop recorded is Fergus, whose death is placed in _Ann. Ult._ at A.D.
584 or 590.

P. 91.—_Mudebroth._ Dr. W. Stokes interprets _Dei mei indicium_ (_Trip._
p. 289), but cp. Atkinson, _Lib. Hymn._ ii. p. 179.

_Ib._—Druimbo, _Collum bouis_. Cp. O’Laverty, _op. cit._ p. 228 _note_.


CHAPTER VI

P. 102.—Foundation of Trim. _Additional Notes_, 334-6 (translation with
notes in Todd’s _St. Patrick_, 257 _sqq._). The name of the wife of
Fedilmid is given as Scoth Noe (= _flos recens_). Lomman is said to have
been a son of a sister of Patrick (335₁₃). The legendary character of the
story is obvious; but there seems no reason to doubt the Trim traditions
which it involves—the co-operation of the Briton Lomman with Fedilmid and
his British wife and their son Fortchernn. Lomman’s name appears in the
_Martyrologies_ (Tallaght and Donegal) under October 11.

P. 104.—The legend of the Easter fire at Slane and Patrick’s visit to
Tara is told in the text after Muirchu, who used an older (probably
Irish) source. It is very briefly summarised in Tírechán (p. 306); he
differs from Muirchu as to the number and names of the Druids. Todd has
the merit of having seen that the whole story is unhistorical and that
it is absurd to draw any chronological inferences or treat seriously
its chronological implications. On the other hand, historical motives
clearly underlie the story, as I have sought to show in the text. It may
be said that the celebration of Patrick’s first Easter at Slane _may be_
a historical fact. It is evident that this was a tradition at Slane;
and it is quite possible that Patrick may have spent his first Easter
there for the purpose of baptizing converts, as Easter was at that time
one of the chief occasions for that ceremony. We may regard this as a
possibility; but we are only entitled to say that there must have been
some motive for the location of the fire at Slane. It is a nice problem
whether the scriptural parallels (the contest between Moses and the
magicians, and the Book of Daniel), which pervade Muirchu’s account,
were first introduced by Muirchu himself, or presided at the original
composition of the legend. I am inclined to adopt the second alternative;
and to hold, with Todd (though he does not clearly distinguish Muirchu
from Muirchu’s source), that Patrick’s contest with the Druids took
place “at the first Christian passover or Easter celebrated by him in
Ireland,” because the similar contest of Moses occurred shortly before
the first passover of the children of Israel, in the land of Goshen
(as Muirchu—following his source?—points out). Zimmer’s view, that the
motive of Muirchu in giving prominence to the story of Patrick’s first
Easter was connected with the Easter controversy in the seventh century
(_Celtic Church_, p. 81), has been noticed above, Appendix A, ii. 3; but
if Muirchu was specially interested in it on that account, the Easter
question had certainly nothing to do with the origin of the legend, which
must be far older than the seventh century. For Beltane fires cp. Frazer,
_Golden Bough_, iii. 259 _sqq._; for fires on Easter Eve, _ib._ 247 _sqq._

[There is a remarkable notice in the _Calendar_ of Oengus that on April 5
“on the great feast of Beccan MacCula, with a victory of piety excellent
Patrick’s baptism was kindled in Ireland” (transl. Stokes, p. lxvii.).
This obviously refers to the Slane legend, but the date April 5 must have
a different origin, as Easter did not fall on that day in 433. During
Patrick’s episcopate it fell only once on April 5, viz., in A.D. 459,
whether on the 84 or 84 (12) cycle. The notice therefore suggests that
in that year there was a baptismal ceremony which was remembered; and it
might be conjectured that it was the occasion of the raid of Coroticus,
which probably occurred towards the end of Patrick’s life. See cap. ix.
and notes.]

P. 104.—High festival at Tara (_Feis Temrach_). The holding of such an
assemblage by Loigaire is recorded in _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 454 (cp. _s.a._
461), and by his successor Ailill Molt, _s.a._ 467 (alternative dates
469, 470). According to the _Book of Rights_ (p. 7), such conventions
were held every seventh year; other traditions represent them as
triennial (cp. Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 416). But these notices in the
_Annals_ suggest that they were not held at stated periods in the fifth
century, but were summoned at the pleasure of the High King for special
purposes. This is especially suggested by the notice (_Ann. Ult. s.a._
461) that Loigaire lived seven years and seven months after the Feast
of Tara, as if it were a unique, not a recurring, event in his reign;
and the statement is inconsistent with a septennial as well as with a
triennial period. The periodic convention contemplated by the _Book of
Rights_ was held at Samhain (Nov. 1).

P. 105.—The company driving over the plain of Breg might possibly
contain a reminiscence of the custom of a _Flurumritt_, as described
by Mannhardt, _Der Baumkultus der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarstämme_,
397 _sqq._ In the Archduchy of Austria it was the custom for the sons
and servants of the house to ride round the fields at Easter, _vor
Sonnenaufgang im schnellsten Laufe_. Other instances of such early
processions are cited. The custom of proceeding _ad laevam_ against
the sun with malicious intent, seems still to exist near Lough Case in
Mayo. There is a pile of stones near the lake “round which stations are
made _desiul_ [rightward], except in the case of maliciously disposed
persons, who occasionally come on the sly in the dead of night, and go
round widdershins in order to raise storms to destroy crops and kill
cattle” (Professor Rhŷs, _Proceedings of Royal Society of Antiquaries of
Ireland_, Part iii. vol. viii. 5th series, 1898, p. 233).

P. 110.—The _Burg_ in Eiffel district (on first Sunday in Lent):
Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_, p. 501. Compare also the practice of the Gallic
Druids described by Caesar, _B.G._ vi. 16, and the material collected by
Mr. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 319 _sqq._

P. 111.—Burning of Sandan. Cp. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 168 _sqq._

P. 112.—Mode of burial of Loigaire. Tírechán, 308₄: the text should be
read as follows:—

    “Nam Neel pater meus non siniuit mihi credere sed ut sepeliar
    in cacuminibus Temro” (quasi uiris consistentibus in bello,
    quia utuntur gentiles, etc.), “ego filius Neill, et filius
    Dunlinge [_sc._ sepeliatur] im Maistin in campo Liphi pro
    duritate odi(u)i.”

Dr. Gwynn saw that _ego_ is to be construed with _sepeliar_. It seems
best to suppose that _quasi—bello_ is not part of Loigaire’s declaration.
As Mr. Stokes points out, _odiui_ can be translated as a perfect (the
relative being omitted), but _odii_ proposed by Todd furnishes better
sense. The two foes were still to face each other in their tombs,
standing in their armour, Loigaire looking southward and the King of
Laigin northward.

P. 115.—Dubthach. Muirchu 283₂ _Dubthoch maccu-Lugil poetam optimum_;
_Add. Notices_ 344, _Dubthach maccu-Lugair_. Material about the Hy Lugair
of Leinster is collected in Shearman’s _Loca Patriciana_. Shearman’s
theory that the Killeen Cormac bilingual stone commemorates Dubthach
and three of his sons cannot be maintained. The ogam inscription
means “(monument) of Ovanus, descendant of Ivacattus,” and the Latin
inscription reads IVVERE DRVVIDES, which Professor Rhŷs interprets “of
the Druid of Ivvera (= Ireland).” Thus the stone would commemorate one
Ovanus, a Druid. It certainly belongs to the Christian period, and may
probably be dated to the sixth century. Professor Rhŷs thinks it is by no
means impossible that this Druid was of the race of Dubthach maccu-Lugair
(_Studies in Early Irish History_, p. 7). But there can hardly be much
ground for such a supposition, especially as Dubthach was a poet, not a
Druid. The inscription illustrates the survival of Druidism.

The presence of Dubthach, a Leinster poet, at Tara, in the legend, is
remarkable. Was the incident inserted by Muirchu himself, from Slébte
tradition, or is Muirchu only responsible for the reference to Fíacc,
Dubthach’s pupil? It seems probable that Dubthach’s presence appeared
in the legend in its original form, and was a genuine reminiscence (cp.
Appendix A, ii. 5), and if so, it betrays that Patrick’s legendary
appearance at Tara was suggested by an actual visit, in very different
circumstances, for the purpose of consulting with Loigaire and
representatives from various parts of Ireland, one of whom would have
been Dubthach, about the status, etc., of Christian communities. For the
_file_, poet and lawyer, cp. D’Arbois de Jubainville, _Droit celtique_,
i. 321 _sqq._

P. 117.—For the foundations in Meath, see Tírechán, 307 _sqq._

P. 118.—Donaghpatrick. The place is marked by a fine earth-fort of the
mote type, with a crescent platform, separated from the mound by a ditch.
See Westropp, _Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 714.

P. 119.—Taillte: burning of the first-born offspring. Cp. _Book of
Leinster_, 201 a. 15, and O’Curry, _Manners and Customs_, vol. i. p. dcxl.

P. 120.—Uisnech. For the plan of this hill-town, see Westropp, _ib._ p.
688.

P. 123.—The account of Patrick’s visit to Mag Slecht (which was near
Ballymagauran in Co. Cavan) is found in later lives (_Vita Tertia_, c.
46, and _Tripartite_, p. 90). But there is reason to suppose that an
account of the visit has fallen out of Tírechán’s text (p. 311): see
Bury, _Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught_, pp. 154-6.

P. 123.—Cend Cruaich, _Tripart._; ceneroth or cencroth (corruption of
cencroch?), _Vit. Tert._; Cromm Cruach, _Book of Leinster_, 16 b. 30, and
cp. 213 b. 38 _sqq._; Crom Cróich, _Rennes Dindsenchas_ (ed. Stokes), in
_Rev. Celt._ 16, 35-6. See Rhŷs, _Celtic Religion_, pp. 200 _sqq._ In
the _Vita Tertia_, c. 46, it is said that Loigaire used to adore in Mag
Slecht; but we cannot attribute much importance to this statement.


CHAPTER VII

P. 127.—Amolngaid. The name occurs on a gravestone at Breastagh,
north of Killala, in King Amolngaid’s country: maq(i) Corrbri maq(i)
Ammllongatt—“(monument of ...) of the son of Corpri, son of Amolngaid”
(Rhŷs, _Proceedings of R.S.A.I._ Part iii. vol. vii. 5th series, p. 235,
1898). The _Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach_ (ed. O’Donovan, p. 11) gives
Coirpre as the name of a son of King Amolngaid; likewise a notice in the
_Book of Lecan_ (fol. 46, see O’Donovan, _ib._ p. 12, _note_ a). There is
thus ground for supposing that the person commemorated was a descendant
of the king.

P. 129.—Mathona was connected with Tamnach. Tírechán calls her sister of
Benignus, Patrick’s successor. He probably confounded the famous Benignus
with an obscure namesake whom he mentions in another place (319₁₅):
_Benignus frater Cethiaci de genere Ailello_. We should expect Mathona,
in Tirerrill, to be _de genere Ailello_.

P. 134.—For the place of crossing the Shannon (Sinona) indicated by
Tírechán, see my _Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught_, where it is shown
that the view which placed it near Clonmacnois is untenable.

P. 136.—On Rathcrochan and the various mounds around it, see O’Donovan’s
long note, _Annals of Four Masters, s.a._ 1223, vol. iii. pp. 204-6;
and cp. Westropp, _Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 687. On the red stone:
O’Donovan, _Hy Fiachrach_, pp. 24-5, _note_ (no mention of this stone is
found before the seventeenth century).

P. 139.—Baptismal queries. Three questions were put in the Roman usage:—

    Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem?

    Credis et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, dominum
    nostrum, natum et passum?

    Credis et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam, remissionem
    peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem?

(Duchesne, _Origines du culte chrétien_, p. 313.)

P. 140.—Death of Ethne and Fedelm after their baptism. The same thing is
told in Muirchu’s story _de Morte Moneisen Saxonissae_ (p. 496). Monesan,
daughter of a king in Britain, cannot be induced by her parents to marry,
but persists in asking her mother and her nurse cosmic questions. Her
parents, hearing that Patrick received weekly visits from God, took her
to Ireland, and besought the saint to allow their daughter to see God. He
baptized her, and she immediately committed her spirit to the hands of
the angels: _moritur ibi et adunatur_. She was buried at a church which
Muirchu does not name, but her relics were venerated there in his time.
Compare also the story of Ros, brother of Dichu, and the instance in the
life of St. Brendan, cited by Todd (_St. Patrick_, p. 459 and note).
The other cases which he quotes (p. 125 and note 2) are not so closely
parallel.

P. 145.—Inscription at Selce. Tírechán, p. 319; Bury, “Supplementary
Notes” in _Eng. Hist. Review_, October 1902. Bishop Brón MacIcni was
consecrated by Patrick (Tír. 305₁₀), and his name appeared as bishop
on the Selce inscription (319₇). The inference is that Patrick’s visit
to Killespugbrone (327₁₉) was on the first journey; but of course he
may have been there twice. Brón is commemorated in the Martyrologies of
Tallaght and Donegal at June 8, and in the latter his death is assigned
to A.D. 511.

P. 148.—Patrick’s foundations in Tirawley. I may refer to two papers
by Bishop Healy in the _Irish Eccl. Record_, 1889 (673 _sqq._ and 906
_sqq._), giving an account of an antiquarian visit which he made to the
neighbourhood of Killala.


CHAPTER VIII

P. 151.—Relics. For the notices in Tírechán see App. C, 16. The relics
at Armagh are also mentioned in _Liber Angueli_, 354. A ridiculous story
was afterwards invented that Patrick threw all the inhabitants of Rome
into a miraculous sleep, and then plundered the city of its most precious
relics (_Vit. Trip._ p. 238). It illustrates the moral ideals of medieval
Irish ecclesiastics, but hardly proves, as Todd suggests (p. 481), “the
unscrupulous manner in which the lives were interpolated to prop up later
superstitions.” For the extension of the cult of relics from the seventh
century forward see Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, pp. 119 _sqq._; but his
thesis that relics were unknown before in Ireland is highly improbable.

P. 155.—Emain, Navan. For a description and plan of the remains see M.
d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Rev. Celt._ xvi. p. 1 _sqq._; and cp. Westropp,
_Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 684.

_Ib._—House of entertainment at Navan: _Ann. of Four Masters, s.a._ 1387.

_Ib._—If Daire was King of Oriel, one is surprised at the way he is
introduced by Muirchu (290) as _quidam homo dives et honorabilis in
regionibus Orientalium_ (_i.e._ in Orior = Airthir, the eastern part
of Oriel = Oirgialla. This passage proves that Orior extended further
westward than the regions comprised in the two modern baronies of
Orior). This looks as if he were only an under-king, perhaps King of
the Hy-Nialláin (O’Neill-land) cp. _Book of Rights_, p. 146, for he was
a descendant of Niallán, cp. _Trip._ p. 228, and Todd, p. 481. On the
other hand, if the tradition that Daire co-operated with Loigaire and
Corc in initiating the Senchus Mór is correct, it looks as if he may
have been King of Oriel. In a tract in the _Lebor na hUidre_ (edited by
Stokes in his _Tripartite Life_, pp. 562 _sqq._) he is called _rí Ulad_
(p. 564) by an anachronism. It seems that he was in any case chief of the
Hy-Nialláin, and probable that he was also King of Oriel. The mere fact
that Armagh was chosen by Patrick as his chief seat seems to me (as I
have indicated in the text) an argument in favour of this conclusion.

P. 156.—Date of foundation of Armagh, A.D. 444. We must here follow
the Annals (see Appendix A, iii. 1). In the story of the foundation of
Trim in the _Additional Notices_, it is stated that Trim was founded
immediately on Patrick’s arrival in Ireland, _i.e._ A.D. 432, “in the
twenty-fifth year before the foundation of Armagh.” This would place the
foundation of Armagh in 457—a date which is obviously too late, and has
been rightly rejected by Todd (_St. P._ p. 470). Is it possible that
there had been a pre-Patrician foundation at Trim, twenty-four years
older than Armagh, and that the statement is due to a confusion between
this and Patrick’s second founding?

P. 159.—Northern Church at Armagh. The church which Patrick founded on
the hill is called by Muirchu “northern church,” _sinistralis aeclessia_;
hence Reeves supposes it “to have stood somewhere near the extremity
of the north transept of the present cathedral” (p. 15). On the other
hand, it has been suggested that the adjective means that the church was
built _north and south_ (cp. Todd, _St. P._ p. 412, and Stokes, note on
Muirchu, p. 292). The argument for this interpretation is that the church
was called the _sabhall_, and that the other church which bore the same
name (at Saul) lay north and south (_transverse_) according to the _Vita
Tertia_, c. 31; hence it is suggested that churches with this peculiarity
were called _sabhalls_. Reeves had taken this view in an earlier work,
_Antiquities of Down and Connor_, pp. 220-1.

P. 159.—Graveyard. _Vit. Trip._ 228, “the place where is the _ferta_
to-day” (Stokes), _not_ as Colgan (so Reeves and Todd), “the place where
are the two graves, _da ferta_.”

P. 162.—Clogher (in Tyrone). No connexion of Patrick with Clochar is
mentioned in the _Lib. Arm._, but there is a good deal about it in
the _Vit. Trip._ 174 _sqq._ The Bishop of Clochar, macc Cairthinn, is
described as Patrick’s champion. (It is not clear that he is the same
as _filius Cairthin_ in _Add. Notices_, 338₃). The _Domnach Airgit_ was
preserved at Clochar, at the time when the Part III. of the _Vit. Trip._
was compiled (p. 176), and afterwards transferred to Clones. It is now
in the Dublin Museum, and its history will be found in the papers of Dr.
Petrie (_Trans. of R.I.A._ vol. xviii. 1838), and Dr. Bernard (_ib._ vol.
xxx. Pt. vii., 1893). An inner box of yew is protected by a silver-plated
copper cover, which is enclosed in an outer case of gold-plated silver,
richly ornamented. It contained, but not originally, a copy of the
Latin gospels, of which mutilated fragments are preserved. It used to
be thought that this MS. dated from the fifth century, and belonged to
Patrick, but Dr. Bernard’s careful examination proves that it can hardly
be earlier than the eighth century. As for the box, which was probably
meant for relics, not for a MS., it may be identified with the _Domnach
Airgit_ of the _Vita Trip._, and is therefore at least as old as the
tenth century; but more cannot be said.

It may be observed that Clochar is called _Clochar macc nDoimni_ (_Vit.
Trip._ p. 178), and one of the bishops whose consecration Tírechán
notices (304) is Iustianus mac hu Daiméne.

_Ib._—Ardpatrick. The tradition that Patrick founded Ard Patric east of
Louth, though not in the _Lib. Arm._, deserves mention, because Mochtae,
whom Patrick established there according to _Vit. Trip._ 226-8, is
mentioned in Adamnan’s _Vita Columbae_ in the only passage where Adamnan
refers to Patrick (_Preface_):—

    quidam proselytus Brito, homo sanctus, sancti Patricii episcopi
    discipulus, Maucteus nomine.

According to _Ann. Ult._ Maucteus died in A.D. 535 or 537. If he was a
pupil of Patrick, he must have been very old when he died. A work by
Mochtae was quoted in the _Liber Cuanach: Ann. Ult., s.a._ 471; and the
opening words of a letter of his are given _s.a._ 535: _Maucteus peccator
prespiter sancti Patricii discipulus in Domino salutem_.

P. 163.—Patrick in Leinster. Sources: Tírechán 330-1; _Add. Notices_,
342-6 and 349-50 (with corresponding passages in _Vit. Trip._). For
Munster and Ossory, see Tír. 331. The Muskerry of Co. Cork is indicated
in _Add. Notices_, p. 351₂ = _Vit. Trip._ 220. For North Munster
(Thomond) see 350₃₁ = _Vit. Trip._ 200. Tírechán notices the foundation
of Domus Martyrum (Martortech) at Druimm Urchaille (in Co. Kildare). For
its site compare Shearman’s conjectures, _Loc. Patr._ p. 112.

_Ib._—Consecration of Auxilius and Iserninus.—The evidence for their
consecration by Patrick is Tírechán, 331₃: _et ordinarit Auxilium puerum
Patricii exorcistam et Eserninum et Mactaleum in Cellola Cuilinn_. It may
be questioned whether the text is sound; there is certainly some mistake
about Auxilius, who could not be described as _puer Patricii exorcista_,
and it is not stated to what order they were ordained. In Tírechán’s list
of bishops ordained by Patrick (304), Auxilius and Mactaleus appear,
but not Iserninus. In the corresponding passage in the _Vit. Trip._
(186) nothing is said of ordaining (“he _left_ Auxilius in Killossy, and
Iserninus and MaccTail in Kilcullen”). In the Add. Notices in _Lib. Arm._
(p. 342) it seems to be implied that Iserninus was already a bishop. See
above, p. 310.

P. 164.—Birth of Iserninus in Cliu (_Add. Notices_, p. 342). For the
locality see Shearman, _Loca Patriciana_, p. 141 _note_.

P. 165.—Fíacc. Memoranda in _Lib. Arm._ (_Trip._ 344); cp. Muirchu, 283.
The story represents Fíacc as consecrated bishop _per saltum_. This may
be an error. It is possible that he did not become a bishop till he went
to Slébte, and that at Domnach Féicc he was in inferior orders.

_Ib._—Domnach Féicc. Shearman, 186-8; the argument is at least plausible,
that it lay in the region between Clonmore and Aghowle. He would fix it
more precisely in the townland of Kilabeg.

P. 170.—The liturgy used by Patrick. Compare Duchesne, _Origines du culte
chrétien_, 3rd ed. (1903), chap. iii. p. 88 _sqq._ The _Antiphonary_ of
Bangor is an example of a Gallican liturgy unmodified by Roman influence,
and according to Dr. MacCarthy we have another in the oldest part of
the Stowe missal (see above Appendix A, i. 3, _ad fin._). For Celtic
liturgies see Warren, _Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church_ (1881),
the chief book on the subject. A _missa Patricii_ (mass of Patrick) is
mentioned in Tírechán (322₁₉). I cannot say what attention should be
paid to the statements about the Scottic liturgy in the _Cursus Romanus_
printed in Warren 77 _sqq._ (Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, i. 138). Cp.
Ussher, _Brit. eccl. ant._ (_Works_, vi. p. 480).

P. 176.—It is worth while to collect the notices of grants to Patrick
and _free_ churches mentioned in the _Liber Armachanus_. Muirchu, 291₃₁,
(Armagh) partem illam agri—do tibi nunc quantum habeo.

Tírechán, 320₂₁ (Drummut Cerrigi) immolauerunt agrum et bona patris eorum
Patricio. _Ib._ 309₃₀ (Endeus).

_Ib._ 321₇, aeclessiam liberam; 330₂₉, sed libere semper.

_Add. Notices_ 338 (offering of Caichán’s fifth: note _liberauit_ Deo et
Patricio).

_Ib._ 337, (sons of Conlaid offered) octo campi pondera id est uaccas
campi octo (8 ballyboes) in hereditate sua ... Deo et Patricio in
sempiterna saecula.

_Ib._ 340₃₋₁₀;344₁.

_Ib._ 335₂₋₆ (Trim.).

P. 184.—Alphabets (_abgitoria_ or _elementa_): Tír. 308₁₃, 320₂₈, 322₁₅,
326₃₀, 327₂₀, 328₂₈. The suggestion that these were figurative alphabets,
“the A B C of the Christian doctrine” (tentatively put forward by
Stokes, _Vit. Trip._ p. cliii.), can hardly be entertained, unless it
is shown that _abgitir_ was used in this sense without the addition of
_crabaith_ (= _fidei_). Tírechán saw a psalter written by Patrick for
Sachall—doubtless at Baslick (301₈). Justus, a deacon of Patrick, is said
to have possessed a baptismal liturgy which Patrick gave him, _libros
baptismatis_ (_ib._ 318). He gave Mucneus _libros legis septem_, which
seems to mean the Heptateuch? _ib._ 326₁₇.

Tírechán has a story that in a district of Connaught Patrick and his
companions had tablets, written _more Mosaico_, in their hands, and that
pagans took them for swords, saying that they seemed to be wooden in the
day-time, but were really of iron for shedding blood. It is inferred that
these tablets were wooden staves, roughly resembling in shape the short
swords of the ancient Irish: compare Graves, _Hermathena_, iii. 237 and
228 _sqq._, and Todd, _St. Patrick_, 509. [It may be noted that in this
passage of Tírechán _cum uiii aut uiiii uiris_ points to the use of a
written source; the numeral was not clear in the MS.]

P. 185.—The ogam alphabet. A word must be said on its structure, as
it bears upon my contention that Latin letters must have been used in
Ireland before the fifth century. The twenty-one ogam scores form four
groups of five, with one letter (p) as a supernumerary. The vowels form
one group; the other groups are (2) h d t c q; (3) b l v s n; (4) m g ng
f r. It has been suggested with great probability that the elements of
the second group were selected as being the initials of the first five
Irish numerals; but the principle of arrangement in groups 3 and 4 has
not been discovered. The choice of _p_ as the letter to be excluded from
the groups and treated separately must have depended on that principle.
The supposition that the inventor of the cipher contemplated only twenty
symbols, and that the symbol for _p_ was subsequently added when found
indispensable, is in itself unlikely (for why should he have fixed the
number twenty?), and breaks down on the fact that, while _ng_ might have
been treated by a shift, _p_ was required for the archaic word _poi_,
which occurs on several of the extant sepulchral inscriptions.[350]
Including _p_, and excluding _ng_, which was clearly a native invention,
we have simply a cipher of the Latin alphabet up to _u_, with a single
modification. The symbol _u_, which did double duty in Latin as both
consonant and vowel, is represented by two symbols, one for each
function. The fact that only the last three letters (x y z) of the Latin
alphabet are discarded, and that all the others are represented, renders
this explanation of the ogam cipher very much simpler than a derivation
from Greek or Iberian (or Runic, which has been suggested).

That the cipher implies that the alphabet for which its symbols are
substituted was in use can hardly be questioned. As the date of the
oldest ogam stones cannot be determined, we cannot fix a date for the
introduction of Roman writing. But there can be no question that the
older stones are pagan, and the inference is clear that this writing was
introduced independently of Christianity.


CHAPTER IX

P. 187.—Bishop Nynias, generally called Ninian, see Bede, _H. E._ iii.
4. This passage in Bede furnishes the only trustworthy tradition about
Nynias. His expression _ut perhibent_ shows that his information was
oral. Bede does not fix the date of Nynias further than by the vague
_multo tempore_ before St. Columba, and by the statement that the church
which Nynias built was dedicated to St. Martin. The usually accepted
date, _c._ 400 A.D., depends on the statement in Ailred’s _Vita Niniani_,
c. 2, that Nynias visited St. Martin (and obtained at Tours masons to
build his stone church). There is no evidence that the _Life_ composed
by Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx in the twelfth century, was based on any
ancient documents unknown to Bede; Ailred seems to have drawn his
material, mainly legendary, from traditions in Galloway, and, with the
exception of the visit to Martin, he adds nothing that can pretend to be
a historical fact to the brief notice of Bede. The personal contact of
Nynias with Martin, however, may be a genuine tradition; and it furnishes
the most probable explanation of the connexion of Martin’s name with
Candida Casa. But we have an independent testimony that the conversion
of the Picts of Galloway must have been at least early in the fifth
century—namely, their description as _apostatae_ in Patrick’s _Letter
against Coroticus_, which shows that they had been converted and fallen
away before the middle of the fifth century. [The fullest collection of
everything bearing on Nynias is Forbes’s _Lives of St. Ninian and St.
Kentigern_, 1874. A more recent edition of Ailred’s _Vita_ will be found
in Pinkerton’s _Lives of the Scottish Saints_, revised by W. M. Metcalfe,
vol. i. 1889. For a criticism on Ailred, see J. Mackinnon, _Ninian und
sein Einfluss auf die Ausbreitung der Christenthums in Nord-Britannien_,
1891. See also Plummer’s note on Bede, _H.E._ iii. 4.]

_Ib._—Candida Casa, Whitern, was known in Ireland in the sixth century
as Magnum Monasterium or Rosnat, and had a high reputation as a monastic
school: see passages in Colgan, _Acta Sanctorum Hib._ i. p. 438. This
reputation led to the rise of a legend that Nynias founded a church in
Ireland and died there. A lost Irish life, known to Ussher (_Brit. Eccl._
vi. 209) contained this story, and Nynias appears in Irish Martyrologies
under the name of Moinenn “my Nynias” (_Mart. of Tallaght_, ed. Kelly, p.
xxxiv.; _Mart. Dung._ ed. Todd, p. 249).

P. 190.—Ceretic or Coroticus. The only source for the following events
is Patrick’s _Letter_ (see below); but the identification of Coroticus,
who is the subject of the _Letter_, depends on other considerations which
seem quite conclusive. The Table of Contents to Muirchu’s Life describes
the section which Muirchu devoted to him as _de conflictu sancti Patricii
adversum Coirthech regem Aloo_[351] (p. 271; in Muirchu’s text he is
simply described as _cuiusdam regis Britannici_, p. 498). _Aloo_ at
once suggests the Rock (_Ail_) of Clyde, Bede’s _Alcluith_ (ciuitas
Brettonum munitissima usque hodie quae uocatur Alcluith, _H.E._ i. 1),
Adamnan’s _Petra Cloithe_; and this identification agrees with the close
association of Patrick’s Coroticus with the Picts and Scots, which shows
that he must have ruled in Northern Britain. But the determination of
Coroticus as ruling at Alcluith is demonstrated (as has been most clearly
shown by Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, p. 54, cp. Skene, _Celtic Scotland_,
i. 158, note) by a genealogy of the kings of that place, preserved in
a Welsh source. In the last quarter of the sixth century, in the time
of Columba, Rodercus, or Rhydderch, reigned at Alcluith (Adamnan, _V.
Col._ i. 15: Rodercus filius Tothail qui in petra Cloithe regnavit), and
we find him also as Riderch hen (Rhydderch the Old) in the _Historia
Brittonum_ (ed. Mommsen, p. 206). Now the pedigree of this Rhydderch is
found in a Welsh genealogy (ed. Phillimore, in _Y Cymmrodor_, 9, 173):
he was son of Tutagual (cp. Adamnan, _filius Tothail_), who was son of
Clinoch, who was son of Dumngnal, who was son of Cinuit, who was son
of Ceretic _guletic_. It is evident that Ceretic, from whom Rhydderch
was sixth, corresponds chronologically to Coroticus, the contemporary
of St. Patrick, reckoning a generation—thirty years—to each king. The
identification so completely fits with all the data that we can have no
doubt of its truth. Thus Zimmer fixes the date of Ceretic or Coroticus as
420-450 A.D. But it is better to say that the reigns of Ceretic and his
son Cinuit probably fell more or less between 420 and 480.

Zimmer thinks that the description of Ceretic as _guletic_ in the Welsh
source points to his position as claiming to be a successor of the Roman
_dux Britanniarum_. I do not feel certain that we can go so far, but
I have no doubt that Ceretic and his _milites_ represented the Roman
defence of North Britain. That these _milites_ were Roman citizens
is clear from Patrick’s words (_Letter_, p. 375₂₃, _militibus—non
dico ciuibus meis atque ciuibus sanctorum Romanorum sed ciuibus
demoniorum_—the sting of this reproach is that they professed to
be Roman). Coroticus was a _tyrannus_ for Patrick (_per tirannidem
Corotici_, p. 376₁₉). It is not clear whether the _reges_ and _tyranni_
who arose in various parts of Britain in the fifth century (for example,
Vortigern) bore Roman official titles: the fact that there were also
generals who were not _reges_ and who seem to correspond to the Roman
commanders (Ambrosius Aurelianus; Arthurius) cannot be considered
decisive. For the continuance of Roman civilisation in Britain after the
rescript of Honorius (A.D. 410), see Mr. Haverfield’s observations in
“Early British Christianity” in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, July 1896, pp. 428-30;
and on the other hand for a Celtic revival, his paper on “The Last Days
of Silchester,” _ib._ Oct. 1904, pp. 628-9.

[It is hardly necessary to mention the old view in Rees, _Welsh Saints_,
p. 135, followed by Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 352, that Coroticus was
Caredig, of Cardigan, son of the Welsh chief Cynedda.]

P. 192.—That the scene of the outrage was in North Ireland, in Down
or Antrim, is only a probable conjecture: (1) these coasts were the
most likely destination of an expedition from Strathclyde; and (2) the
circumstance that Patrick _happened_ at the time to be close to the place
suggests Ulster. Zimmer says nothing as to this; but his theory would
evidently compel him to assume that the outrage was committed in South
Ireland, for otherwise the _Letter_ of St. Patrick would imply that his
activity was not confined, as Zimmer contends that it was, to North
Leinster. For a conjecture that the date may have been A.D. 459, see
above, App. B, p. 303.

_Ib._—Heathen Scots. _Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum_ (Patrick,
_Letter_, p. 375₂₆). The Picts, not the Scots, are apostates (cp. p.
379₇); the natural inference is that the Scots (of Britain) were still
heathen. Zimmer’s inference that they were Christians (p. 55) seems
extraordinarily perverse. He asks us to observe that the Scots “are
not reproached with paganism.” The implication is inadmissible. Their
paganism is taken for granted; in fact, it is their excuse. If they had
been professing Christians their guilt would have been greater even than
that of the Picts, who had fallen away from Christianity. The fact that
it is on the Picts, not on the Scots, that Patrick’s reproaches fell,
proves that the Scots were heathen and therefore might not be expected to
know better.

The mention of the Scots in this document is important, because it proves
that Scottish settlements in North-Western Britain had begun before
the middle of the fifth century. This must be taken into account in
criticising the notice in Bede, _H.E._ i. 1, of the origin of the British
Dalriada.

P. 193.—The outrage on the neophytes: _Letter against Coroticus_,
375₂₂₋₃₂. The language of Patrick implies that it was the Scots and
Picts, not the _milites Corotici_, who slaughtered some of the Christians:

    socii Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum quasi sanguine
    uolentes saginari [see White’s ed.] sanguine innocentium
    Christianorum quos ego innumerum [? _leg._ innumerum numerum;
    _Boll._ innumeros] Deo genui atque in Christo confirmaui.

The text of the _Letter_ is full of corruptions, some of which may be
easily corrected. In the following sentence we should perhaps read:

    Postera die <quam> qua crismati neophiti in ueste candida, dum
    flagrabat in fronte ipsorum <crux>, crudeliter trucidati atque
    mactati gladio <a> supradictis, <..> et misi epistolam, etc.

_Crux_ or _crucis signum_ may have fallen out before _crudeliter_. For
the sign of the cross and white chrism at baptism, see Warren, _Liturgy
and Ritual of the Celtic Church_, p. 65; cp. p. 217. It was laid down by
Innocent I. (_Ep._ xxv., Migne, _P.L._ xx. 555) that chrism _in pectore_
might be performed by presbyters, chrism _in fronte_ only by bishops. For
the Roman and Gallican baptismal ceremonies see Duchesne, _Origines du
culte chrétien_, cap. ix.

P. 194.—There is a difficulty, perhaps only superficial, in Patrick’s
narrative in his _Letter_. He makes Coroticus fully responsible for the
outrage, but his language suggests that the message which he had sent to
demand the captives before the plunderers left Ireland was not addressed
to Coroticus personally; the ruler’s name is not mentioned, and the
plural is used (_cachinnos fecerunt de illis_, 376₄). It is possible,
however, that something has fallen out (see last note) before the words
_et misi epistolam_.

_Ib._—The persons in Strathclyde to whom the _Letter against Coroticus_
was transmitted and who were asked to excommunicate the tyrant are not
designated by a more precise expression than _sancti et humiles corde_
(376₂₃). They were, no doubt, the whole Christian community; but there
is no indication who was to receive the letter in the first instance.
There is apparently a reference to the contemplated transmission of the
letter from one place to another in Britain (certainly from Ireland to
Britain) by the hands of some _famulus Dei_ in 380₁₉, and the writer is
afraid that it might possibly be abstracted. The inference seems to be
that it was not to go direct to Alcluith, but to some other place (could
it possibly have been Whitern?).

P. 194.—The reference to the redemption of captives from the Franks is
an illustration from Patrick’s own writings of his knowledge of Gaul.
An untenable inference has been drawn from this passage by Sir S.
Ferguson and Dr. Stokes, namely, that it must have been written before
the Franks “crossed the Rhine and settled in Gaul, _i.e._ before A.D.
428” (Introduction to _Tripartite Life_, p. ci). The argument is based
on ignorance of Frank history. The Salian Franks in question had been
settled west of the Rhine since the time of Julian. Consequently if there
was any validity in the argument it would prove that the _Letter_ must
have been written before 358 A.D. But the reasoning is invalid. It is not
clear whether the Salians are meant; but if they are meant, as they well
may be, there is no reason in the world why they should not have carried
off captives to their territory in Lower Germany, on the Gallic side of
the Rhine, early in the fifth century, whether in the days of Chlojo or
before; in fact it is what we should expect in those troubled years from
407 to the campaigns of Aetius in the late twenties. The argument that
the Franks must have carried their captives _beyond the Rhine_ is to me
unintelligible.

_Ib._—Legend of the transformation of Ceretic into a fox: Muirchu, p.
498: _ilico uulpeculi_ (sic legendum) _miserabiliter arrepta forma_. The
curious expression (_ib._₁₉), _ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus
aquae transiens nusquam comparuit_, may possibly have been suggested by
the words in the _Letter_ 380₇ referring to Coroticus: _miserum regnum
temporale quod utique in momento transeat sicut nubes uel fumus qui
utique uento dispergitur: ita peccatores et fraudulenti a facie Domini
peribunt_. Muirchu found that story in an Irish written source (see
above, App. A, ii. 3).

P. 195.—Bitter phrases and self-justification in the _Letter_: see
375₂₀₋₂₁; 376₁₆ (_non usurpo aliena_); 377₁₄₋378₂; 379₁₂₋₁₈. For similar
phrases in the _Confession_ and the _Letter_, cp. Mr. White’s list of
recurrent phrases (_Proc. of R.I.A._ 1905, p. 299), to which may be added
the use of _utique_.

P. 197.—“Confession.” What Patrick meant by _confessio_ is made clear
by the last sentences of the work (374₂₈₋375₅), and borne out by the
general tenor. Compare esp. 358₄₋₁₀ (_confiteremur_), 361₁₇, 366₂₀, 370₃₄.

P. 202.—The attack on Patrick, on account of the youthful fault (_Conf._
365₂, etc.):

    et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui
    uenerunt et peccata mea contra laboriosum episcopatum meum
    <..>, utique in illo die fortiter impulsus sum ut caderem [cp.
    Ps. 118, 38] hic et in aeternum, sed Dominus pepercit proselito
    et peregrino, etc.

It is clear that the attack was made in Ireland (cp. App. C, 5). It seems
probable that the persons described as _seniores mei_ were ecclesiastics
in Ireland, and this view has been adopted in the text. But in another
passage we read that _aliquanti de senioribus meis_ were offended by
his persistence in the determination to go to Ireland (367₂₉), and this
might suggest the view that they came from Britain (_uenerunt_) for the
purpose of attacking him. It seems impossible to decide. The vision which
Patrick saw the night after an interview with the _seniores_ has caused
some difficulty; he tells it so badly. “That night I saw in a vision of
the night a writing which had been written against me,[352] dishonouring
me.[353] And at the same time I heard the answer of God saying to me,
‘We have seen with displeasure the face of’ the person aforesaid [viz.
the friend], revealing his name.”[354] The passage immediately following
deserves attention. The writer gives thanks for two things:

    [1] ut non me (sc. Deus) inpediret a profectione quam
    statueram, et [2] de mea quoque opera quod a Christo Domino meo
    dediceram, sed magis ex eo sensi in me uirtutem non paruam.

Here he designates as two great crises the attempts to dissuade him from
his missionary purpose, and the attack afterwards made upon him, to which
_ex eo_ refers.

P. 206.—Patrick regrets his want of education (_Conf._ 359₂₆):

    quatinus modo ipse adpeto in senectute mea quod in iuuentute
    non conparaui; quod obstiterunt peccata mea ut confirmarem quod
    antea perlegeram (_sc._ the rudiments he had learned before his
    captivity).

P. 206.—Scriptural quotations in the _Confession_ and _Letter_. A full
conspectus of these has been furnished by Rev. N. J. D. White in his
edition. His results as to the text used by Patrick may be summed up as
follows. For the Old Testament there is no evidence that he used the
Vulgate (cp. above, p. 293 _ad fin._), while there are distinctively
Old Latin citations. The New Testament citations are not so clear: some
passages seem certainly to imply the Vulgate; others have Old Latin
support. As there can be little doubt that Patrick quoted largely from
memory, I am inclined to conjecture that he had been trained on an Old
Latin version in Gaul, but that he possessed in Ireland a copy of the New
Testament Vulgate, in which he looked up some of his references. This
would explain the twofold character of the New Testament quotations, but
I put forward the conjecture with great diffidence.

_Ib._—Succession of Armagh bishops. See the four lists in Todd, _St.
Patrick_, p. 174 _sqq._ All these lists interpolate Sechnall, and three
of them the fictitious Sen Patraic, between Patrick and Benignus. But
the breviarium in the Book of Leinster (f. 12, vᵒ A; see my paper in
_E.H.R._, October 1902) recognises that Iarlathus (the successor of
Benignus) was the third bishop. I cannot, however, consider it certain
that Benignus succeeded Patrick before his death in 461, because the ten
years which the lists assign to Benignus may have been based on the Sen
Patraic interpolation, “Sen Patraic” being supposed to have died in 457,
and ten years (467-457) being thus obtained for Benignus.

P. 207.—Day of St. Patrick’s death. It is recorded in the Calendar of
Luxeuil (Martene et Durand, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, iii. c. 1592
(1717); Stokes, _Tripartite Life_, ii. 493).

_Ib._—Two distinct sets of _petitiones_ granted to Patrick are recorded,
one in Muirchu, the other in the _Lib. Arm._ at the end of Tírechán’s
Memoir. (1) Of the four petitions mentioned by Muirchu as granted by the
angel before Patrick’s death, two have obvious motives: one (_a_) is of
Ulidian origin, and the other (_b_) is in the interest of Armagh (see
above, p. 207). The other two are: (_c_) that whoever sings the hymn
concerning St. Patrick (Sechnall’s hymn) on the day of his death shall
be saved; and (_d_) that Patrick shall himself judge all the Irish on
the day of judgment. One wonders what Patrick would have thought of such
petitions, especially of the latter. It seems clear that (_c_) and (_d_)
were first invented, and had become current before (_a_) and (_b_) were
added.[355] (2) The other set consists of three (_tres petitiones ut
nobis traditae sunt Hibernensibus_, p. 331, Rolls ed.), and the _Vita
Tertia_ (c. 85) connects them with the sojourn for prayer on Mount
Crochan. They are (_a_) that none of the Irish who repents, even on his
death-bed, shall be shut up in hell; (_b_) that barbarous peoples shall
not rule the Irish for ever; (_c_) that seven years before the last day
Ireland shall be overwhelmed by the sea, and none of the Irish survive.
These petitions are given in the _Historia Brittonum_, and must have been
current in the eighth century.[356] The point of the second petition is
not clear. Possibly it refers to invasions from Britain.

We may conjecture that the stories of the petitions grew out of an early
legend that, through their saint’s intercession, the men of Ireland were
to have a privileged position at the Last Judgment.

P. 211.—St. Patrick’s crozier. The history of the crozier known as
_baculus Iesu_, which existed in Armagh in the eleventh century (see the
obscure notices in Tighernach, _s.a._ 1027 and 1030), was transferred in
the latter half of the twelfth century to the Cathedral Church of Dublin,
and was publicly burnt as an object of superstition in 1538, will be
found set out in Todd’s _Introduction_ (pp. viii. _sqq._) to the _Book
of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity,
Dublin_, ed. by J. C. Crosthwaite, 1844. The veneration with which it
was regarded in the eleventh century shows that it was an ancient relic,
and it can hardly be doubted that it was the existence of this relic at
Armagh which occasioned the story that Jesus gave a staff to Patrick.
This story occurs in the _Vita Tertia_, c. 23, which probably goes back
to the ninth century; and even if the story was not invented till that
period, the object which suggested it must have been older. It seems very
probable that the staff was one of the _insignia consecrata_ mentioned
in the _Liber Angueli_ (355₂₉, 356₄), and this would take us back to the
eighth century. There is therefore reason for thinking that the crozier
which perished in 1538 may have been extremely ancient, but there is
no positive proof that the tradition which assigned it to Patrick is
correct, or that it was as old as the fifth century.

_Ib._—St. Patrick’s bell. In _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 553, there is a notice,
derived from the Book of Cuana, to the effect that in that year St.
Columba placed the relics of Patrick in a shrine. Three relics had been
found in Patrick’s tomb, “the cup, the gospel of the angel, and the bell
of the will,” and an angel instructed Columba how to distribute them:
the cup was to go to Down, the bell to Armagh, and he was to keep the
gospel himself.[357] If this notice stood in the Book of Cuana, it would
show that early in the seventh century the “bell of the will” existed
at Armagh, and was believed to belong to Patrick. The bell has been
described, and its history traced, by Bishop Reeves in _Transactions of
the R.I.A._ xxvii. pp. 1 _sqq._ (1877). It is a four-sided bell, weighing
3 lbs. 8 oz., made “of two plates of sheet-iron, which are bent over so
as to meet, and are fastened by large-headed iron rivets.” The handle is
of iron. A shrine, which is also preserved in the Dublin Museum, was made
for it, _c._ A.D. 1100. Bishop Reeves believed that the tradition which
ascribed the bell to Patrick is sound. He seems to have thought that
there is no room for reasonable doubt. But it is to be observed that the
statement cited from the _Liber Cuana_ opens the door to possibilities
of fraud. We may infer from it with certainty that for nearly a century
after Patrick’s death this bell was not at Armagh. Its genuineness
therefore depends on the truth of the story of the opening of Patrick’s
tomb (at Saul), and the discovery of the bell in the tomb. But if the
relic was a forgery, just such a story might have been invented.


CHAPTER X

P. 218.—Latin the ecclesiastical language in the west. Since these
remarks were written, I came across two short but valuable papers on the
subject: P. Frédéricq, “Les conséquences de l’évangélisation par Rome
et par Byzance sur le développement de la langue maternelle des peuples
convertis” in the _Bull. de l’Académie royale de Belgique_, Classe des
lettres, 1903, n. 11, 738-751; F. Cumont, “Pourquoi le latin fut la seule
langue liturgique de l’occident?” in _Mélanges Paul Frédéricq_, 1904,
63-66.




APPENDIX C

EXCURSUS


1. _The Home of St. Patrick (Bannauenta)_

_CONFESSION_, 357₅: _qui_ (may refer either to Calpurnius or to
Potitus) _fuit [in] uico Bannauem taberniae. uillulam enim prope
habuit, ubi ego capturam dedi_. We are justified in inferring that
the _uillula_ or farmhouse was on the estate of Calpurnius, and that
he resided permanently here or in the neighbourhood. The analysis and
identification of _Bannauemtaberniae_ (or _Bannauemtaberniae_[358])
have caused great difficulty. In the first place, the question arises
whether it represents the name of the _vicus_, or is the name of the
_vicus_ (in the ablative) followed by a genitive representing the
region or district. Now it has been observed (by Mr. Haverfield, _Eng.
Historical Review_, v. 711, and Mr. Nicholson, _Academy_, May 11, 1895)
that in the _Itinerarium Antonini_ Bannaventa appears as the name of a
station on Watling Street, probably three or four miles from Daventry.
The idea that this Bannaventa is the place designated by Patrick has
one considerable difficulty. For the only early evidence we have as to
the situation of _Bannauemtaberniae_ is inconsistent with it. Muirchu
states that _Bannauemtaberniae_ was _haut[359] procul a mari nostro_
(495₉), and his next words show that in his time a distinct view was
current as to its identification: _quem uicum constanter indubitanterque
comperimus esse uentre_.[360] Muirchu’s indication that the place was
near the Irish Channel is the less lightly to be neglected, since it
would best accord with the circumstances of the capture of Patrick,
though of course it is not impossible that the Irish invaders might have
penetrated to Northamptonshire. I therefore think that probabilities are
distinctly against the Daventry theory unless it can be shown to involve
a satisfactory explanation of the mysterious _bernie_ or _burnie_.[361]
But that Bannaventa is the name there can, I think, be no doubt,[362]
and there is no objection to supposing that there was another Bannaventa
near the sea-coast. The recurrence of place-names needs no illustration.
Of the two parts of this compound name, we have more than one Venta
in Britain; and Mr. Haverfield has drawn attention to Banna (_loc.
cit._), “an unidentified spot in the north, probably a dozen miles east
of Carlisle, near the Wall.” _berniae_, however, remains unexplained.
It must represent the name of a district (or perhaps river), added to
distinguish Bannaventa from other places of the same name.

Muirchu’s statement that the _vicus_ was in or at Nentria (if this
is the authentic reading) does not help us. But we can hardly doubt
that he means by Nentria the same place which the Hymn of Fíacc means
by _Nemthur_: l. 1, “Patrick was born in Nemthur.” This name might
correspond to an old Celtic _Nemetoduron_ (a name preserved in _Nanterre_
near Paris).[363] This British Nemetodurum was, we may presume, in the
same region as Bannaventa.

The glossator in the oldest (eleventh century) MS. of the Hymn of Fíacc
identified Nemthur with Ail Clúade, the Rock of Clyde, at Dumbarton. We
are ignorant of his authority for this statement, which does not appear
in any earlier source. The fact, however, that it is not inconsistent
with the direct statements of earlier sources has procured credence for
it. But it is inconsistent with the probabilities of the case. Patrick’s
father was a decurion, and he must have lived in civilised Britain. We
have no evidence that there were Roman towns with municipal constitutions
in Strathclyde. The truth is that north Britain was little more than
a large military frontier. It is generally supposed that Theodosius
in A.D. 369 restored Roman rule, which had fallen back in the north as
far as the Wall of Antoninus, and that the district which he recovered
(recuperata provincia, Ammianus, 28, 3, 7), and which was renamed
Valentia (by Valentinian, in compliment to his brother Valens), included
the country between the Walls of Hadrian and Antonine. There is, strictly
speaking, no direct authority for this conclusion; Ammianus does not
indicate the position of Valentia. The supposition that it was in the
north, and that Theodosius restored fortresses as far as the line of the
northern wall, is, however, not improbable. But there is no probability
that it was colonised[364] or became in the last half century of Roman
rule anything more than a military district. The Rock of Clyde, at the
extreme end of the Northern Wall, is the last place we should expect
to find the _uillula_ of a Roman decurion; and the opinion that the
home of Calpurnius was in that remote spot cannot be accepted without
better evidence than an anonymous statement which we cannot trace to any
trustworthy source.

But it is not likely that the identification offered by the glossator
was his own invention; it is much more probable that it was an idea of
considerably older date, and we cannot avoid asking the question how it
could have arisen. It might be conjectured that the idea of connecting
Patrick personally with north Britain arose there, naturally enough, as
a consequence of the influence of the Irish Church on north Britain. But
whether the idea first arose there or in Ireland, a delusive support
for it might have been found in _Corot._ 375₂₃. Patrick’s expression
there, _civibus meis_, in speaking of the soldiers of Coroticus, might
have suggested that he belonged to the same place as Coroticus, and
it was known that Coroticus was King of Ail (Clúade). Hence a narrow
interpretation of Patrick’s expression _civibus meis_ was sufficient
to generate the theory that Patrick’s British home was there, and that
Nemthur was identical with Ail Clúade.

This is the case against the vulgar view. On the other hand it
might be argued that some things in the _Letter_ of Patrick against
Coroticus—especially his quotation “a prophet has no honour in his own
country”—have more point if he was a native of that part of Britain which
the letter concerns, namely, Strathclyde. It might be said that the
existence of some small towns, _fora_ or _conciliabula_, with municipal
councils, in the province assumed to be Valentia, is not impossible,
and that the existence of “Roman citizens” and Christian communities
in Strathclyde is proved by Patrick’s _Letter_ for the middle of the
fifth century. And it might be suggested that _bernie_ could be readily
explained as a corruption of _Berni<ci>e_ (remembering Bede’s description
of Whitern in Galloway as _ad provinciam Berniciam pertinens_, iii. 4,
which, though referring to the political geography of his own time, may
correspond to the original extension of this obscure name).

Nevertheless, in the absence of any trace of a Bannaventa (or a Nemthur)
in north British regions, we must, I think, give decisive weight to the
general probabilities of the case and suppose that Bannaventa was south
of the Wall of Hadrian, somewhere in western Britain, not very far from
the coast. See further, Preface.


2. _Irish Invasions of Britain_

(1) Pacification and fortification of Britain by Theodosius, A.D. 368,
369. Chief source: Ammianus, 27, 8, and 28, 3, who mentions five enemies;
Picti and Attacotti; Scotti; Franci and Saxones (27, 8, 5). Two passages
in Claudian illustrate the campaigns of Theodosius. In the _Panegyric_ on
the Third Consulship of Honorius (A.D. 395) we read, vv. 54-6:—

    Ille leues Mauros nec falso nomine Pictos
    Edomuit Scottumque uago mucrone secutus
    Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas,

and in the _Panegyric_ on the Fourth Consulship (A.D. 397), vv. 28
_sqq._:—

                      debellatorque Britanni
    Litoris ac pariter Boreae uastator et Austri.
    Quid rigor aeternus, caeli quid frigora prosunt
    Ignotumque fretum? maduerunt Saxone fuso
    Orcades; incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thyle;
    Scottorum cumulos fleuit glacialis Hiuerne.

The first of these passages suggests that Theodosius pursued the Scots
across the sea, or at least made a naval demonstration in the Irish
Channel, and this is perhaps supported by the passage in Pacatus,
_Panegyric_, c. 5: attritam pedestribus praeliis Britanniam referam? Saxo
consumptus bellis naualibus offeretur. redactum ad paludes suas Scotum
loquar?

(2) Troubles brought on Britain through the revolt of Maximus, and
pacification by Stilicho. Zosimus (source: doubtless Eunapius), 4,
35: the soldiers, having crowned Maximus, παραχρῆμα τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ναυσὶ
διαβάντες landed at the mouth of the Rhine. Cp. Orosius 7, 34, 9. (While
Zosimus imputes the blame of the insurrection to Maximus, Orosius says
that he was created Emperor _inuitus propemodum_.) The rebellion was
brought to an end by the death of Maximus in A.D. 388 (Idatius and
Prosper Tiro, _ad ann._), so that it cannot have been before that year
that the Britannic legions returned to Britain.

Now the only contemporary evidence as to the fortunes of Britain during
the fifteen years which followed the revolt of Maximus consists of two
passages of Claudian: (1) _In Eutropium_, i. 393 (composed A.D. 399, June
to Sept.)—

    fracto secura Britannia Picto,

where the context implies that this was accomplished during the reign of
Honorius (_te principe_, 391); (2) _De Consulatu Stilichonis_, ii. 247
_sqq._ (composed end of A.D. 399):—

    Inde Caledonio uelata Britannia monstro,
    Ferro picta genas, cuius uestigia uerrit
    Caerulus Oceanique aestum mentitur amictus:
    “Me quoque uicinis pereuntem gentibus” inquit
    “Muniuit Stilicho, totam cum Scottus Hiuernen
    Mouit et infesto spumauit remige Tethys.
    Illius effectum curis ne tela timerem
    Scottica, ne Pictum tremerem, ne litore toto
    Prospicerem dubiis uenturum Saxona uentis.”

The second passage evidently suits the situation in which Britain would
have almost inevitably found herself on the departure of Maximus with the
legions. Two questions arise. In what year did Stilicho take measures
for the defence of Britain? and did he visit the island in person?
Keller supposes that the date was A.D. 385 and denies that he went to
Britain (_Stilicho_, p. 17). As to the latter point it is possible that
Keller may be right. The phrase _illius effectum curis_ suggests this
conclusion; if Stilicho had visited Britain and provided for its security
on the spot, Claudian would perhaps have used some more vivid and graphic
phrase, leaving the reader in no doubt that his hero had appeared on the
scene of danger.

Before criticising Keller’s date, A.D. 385, it will be well to define the
reference in the other passage, which distinctly states that the defeat
of the Picts which is mentioned, was accomplished while Honorius was
Emperor. This might mean one of two things. It might mean: since Honorius
succeeded his father as sole Augustus in the west (Jan. A.D. 395); or it
might mean: since Honorius was created Augustus (Jan. A.D. 393). The
words cannot assuredly be interpreted of the Caesarship of Honorius (he
appears with the title Caesar in his first consulship, A.D. 386). In the
absence of any other counter-indication, we are, I think, fully entitled
to assume that _te principe_ bears its most obvious and natural meaning,
and that the defeat of the Picts occurred while Honorius (and not his
father Theodosius) was solely responsible for the government of the
west. We may therefore assign as limits to the date of this event, Jan.
395-June 399 A.D..

Now Keller has made the mistake of associating these two passages of
Claudian closely together. While the first emphasises a defeat of the
Picts and does not refer to the other foes of Britain, the second
describes the serious dangers which beset the island on three sides,
and states that measures of defence were taken by Stilicho, but makes
no mention of an actual defeat of the Picts, or indeed of any other
enemy. There is therefore no reason for supposing that both passages
refer precisely to the same events; and it may be argued with some force
that if Claudian was thinking of the same achievements he would not have
omitted, in rehearsing the military successes in the reign of Honorius,
to mention the Scot and the Saxon as well as the Pict, especially as his
description in the second passage conveys the idea that the Scot and the
Saxon were the most formidable.

We may therefore refer the events mentioned in the poem “On Stilicho’s
Second Consulship” to a date prior to A.D. 395, and may return to
consider and reject Keller’s suggestion of A.D. 385. It does not need
much consideration, for it is wholly inconsistent with the political
situation. After Gratian’s death in A.D. 383 Maximus was recognised
as Augustus by Theodosius (A.D. 384 or 385, cp. Schiller, _Gesch. der
röm. Kaiserzeit_, ii. 405), who was not then in a position to advance
against the usurper (Zosimus, 4, 37). From that time until he marched
upon Italy in A.D. 387, there were no hostile dealings between Maximus
and Theodosius. Maximus ruled over Britain, Gaul, and Spain from his
headquarters at Trier, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that
Theodosius or any general of his interfered in the administration of
those provinces. Stilicho was a general of Theodosius,[365] and he cannot
possibly have had to do with Britain till after Theodosius came to the
rescue of the young Valentinian in A.D. 388. Thus Keller’s date is
excluded.

The true date can easily be surmised. After the execution of Maximus in
summer A.D. 388 Theodosius remained in Italy, ordering the affairs of
the west for the young Valentinian, and did not return to Constantinople
till summer A.D. 391. No part of the Gallic Prefecture probably demanded
his attention more than Britain, and we cannot be far wrong in supposing
that the measures of Stilicho, recorded by Claudian, belong to these
three years. As was observed, the words of Claudian rather suggest that
Stilicho did not himself pass into Britain. But we may assume that
Theodosius sent him into Gaul, and that from there he ordered what was
necessary to be done.

It seems probable that Maximus retained in Gaul a considerable part of
the Britannic army; and if so, it was doubtless one of the cares of
Stilicho to restore to Britain these contingents. We may assume that
from A.D. 390 two legions (IInd and VIth), if not the XXth also, were in
Britain.

(3) At the end of 401 Alaric entered Italy (for the chronology see
Appendix 17 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.), and a legion was
summoned for the defence of Italy. Claudian is again our source, _De
Bello Gothico_, 416-8:—

    Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis
    Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas
    Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.

This description of a legion which might be called upon to act against
both Irish and Pict certainly suggests the legion which was stationed in
the northern military district, of which the headquarters was York.[366]
Now in the _Notitia Dignitatum_, which represents the state of the
civil and military service in the Empire in the first years of the
fifth century, we find two legions in Britain, the VIth in the northern
districts under the _dux Britanniarum_, the IInd in the south-eastern
district under the _comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias_. No legion
appears in the western district under the _comes Britanniae_. It has
therefore been supposed that it was the XXth legion, stationed in the
west, which was summoned to Italy; and the fact that this legion does not
appear in the _Notitia_ at all has suggested that this document was drawn
up after it had left Britain, but before it had been permanently assigned
to any other station. Claudian’s words need not be fatal to this theory,
for the legion whose headquarters was at Chester would have to defend
Britain against the Scots, and might have to defend it against Picts if
they broke through the wall; and in any case the words of the poet in
such a matter could not be precisely pressed. But the argument cannot be
regarded as conclusive. It is perfectly possible that the XXth legion
had been broken up before this time, that there were only two legions in
Britain, and that it was the VIth which went to Italy. Its departure,
it should be remembered, did not leave north Britain defenceless; there
were large forces, cohorts, and alae, distinct from the legion. It is,
moreover, possible that the British section of the _Not._ is of much
older date.

(4) The elevation of the tyrant Constantine and his crossing into Gaul
would seem to have happened in the first half of A.D. 407. This seems
to follow from the account in Olympiodorus (fr. 12, ed. Müller). The
second half of A.D. 406 is filled by the episodes of Constantine’s
predecessors, Marcus and Gratian. Zosimus (who, in regard to the dating,
misunderstood Olympiodorus, as was pointed out by Freeman[367]) says
that the invasion of Gaul by the Vandals and their fellows was one of
the causes of the rebellion in Britain (vi. 3, 1). This cannot be true,
if the text is sound in the entry of Prosper Tiro, which states that the
Vandals and Alans crossed the Rhine at the end of December A.D. 406.[368]
On the other hand, two considerations might tempt us to suspect this
notice, namely, the unlikelihood of a migration in the middle of winter,
and the existence of two edicts for a levée of provincials _contra
hostiles impetus_ dated April 18 and 20 at Ravenna (cp. Hodgkin, i.
739). But neither of these considerations is weighty enough to justify
us in assuming without further evidence anything inconsistent with the
testimony of Prosper’s MSS. In any case, the crossing of Constantine
into Gaul will fall in the year A.D. 407.[369] We can have no doubt that
most of the soldiers in Britain accompanied Constantine when he departed
to secure Gaul. But he must have left garrisons; it was important for
him to retain his hold on the island if, as is probable, his corn
supply depended on it. Mr. Freeman has summed up the event thus in its
consequences for Britain: “Britain might be saved by a campaign in Gaul.
But if this was the motive, the thought of saving Britain must soon have
passed away from the minds of Constantine and his soldiers. Whether they
cared for such an object or not, the course of things on the mainland
soon made it hopeless for them to think of keeping up any relations with
the great island. The crossing of Constantine into Gaul thus became the
end of the Roman power in Britain” (p. 56).

It is possible that Constantine, before he departed, may have set up a
colleague, named Carausius, to safeguard his interests in Britain. This
at least is the inference drawn by Mr. A. J. Evans from a coin found at
Richborough (see _Numismatic Chronicle_, third series, vii. 191 _sqq._
1887, and App. 19 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.).

(5) We may now briefly consider the account of this last period of
Roman domination which is given in the Epistle of Gildas, _De excidio
et conquestu Britanniae_. Gildas, a native of west Britain, wrote in
the first half of the sixth century, and his description in cc. 13-20
represents the confused memories of that troubled time, surviving in his
own day. As Mommsen[370] says: “haec ut in universum rerum statum in
Britannia qui tum fuit recte repraesentare videntur, sic ut narrantur
magis famam incertam reddunt quam sinceram rerum gestarum narrationem.”

In this account three great devastations are distinguished, and each is
attributed to the withdrawal of the Roman garrison. The first was caused
by the revolt of Maximus (cc. 13, 14); the island was devastated by Scots
and Picts;[371] and it was not until the islanders sent an embassy with
letters to Rome that “a legion,” _praeteriti mali_ (the disloyalty of
Britain) _immemor_, was sent to Britain, defeated the enemy, and built
a wall across the island. The details are of course inaccurate, but the
general fact that the rebellion of Maximus brought invasion upon Britain,
and after his fall measures were taken (by Stilicho) for fortifying it,
is correct.

But Gildas conceived that the “legion” when it had done its work did not
remain in the island, but returned triumphantly to Rome; and then the
old foes began their ravages anew (c. 16). Again an embassy repairs to
Rome and begs aid; aid is again given, and the invaders are punished. The
soldiers, having given good advice to the timid natives and erected new
fortifications, _valedicunt tamquam ultra non reversuri_. Then follows
the third devastation, and the famous futile message of the “groans of
the Britons” is sent to Aetius.

Now this narrative does not correspond to the course of events as we
gather it from the scanty contemporary sources, but we can see how it is
based on actual occurrences. The third devastation, from A.D. 407, when
the army finally departed, to A.D. 446 (the third consulship of Aetius),
must represent truly enough the situation of Britain in those years. The
circumstance that one legion was withdrawn in A.D. 402, and that the rest
departed five years later, in A.D. 407, may have been the historical
motive for distinguishing a second period of devastation, which would
have to fall before A.D. 407.

But a further fact may underlie this tradition of a second devastation.
There is no reason to reject the statement in the Irish Annals that King
Niall was slain by the Ictian Sea (Sea of Wight), that is, the English
Channel, while he was invading Britain, nor is there any reason to
question the date assigned to his death, A.D. 405. And if the date is
right, even within a year or so, then his last incursion into Britain may
be regarded as the historical foundation of the “second devastation” of
Gildas.

For the legend of the Slaying of Niall of the Nine Hostages (_orcuin
Néill nóigíallaig_) see the version edited by Professor Kuno Meyer (in
_Otia Merseiana_, ii. 84 _sqq._).

The High Kings of Ireland who may have been concerned in the “Scotic”
invasions of Britain from the middle of the fourth century to the year
A.D. 427 were as follows, according to the Irish tradition:—

    Eochaidh Muighmeadhoin, A.D. 358-366.
    Crimthann, A.D. 366-379.
    Niall (son of Eochaidh), A.D. 379-405.
    Dathi (nephew of Niall), A.D. 405-428.


3. _The Dates of Patrick’s Birth and Captivity_

The chronological framework of Patrick’s life is determined by two
certain dates: the year of his coming to Ireland, which rests upon clear
and unvarying tradition, A.D. 432, and the year of his death, A.D. 461.
This last date is supplied by the earliest source we have (excepting
Patrick’s own writings), Tírechán (302₂₉), and it is supported by the
independent evidence of the Annals. For although the false, vulgar date
(A.D. 493) established itself in the Annals, the true date remained
inconsistently side by side with it. I must refer the reader to my
discussion of the passage of Tírechán in the _English Historical Review_,
xvii. p. 239 _sqq._ (1902), where I have shown that the date there given,
A.D. 461, is supported by the Annals of Ulster,[372] the Annals of
Inisfallen,[373] and probably by a chronological notice in the _Historia
Brittonum_.[374]

But though these data are decisive, the vulgar date 493 has become so
generally current that it may not be amiss to point to one or two further
considerations which make against it; especially as it is possible to
dissociate it from the tradition that Patrick died at an age which is,
to use a moderate expression, unusual—120, by supposing that he was born
in the first years of the fifth century, was ordained bishop at the age
of 30, and lived to the age of 90. This view would involve a forced
explanation of the dates (see below) supplied by the _Confession_. It is
to be observed (1) that the Annals and older sources do not furnish a
single notice of any event in Patrick’s life between 461 and 493; these
thirty-two years are a blank. (2) Negative evidence is also furnished by
the oldest _Life of St. Brigit_ (by Cogitosus), which does not mention
Patrick, or make any attempt to bring Brigit into connexion with him (as
the latter Lives do, on the ground of the supposed date of his death
in 493). Further (3), Benignus, Patrick’s successor at Armagh, died in
467 (_Ann. Ult. sub a._; Annals in the _Book of Leinster_, f. 12, vᵒ A,
see my extract in _English Historical Review_, xvii. pp. 700-1, 1902);
and it will be allowed to be supremely improbable that Patrick should
have resigned his bishopric when he was 60 years old or thereabouts, and
survived his resignation 30 years. The question of the origin of the date
493, and of the two fabulous ages of Patrick (120 and 132) are treated in
a separate Excursus.

Our other data depend upon the _Confession_. He had committed some fault
when he was about 15 years old;[375] he had confessed it to a friend
before he was ordained deacon;[376] and through the treachery of his
friend[377] it was afterwards urged against him. These machinations
against him occurred _post annos triginta_,[378] which has been generally
interpreted to mean 30 years after the commission of the fault.[379] It
is also generally assumed that the hostile machinations of which Patrick
complains occurred in connexion with his consecration as bishop. I will
show that the first of these two assumptions is not certain, and that
the second is erroneous; but, as they are usually accepted, I may first
explain the chronological reconstruction which could be based on them. If
Patrick’s fault committed at the age of 15 was urged against him 30 years
later when he was consecrated bishop in A.D. 432, we at once get his age
in that year as 45, and the date of his birth as A.D. 387, and the date
of his captivity (= 387 + 16/17) as A.D. 403/4. This would follow, if we
took the two numbers mentioned by Patrick as strictly precise. But it
is to be observed that he gives the number 15 as approximate (_nescio,
Deus scit, si habebam tunc annos quindecim_), and that 30 may be a round
number. When he says that he does not think he was more than 15 when
the delinquency was committed, we may presume that he was at least 15;
on the other hand, we may take it that the number 30 is more likely to
be slightly an over-statement than an under-statement. We should have,
therefore, to consider it quite possible that the two numbers taken
together might represent a period of somewhat less than 45 years—43 or
44; and it would not be safe to draw a more precise inference than that
the birth date fell between 387 and 390, and the captivity between 403/4
and 406/7.

But the basis on which this reconstruction is built is unsound. (1) So
far from its being clear that the 30 years are reckoned from the date
of the fault, the words suggest a different view. _Occasionem post
annos triginta inuenerunt[380] et aduersus uerbum quod confessus fueram
antequam essem diaconus._ These words seem naturally to imply 30 years,
not after the fault (which has not been yet mentioned), but after the
confession of the fault.[381] (2) It is quite clear that the occasion on
which the fault was urged against him by _aliquanti seniores_ was not
the occasion of his consecration, but later, probably much later. The
writer’s language so obviously implies this that I find it difficult to
conceive how it could have been otherwise interpreted. He says:—

    Et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui
    uenerunt et peccata mea contra _laboriosum_ episcopatum meum,
    etc. ... sed Dominus pepercit _proselito et peregrino_ (365₂₋₇).

The significant word _laboriosum_ shows conclusively that the
intervention of the seniores did not occur till Patrick had already been
working in Ireland long enough to describe his bishopric as “laborious”;
and the words _proselito et peregrino_, describing his position in
Ireland, manifestly confirm this interpretation. If the seniores
had intervened at the time of his consecration, it would be quite
inappropriate and pointless to describe their action as aimed _contra
laboriosum episcopatum meum_.

Hence the chronological reconstruction falls to the ground, being
based on an erroneous determination of the limits of the period of 30
years. The anterior limit most probably corresponds to the date of the
confession of the fault before ordination, while the posterior limit is
certainly subsequent to A.D. 432.

It follows that these data of the _Confession_ furnish us with no precise
dates, as we have no fixed year to reckon from. They may, however, give
an approximate indication. The words _quod confessus fueram antequam
essem diaconus_ strongly suggest that the confession was made not long
before Patrick’s ordination as deacon. In another Excursus (9) it is
shown that he was probably ordained before A.D. 418. Hence we should
infer that the intervention of the seniores occurred before the year A.D.
448. More than this we are not entitled to infer. We have no means of
determining precisely Patrick’s age at the date of his consecration.

There are nevertheless two indications which suggest that 389 may
have been the year of Patrick’s birth: (1) the conjecture that he was
taken captive on the occasion of King Niall’s invasion in A.D. 405 is
in harmony with our data; it is a value of _x_ which satisfies our
indeterminate equation, though it is not the only value. It implies A.D.
389 as the birth date. (2) I show in another Excursus (20) that one of
the traditions as to Patrick’s age at his death can be accounted for by
supposing that he died at the age of 72; but 461 - 72 = 389.

Speaking, then, with every reserve, I think we may say that 389 is the
only year which is particularly indicated by any data we possess, and
that if we assume it hypothetically as our starting-point we obtain a
framework into which our data fit consistently, and without constraint.
More than this cannot be said.


4. _The Place of Patrick’s Captivity_

_Confession_, 367₂₄, _in siluis et monte_; 362₃, _inter-missi_ hominem
cum quo fueram ui annis; 364₁₀₋₁₃, _putabam—audire uocem ipsorum qui
erant iuxta siluam Focluti quae est prope mare occidentals, et sic
exclamauerunt quasi ex uno ore Rogamus te, sancte puer, ut uenias et_
adhuc _ambulas inter nos_. The last passage shows indisputably that
Patrick, during his captivity, had “walked” near the wood of Fochlad; and
otherwise it would be difficult to understand why he should have been
so specially moved by thoughts of the people of Fochlad if he had known
nothing of them personally. The obvious conclusion from the _Confession_,
if we had no other data, would be that he spent six years of captivity
with the master to whom he refers in western Connaught.

The authorities for the association of Patrick’s captivity with north
Dalaradia and Mount Miss are Tírechán, 329₂₈-330₁₉, 311₁,₂, and Muirchu,
275₁₅₋₁₉, 276₆₋277₆, 300₁₀₋₁₃. I have pointed out that parts of these
passages of Tírechán and Muirchu depend on a common source (see above,
p. 258). It is to be observed that, in these our earliest sources (1),
the identification of Patrick’s master with Miliucc of Mount Miss is
introduced, not in connexion with the story of the captivity, but _à
propos_ of visits to that region after he had come as a missionary; and
(2) the notices in both writers are characterised by legends—Miliucc’s
self-immolation, the footsteps of the angel, the flames from Patrick’s
mouth.

The rejection of Mount Miss as the scene of Patrick’s servitude involves
the rejection of Miliucc as his master; for the passage in Tírechán
makes it clear that Miliucc was really connected with that region
(_ascendit autem ad montem Miss Boonrigi quia nutriuit ibi filium Milcon
Maccu-Buain_, 329₂₈; the region was called from the name of Búan,
Miliucc’s ancestor).

That the forest of Fochlad was not confined to north-western Mayo, the
barony of Tirawley, but extended southward to Murrisk, is, I think, a
probable conclusion from the passage in Tírechán, 310₃₋₁₂, where Crochan
Aigli (Croagh Patrick) is closely connected with the _Silua Fochlithi_.
It seems highly probable that Crochan Aigli, which has always been
associated with Patrick in living tradition, is the mountain of the
_Confession_. And in one document we have a distinct statement that this
was so. It is remarkable that Probus, though he follows the narrative
of Muirchu, nevertheless substitutes Crochan Aigli for Mount Miss (see
above, p. 274). He must have had some motive for doing so; he must have
had another tradition before him.

The question arises, what was the origin of the error (which evidently
prevailed before the seventh century) that Patrick spent his captivity
in north Dalaradia. Tírechán has a notice that a certain Gosactus
(Guasacht),[382] whom Patrick ordained near Granard, was son of Miliucc
(311), and his tomb was shown at Granard in later days, _Vita Secunda_,
c. 15. This seems to bring Miliucc into touch with reality. He further
states that Patrick, when a captive, had “nurtured Gosactus.” Our first
idea would be that this was an inference from the Miliucc legend; but it
seems just possible that it might account for the rise of the legend, in
the way explained above, p. 123 (cap. vi.).

There are two ways in which an attempt might be made to reconcile the
tradition of the captivity near Mount Miss with the passage in the
_Confession_. (1) It might be held that Patrick changed masters, and
served as a slave in both regions. But the passage in which he describes
his captivity seems incompatible with such a conjecture. He says that he
had been six years with the man from whom he escaped, and his narrative
distinctly conveys the impression that he had been in the same place
since his arrival in Ireland. (2) It might be suggested that he escaped
from Antrim to a port in Mayo, near the wood of Fochlad, and thus became
acquainted with that district, though he could not have been very long
there (cp. White, _Proc. of R.I.A._ 1905, p. 224). But the words of
the dream _et adhuc[383] ambulas inter nos_ are not satisfied by this
hypothesis. “We beg you to come and continue to walk amongst us”; this
implies a previous sojourning far more protracted than the day or two
spent at the port in waiting for the vessel to sail. It may be added that
a flight from the west to an eastern port is what we should rather expect
than a flight from the east coast to a western harbour.


5. _Tentative Chronology from the Escape to the Consecration as Bishop_

[The following discussion is founded on the working hypothesis (see
Excursus 3) that Patrick was born _c._ A.D. 389, and carried captive _c._
A.D. 405.]

In the twenty years intervening between Patrick’s escape, _c._ A.D.
411-412, and his consecration as bishop, A.D. 432, we know that he
visited Britain, that he was attached to the church of Auxerre and
studied there, and that he sojourned for some time in the monastery
of Lérins. But our data do not permit us to arrange this part of his
life with certainty, and various reconstructions are possible. The two
indications which we possess are:—

(1) His own statement that he was again in Britain, _post paucos annos_
(after his escape), _Confession_, 364₁.

(2) His association with Bishop Amator of Auxerre, who probably ordained
him deacon (the grounds of this probability will be shown in Excursus 9);
the death of Amator probably happened in A.D. 418.

Our view will partly depend on the latitude we may feel justified in
giving to the expression _post paucos annos_. It might be held that
his ordination by Amator preceded his return to Britain; or it might
be held that he was not ordained at Auxerre till after his visit to
Britain, so that he would have returned to Gaul before A.D. 418. The
second alternative seems the more probable,[384] and it agrees with the
tradition (Muirchu) that he went to Auxerre to study _after_ his visit to
Britain. His choice of Auxerre, combined with the circumstance that it
was a bishop of Auxerre who afterwards took a prominent part in helping
the orthodox British against Pelagianism, suggests that relations of
some intimacy were maintained between Auxerre and some of the British
sees. When Patrick, in Britain, made up his mind as to the destination
of his life, he would have gone to Auxerre with recommendations from his
friends. It seems most likely that his connexion with Auxerre should have
originated in this way.

The tradition as embodied in Muirchu represents him as remaining at
Auxerre till his departure for Ireland, and though it might easily be
erroneous, it is, so far as it goes, against the possible theory that
Patrick’s sojourn at Lérins is to be placed after his visit to Britain.
But we have another piece of evidence which seems to me decisive, namely,
one of the so-called _Dicta Patricii_. See Excursus 6, _ad fin._

The argument for placing the sojourn at Lérins before the return to
Britain may be summed up thus: (1) the reminiscence of Patrick’s
wanderings almost certainly refers to his wanderings after his escape,
and there can hardly be any doubt that the “islands in the Tyrrhenian
Sea” mean the islands of Lérins, in view of the definite tradition
(Tírechán, 302₂₄) that he stayed in the _insola Aralanensis_; (2) this
date for the retreat to Lérins supplies the much-needed explanation of
his delay in returning home.

The following chronology, then, may be a rough approximation:—

A.D. 411/2 escape from his ship-companions;

A.D. 411/2-414/5 at Lérins;

A.D. 414/5 returns to Britain;

A.D. 415/6 goes to Auxerre;

A.D. 416-8 is ordained by Amator;

A.D. 418 death of Amator, who is succeeded by Germanus;

A.D. 418-432 Patrick remains at Auxerre, as deacon;

A.D. 429 Germanus goes to Britain to suppress the Pelagian heresy;

A.D. 431 Palladius consecrated bishop for the Irish Church;

A.D. 432 Patrick consecrated bishop by Germanus.


6. _The Escape to Gaul. The State of Gaul, A.D. 409-416_

The Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, who entered Gaul at the end of A.D.
406, remained in the land, devastating, slaying, and burning until A.D.
409, in which year they crossed the Pyrenees, to find homes in Spain.
The extent of their ravages is indicated by Jerome, in a letter of A.D.
411, in which he mentions the devastation of Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and
Narbonensis, and the destruction of Mainz, Rheims, and Speyer.[385] It
is also described by Salvian, writing at a much later date,[386] in the
_De Gubernatione Dei_, who tells[387] how the Vandals, _gens ignavissima,
de loco ad locum pergens de urbe in urbem transiens_ laid all things
waste. _Arsit regio Belgarum deinde opes Aquitanorum luxuriantium et
posthaec corpus omnium Galliarum._ But more valuable as genuine pictures
by eye-witnesses, men who had themselves suffered with the sufferings
of Gaul, are the _Commonitorium_ of Orientius, and an anonymous poem
entitled _De Providentia Divina_. Both these poems can be approximately
dated to A.D. 415-416, and they describe the condition of the country at
the time, enabling us to realise the long misery and desolation produced
by the scourge of the years A.D. 407-409 Nor had Gaul, at least southern
Gaul, been allowed a respite of peace to recover from the effects of
that scourge, for the provincials had hardly become conscious that the
Vandals had passed into Spain when Athaulf and his Visigoths entered
Gaul. Moreover, a large body of Alans had remained behind, instead of
accompanying their fellows across the Pyrenees. We derive a vivid picture
of the unsettled state of Aquitaine from the _Eucharisticon_ of Paulinus
of Pella.[388]

Some passages in Orientius, the _De Providentia Divina_, and another
anonymous poem _Ad Uxorem_, of the same period, illustrate the condition
of the Gallic provinces.[389]

(1) Orientius (ed. Ellis, in the _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum_),
ii. 165 _sqq._:—

    Non castella locis, non tutae moenibus urbes,
      invia non pelago, tristia non heremo,
    non cava, non etiam nudis[390] sub rupibus antra
      ludere barbaricas praevaluere manus.

(2) _De Providentia Dei_, in Migne, _Patr. Gr._ lxi. c. 617:—

    Si totus Gallos, etc.

(3) _Ad Uxorem_, in Migne, _ib._ c. 611.

    Non idem status est agris, etc.

It is possible, but I can find no direct evidence to show that the
devastation had extended down the Loire. It might be considered whether
the words of Orientius _invia non pelago_, which imply that the invaders
attacked islands, allude to the islands of Noirmoutier, Rhé, etc.

Thus considerable regions of Gaul were a desolate wilderness, according
to contemporary, rhetorical and poetical, evidence, from A.D. 408-409 to
416; and therefore, it might be argued, Gaul suits the narrative of St.
Patrick in his _Confession_ (362₂₂₋363₃₄). He and his companions reached
land three days (_post triduum_) after they left the coast of Ireland,
so that our choice lies between Britain and Gaul. The data do not suit
Britain. We cannot imagine what inland part of Britain they could have
wished to reach, which would have necessitated a journey of twenty-eight
days _per disertum_. Suppose that the crew disembarked on the south
coast of Britain, and that the southern regions had been recently ravaged
by the Saxons, yet a journey of a few days would have brought them to
_Londinium_ or any other place they could have desired to reach from a
south-coast port. Moreover, if they had landed in Britain, Patrick, when
he once escaped from their company, could have reached the home of his
parents in a few days; whereas he did not return home for a few years
(_ib._ 364). His own words exclude Britain. Having mentioned his final
escape from the traders, he proceeds: _Et iterum post paucos annos in
Britannis eram cum parentibus meis._ I believe that _post paucos annos_
has been interpreted by some in the sense “a few years after my capture.”
But this is an unnatural explanation. The words naturally refer to what
immediately precedes, viz. his escape. The only thing which can be
alleged in favour of Britain is the intimation in the dream that he would
“quickly come to his native land” (_cito iturus ad patriam tuam_). This
of course represents his expectation at the time of his escape. But the
very fact that he fails to say that the promise was literally fulfilled,
and glides over intervening years in silence, strongly suggests that his
expectation was not realised.

I observe that Mr. T. Olden, in his short history of _The Church of
Ireland_, arrived at the conclusion that Patrick’s _disertum_ must be
placed in Gaul. His subject, as a whole, lies outside my knowledge,
but his chapters on Patrick would not lead one to form a favourable
opinion of his work. His whole argument and narrative are vitiated by
his astonishing ignorance of Imperial history. He quotes[391] a passage
of Jerome to prove barbarian devastations in Gaul. He quotes it not
from the original text, but at second hand from Montalembert’s _Les
moines d’occident_, a book which should be used with extreme caution.
The passage cited by Mr. Olden has no bearing on Gaul at the time at
which Mr. Olden sets St. Patrick’s escape from his captivity, A.D. 395.
The devastations did not begin till A.D. 407. This gross ignorance of
the superficial facts of the general history of the period damages Mr.
Olden’s credit.

Mr. Olden, however, has made one useful contribution to the question—the
only good thing in his account of St. Patrick.[392] He has brought
out the significance of the dogs, which are mentioned incidentally
in Patrick’s narrative. He has pointed out that the dogs—which, it
is implied, were numerous and valuable—must have been part of the
merchandise which the traders shipped in Ireland. Celtic hounds were
highly valued in the south,[393] and it would be probable _a priori_ that
they were exported from Ireland as well as from Britain. The route of
this trade would have been overland through Gaul, from the north of the
Loire or Garonne to a port on the coast of Provence, or to Italy.[394]
Mr. Olden acutely suggests that Patrick, so long the servant of an Irish
chieftain, had become skilled in the management of wolf-hounds, and that
this consideration may have determined the traders to take him on board.

Thus the cargo of dogs seems to support the conclusion that it was to
Gaul, not to Britain, that the traders sailed. They might have landed
at either Nantes or Bordeaux. Now the only positive statement that we
find anywhere as to the landing-place is in the _Life_ by Probus (see
above, Appendix A, ii. 9), where it is said to be Brotgalum. Bordeaux
is obviously meant, and the form should probably be Bortgalum, as the
Irish was Bordgal. See the instructive passage in _Vit. Trip._ p. 238,
where Patrick, intending to visit Rome, is said to have waited for a ship
_o Bordgail Letha_ (from Bordeaux in Gaul). Probus did not invent the
statement; the form of the name shows that he got it from a source of
Irish origin. He adds, evidently from the same source, that the company
then went to Trajectus, but we cannot identify the Gallic “Utrecht” which
is intended. It is of course impossible to say whether there was any
positive tradition at the back of this statement, or if it was only a
deduction from the fact that Bordeaux was a regular port for travellers
from Ireland to south Gaul.

Admitting, then, as a conclusion from which we can hardly escape that
the landing-place was on the west coast of Gaul, it follows that if the
traders marched for four weeks _per disertum_, they must have designedly
avoided the beaten routes and the habitations of men. Aquitaine was
at the time in an unsettled condition, on account of the barbarian
invasion; but no devastations would account for a month’s wandering in a
wilderness, unless such wandering was deliberate.

The corroboration of our general conclusion is supplied by Patrick
himself. It was inferred above from his _Confession_ that Britain was
excluded; one of his Sayings, which we saw reason to believe genuine,
points distinctly to Gaul (_Dicta_, i., see above, Appendix A, i. 3). It
is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy” must have been one
beset by particular dangers and hardships; and a little reflexion will
show that we are justified in identifying it with the journey described
in the _Confession_. It is a case where the argument from silence is
valid. The motive of the _Confession_ is to set forth the crises in his
life at which the writer conceived that he was conspicuously guided by
Heaven. It is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy,” in which
he used to tell his companions that he had “the fear of God as a guide,”
was one of those crises which had made a deep impression upon his mind,
and which we should expect to find mentioned in the _Confession_. It is
therefore fair to identify it with his perilous journey in the company
of the traders, especially as it is not easy to imagine that at a later
period, when he was at Auxerre, a journey which he might have made
through Gaul would have been so memorable or exceptional. The _Dictum_,
in conjunction with the other considerations which point to Gaul,
justifies the conclusion that, having travelled with the traders through
Gaul into Italy, he escaped from them in Italy.

The last words of the _Dictum_, “in islands in the Mediterranean,” taken
in conjunction with Tírechán, 302₂₄, point to his having gone to Lérins
after his escape, and a protracted stay at Lérins[395] would account for
the few years which elapsed before his return to Britain.


7. _Palladius_

There were two readings in the MSS. of Muirchu as to the place of the
death of Palladius: _in Britonum finibus_ and _in Pictorum finibus_. It
seems probable (see my “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 205) that the
author wrote _Britonum_ (so _Lib. Arm._), but that in one copy this was
corrected to _Pictorum_ from another source, presumably the same source
which supplied W and _Vit. Trip._ with the details about Palladius. We
may conclude, I think, that _Pictorum_ represents the genuine tradition,
and that Muirchu, taking it to refer to the Picts of north Britain—as
was natural—substituted _Britonum_. But it seems most extraordinary that
Palladius should have sailed off to the Picts of north Britain, seeing
that he was ordained bishop for Ireland. I think we should interpret
the land of the Picts or Cruithne (_V. Trip._ loc. cit., _hitírib
Cruithnech_) to mean Dalaradia, the land of the Picts in Ireland. As I
have pointed out in cap. iv., the assumption that there were Christian
communities in this part of the island makes Patrick’s work there at the
beginning of his bishopric more intelligible.[396]

Professor Zimmer’s theory that Palladius and Patrick were one and the
same person (a theory which had been already maintained by Schoell and
Loofs[397]) is at variance with the distinct tradition, and does not
account for the change of name.[398] It is based upon a paragraph which
was added, probably by the Armagh scribe Ferdomnach, to his copy of
Tírechán (Rolls ed. p. 333), where it is stated that Palladius was also
called Patricius. It is also stated that Palladius suffered martyrdom
among the Scots, _ut tradunt sancti antiqui_. This is at variance with W
and _V. Trip._ which state that he died of disease. Muirchu says simply
“died.” The same notice says that Patrick was sent by Celestine. This
paragraph cannot carry any weight; it is not supported by the earlier
sources.

But why, we must ask, should any one have invented the assertion that
Palladius was also called Patricius? The answer seems to be that the two
dates for Patrick’s death, the true 461 and the false 493, led, in the
eighth century, to the belief in a second Patricius. This phantom is
called “the other Patrick” in one of the interpolated stanzas in the hymn
_Genair Patraicc_; and he came to be distinguished as _senex Patricius_
(_Ann. Ult._ and _Chron. Scot._ 457) or _Sen Patraicc_ (_Calendar of
Oengus_, August 24).[399] One attempt to give this fictitious personage a
reality may have been to identify him with Palladius.[400] Many wild and
worthless speculations have been founded on this duplication of Patrick
(see, for instance, Shearman’s chapter on the “History of the Three
Patricks” in _Loc. Patr._ pp. 395 _sqq._; Olden, _Church of Ireland_,
Appendix A, and the article on Patrick in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_, which is vitiated by the Sen Patraicc delusion). Another
attempt to place the second Patrick was to connect him with Glastonbury,
and thus account for the mediaeval Glastonbury tradition that the true
Patrick was an abbot of that monastery (so Ussher, followed by Petrie,
_Tara Hill_, p. 73).[401] But there is no evidence that the Glastonbury
story has any foundation or is older than the tenth century. It is to be
observed that the date August 24, given in martyrologies as the day of
Old Patrick, cannot be alleged as an argument for his existence. In the
_Mart. of Tallaght_ (ed. Kelly), p. xxxii, we find two Patricks under
this date:

    Patricii Abb. ocus Ep. Ruisdela.

    Patricii hostiarii ocus Abb. Airdmacha.

It is clear that there was an obscure but historical Patrick, abbot
of Rosdela (near Durrow), whose day was August 24; and that his name
was the motive for placing “Old Patrick” here. Compare the glosses in
the _Calendar of Oengus_.[402] Armagh also wanted to appropriate “Old
Patrick,” and so he appears in some of the lists of its abbots.


8. _Patrick’s Alleged Visit (or Interrupted Journey) to Rome in A.D. 432_

Muirchu’s account of the events preceding Patrick’s ordination as bishop
has certain difficulties which involve an important question. Patrick,
we are told, had left his home in Britain for the purpose of visiting
Rome (_ad sedem apostolicam uisitandam_, etc.), to receive instruction
there for his life-work in Ireland. But he halted on his way at Auxerre,
and remained there “at the feet” of Germanus. Then when the right time
came and new visions warned him: _coeptum ingreditur iter ad opus in quod
ollim praeparatus fuerat utique aeuangelii_ (272₁₀). What is the meaning
of _coeptum iter_? The journey which Patrick had begun was the journey to
Rome, which had been interrupted at Auxerre.

Germanus sends with him a presbyter, Segitius, as a companion and
“witness.” Then comes a notice of the unsuccessful mission of Palladius
by Pope Celestine; but the transition to this is curious. _Certe enim
erat quod Palladius_, etc., is the text of the Armagh MS., while it seems
probable that other MSS. had _certi enim errant_[403] which gives sense.

Having heard of the death of Palladius, Patrick and those who were with
him _declinauerunt iter_ to be ordained by “Amatorex.” Assuming that they
were on their way to Rome, it is clear that Muirchu did not suppose that
they ever reached Rome; for, if he did, he could not have failed to say
so. Accordingly, on this view, we have to suppose that the decisive news
overtook Patrick somewhere between Auxerre and Rome, and that Patrick
turned about and retraced his steps, making a divagation for the purpose
of being ordained by “Amatorex.” But if we read the whole narrative
carefully up to the embarkation, we can hardly fail to see that in the
writer’s conception of what happened there was no reversal of direction.
The only natural interpretation of Muirchu’s meaning is that, met by the
news about Palladius, Patrick turned from his direct route for the sake
of ordination, and then resumed it. In other words, he was on his way to
Ireland.

But it can be proved definitely that this was Muirchu’s conception. In
his table of contents to bk. i. we find a statement which throws light on
_coeptum iter_. We find the items:

    De inuentione sancti Germani in Galliis et _ideo non exiuit
    ultra_:

    De _reuersione eius de Galliis_ et ordinatione Palladii et mox
    morte eius.

Here it is (1) expressly stated that Patrick did not proceed beyond Gaul
(as he had intended), and (2) implied that the journey which he undertook
in the company of Segitius was a _reuersio_ to Britain or Ireland.

In the light of these headings, we are compelled to interpret the words
_coeptum ingreditur iter ... aeuangelii_ as meaning not the interrupted
journey to Rome but the missionary journey to Ireland, which had been
begun, in a sense, by the coming to Auxerre and the religious preparation
there. With this interpretation, the words _certi enim erant_ (which
seems the probable reading: “for they knew,” or “were informed”) are
intelligible. This explains the preceding statement that Patrick,
_although setting forth for Ireland_, had not yet received episcopal
ordination. They knew at Auxerre that Palladius had been ordained bishop
and sent to Ireland by Celestine, and therefore Patrick was not ordained
bishop. It was therefore on his way to the _mare Britannicum_ that he
received news of the death of Palladius. “Ebmoria,” or whatever may be
concealed under this form, must be sought north of Auxerre.

I have elsewhere (in the next Excursus) pointed out that Patrick was
consecrated bishop by Germanus, and that Muirchu used inconsistent
sources. This note aims only at showing what _Muirchu intended to
convey_. [It may indeed be held that the ambiguity is due to his own
misinterpretation of an older document. _Coeptum iter_ may have occurred
in his source, and there meant a journey to Rome; and he may have
misunderstood the meaning. If it were possible to locate Ebmoria with
certainty anywhere between Auxerre and Rome, this, I believe, would be
the solution.]

It is, then, quite clear that, according to Muirchu’s information,
Patrick intended to visit Rome and study there, but that instead of
doing so he was induced to study at Auxerre, and consequently did not go
to Rome. It is obvious that such a statement about Patrick’s purposes
cannot be accepted without every reserve. Statements about a man’s
unfulfilled intentions, unless they can be traced clearly to himself or
to an intimate friend, are in quite a different position, as historical
evidence, from statements about his acts and deeds. It is equally obvious
that if Muirchu had known of any evidence, oral or written, of an actual
visit to Rome in A.D. 432, he would not have suppressed it. He would have
had every reason to emphasise anything like a mission from the Roman see;
for in the Roman controversy of his day he was on the Roman side. The
stress he lays upon the unfulfilled intention only sets his silence in a
stronger light.

Tírechán records a visit to Rome in later years (see below, Excursus
15), but he knows nothing of a visit in A.D. 432, and evidently did
not find any notice of such a visit in the _Liber apud Ultanum_, from
which he drew information about Patrick’s early life. The earliest
text which can be quoted for the alleged visit is the note of the
ninth-century scribe of the _Liber Armachanus_ (332₁₉), and even that
note (_a Celestino—mittitur_), which, in view of the silence of the
seventh-century documents, has no value, does not strictly involve the
idea of a journey to Rome.


9. _Patrick’s Consecration_

There is a difficulty as to the circumstances of Patrick’s ordination as
bishop which has a direct bearing on the determination of the chronology
of his life. The oldest evidence—and we have no independent source to
supplement it—is the account in Muirchu’s _Life_ (pp. 272-3). It is there
stated that Patrick, learning at Ebmoria[404] of the death of Palladius,
interrupted his journey (northwards) and went to a certain bishop, who
conferred upon him episcopal ordination. This bishop is designated
_aepiscopum Amatho rege_, and is described in terms which imply that
he was eminent and well known. Now we know of no Gallic bishop called
Amathorex, and we know of no Gallic bishop alive in the year 432 whose
name at all resembles _Amatho regem_. But we do know of an eminent Gallic
bishop named Amator, whose episcopal seat was at Auxerre, where Patrick
received part at least of his ecclesiastical training. Only Amator died
in 418,[405] and therefore could not have ordained Patrick bishop in 432.

Nevertheless there can hardly be a doubt that Amator is meant, for he is
the only Gallic bishop, of similar name, in Patrick’s time. He could be
described as _mirabilis homo summus aepiscopus_; and he was bishop of
Auxerre, with which, under his successor Germanus, we know that Patrick
was connected. This high probability was raised into certainty when
Zimmer showed that _Amatho rege_ is perfectly intelligible as an Irish
form.[406] The Latin colloquial casus communis _Amatore_ was treated in
Irish on the analogy of a name like _Ainmire_, Dat. Acc. _Ainmirig_; so
that _Amatorege_ represents _Amatorig_, re-Latinised (see above, Appendix
A, ii. 3).

Amator, then, is meant. The inconsistency in the chronology can be
explained as due to a perfectly intelligible confusion of two different
occasions. For when we come to examine closely the narrative of Muirchu
we find a statement which is inconsistent with the assertion that Patrick
was ordained bishop _ab Amatho rege_. We are told that when he started
from Auxerre for Ireland in the company of Segitius the presbyter, he had
“not yet been ordained bishop by Germanus.” This clearly implies that
the prelate who ordained him bishop was no other than Germanus.[407]
And this is just what we should expect. If Patrick heard of the death
of Palladius at some place on the road from Auxerre to the Channel, his
natural course was to return to Auxerre and receive ordination from his
master Germanus. How came it, then, to be stated categorically that he
was ordained _ab Amatho rege_? This admits of a very simple explanation.
We have only to suppose that Muirchu confounded his ordination as bishop
with his ordination as deacon. This solution fits in perfectly with
the interpretation of _Amatho rege_ as equivalent to _Amatore_. Amator
ordained Patrick deacon before (or in) A.D. 418.

A further criticism of Muirchu’s text supplies a remarkable confirmation
of this solution of the inconsistency of his statements. He tells us
that not only was Patrick consecrated bishop, but that others, including
Auxilius and Iserninus, received lesser orders _ab Amatho rege_. It
is necessarily implied that Auxilius and Iserninus were of Patrick’s
company, and were on their way with him to Ireland. But we may ask in
the first place why their ordination, whether as deacons or priests,
should have been deferred till this occasion—should have depended (like
Patrick’s ordination as bishop) on the death of Palladius? In the second
place, we have the distinct record in the Irish Annals that Auxilius and
Iserninus arrived in Ireland seven years after Patrick’s coming.[408]
There is no reason to question that record, and the inference is that
they did not accompany Patrick.

This error confirms the truth of the hypothesis that under Muirchu’s
account there lies a confusion between Patrick’s ordination to the
diaconate and his elevation to the episcopate. The authentic record was
that Amator ordained Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus (Patrick as deacon,
the others perhaps as deacons also). When this was taken to refer to
Patrick’s episcopal ordination, the association of Auxilius and Iserninus
was still retained, and they were represented as accompanying Patrick.

The result of this criticism is in accordance with the general
probability that Patrick had a continued connexion with one
church—namely, the church of Auxerre, a connexion begun in the time of
Amator and protracted in the time of Amator’s successor Germanus. And
it suits the chronological data derived from the _Confession_ (as shown
above).


10. _Evidence for Christianity in Ireland before St. Patrick_

The circumstances which render it antecedently probable that Christianity
should have penetrated to Ireland before A.D. 430 have been set forth in
the introductory chapter. The positive evidence which shows that this
occurred is Prosper’s notice of the mission of Palladius. It is supported
by other evidence, but is in itself fully sufficient to establish the
fact.

1. Prosper, _Chron. s.a._, 431:—

    Ad Scottos in Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Caelestino
    Palladius primus episcopus mittitur.

It is important to observe that, if the express words _in Christum
credentes_ were absent, this record would establish the existence of
Christian communities in Ireland. For neither Rome nor any other church
would have ordained a bishop for Ireland unless there had been Christian
communities there to be submitted to his authority. If all parts of
Ireland had been still as entirely heathen as Scandinavia, a missionary
might have been sent, but he would not have been a bishop.

Nothing can shake the inference from this record of Prosper, but some
have attempted to weaken it by a statement in a later work of Prosper
concerning Christianity in Ireland. In the _contra Collatorem_,
written _c._ A.D. 437, Prosper, praising Celestine, says, _et ordinato
Scottis episcopo dum Romanam insulam studet servare catholicam fecit
etiam barbaram Christianam_ (Migne, 51, 274). The expression is
obviously rhetorical, and is not inconsistent with the statement in the
_Chronicle_. It is quite possible that it is based on information which
had reached Prosper of the progress of Christianity in the years 433-436;
and, in a eulogy of Celestine, it was plausible to ascribe this success
to his initiative in ordaining the first bishop. To infer that Prosper
did not know of the death of Palladius would be unwarranted. Prosper was
evidently interested in the mission of Palladius; he probably knew him
personally, as there is reason to think that he was at Rome, engaged
on ecclesiastical business with the Roman see, in the year 431; and
these considerations render it highly improbable that he would not have
been aware of his death. But it was not Prosper’s purpose to record the
details of missionary work; he was merely concerned to notice, and not to
minimise, what Celestine had done. The passage, therefore, must not be
used to support the theory that Palladius and Patricius were one and the
same person (Zimmer, _Early Celtic Church_, p. 33). On the other hand,
it may be added to the other evidence which shows that Patrick was not
ordained by Celestine; for in that case Prosper would not have omitted to
notice that the Pope had ordained two bishops.

2. It has been generally overlooked that Patrick’s expression _ad plebem_
nuper _uenientem ad credulitatem_ (_Conf._ 368₉) suggests, in its most
natural interpretation, a spreading of Christianity before his arrival.
Otherwise we should expect _primum_ rather than _nuper_.

3. If Pelagius, as Zimmer holds, was born in Ireland, we might consider
it probable, almost certain, that he belonged to a Christian community,
and thus we should have a confirmation of the existence of such
communities before the end of the fourth century. But the evidence
rather points, as I have shown (see note in App. B, p. 296), to Pelagius
belonging to one of the Scottic settlements in western Britain. There is,
however, another piece of evidence of the same kind. An Irishman, named
Fith, better known under his ecclesiastical name of Iserninus, was with
Patrick at Auxerre, and was ordained by Amator (see the evidence in App.
B, p. 297).

4. Certain linguistic facts are best explained, as Zimmer has ably
pointed out, by the unofficial introduction of Christianity from Britain.
A number of Irish ecclesiastical loan-words have forms which are “not
such as we should expect if they had been borrowed straight from Latin,”
but can only be explained by intermediate Brythonic forms.[409] Zimmer
says: “It is altogether incredible that the Latin loan-words in Old
Irish should have been introduced by Patrick and his Romance-speaking
companions from the Continent after A.D. 432. On the other hand, their
linguistic form is easily explained if Christianity was gradually spread
throughout Ireland in the fourth century by Irish-speaking Britons.” The
words, “gradually spread throughout Ireland,” are far too strong, and are
not required for the argument; but it is clear that the linguistic facts
in question harmonise with the testimony of Prosper, and enable us to
draw the further inference that the introduction of Christianity was due
to intercourse with Britain. We may go further and conjecture that the
transformation of the Brythonic Latin loan-words into Irish equivalents
was made in the Irish settlements in western Britain, which must have
been the most effective channel for the transmission of the Christian
faith to Ireland.

5. The attitude of king Loigaire (see below, Appendix C, 11) to
Christianity shows that it had become a force with which he had to come
to terms. If it had been first brought by Patrick, he could easily have
stopped its spreading in his own kingdom, and would doubtless have done
so, since personally he was not well disposed to it, and the Druids were
strongly against it. His policy implies that it had already taken root.

6. The circumstance that Patrick’s missionary work was in the north and
west of Ireland suggests that Christianity had made considerable progress
in the south, and an apostle was not needed there in the same way. As
Zimmer says (_ib._ 18), south-eastern Ireland in the kingdom of Laigin
was “the district whence, thanks to the intercourse with the south-west
of Britain, the first diffusion of Christianity in Ireland must naturally
have taken place.” As for the Lives of alleged pre-Patrician saints
(Ailbe, Ibar, Declan, Ciarán), they are so full of contradictions
and inconsistencies, as Todd demonstrated, that they are useless for
historical purposes. The only hypothesis on which any significance could
be ascribed to them is that there was a confusion between earlier and
later men of the same name. This hypothesis is too uncertain to build on;
but we should have to entertain it if we accepted Zimmer’s remark that
the contradictions in the Lives “are the natural result of attempting
to varnish facts derived from _genuine local tradition_ with the views
universally accepted at the time when the Lives were compiled.”

7. Patrick’s particular interest in west Connaught is probably to be
explained by his captivity there; but the appeal which this region made
to him suggests that it was a specially benighted part (in a Christian’s
view), in contrast with other parts of the island where Christianity was
known.

8. I cannot ascribe much weight to particular passages in Tírechán
which Petrie (_History of Tara Hill_, p. 23) and others have cited as
evidence for pre-Patrician Christianity. (1) Tír. 321₂, _et fuit quidam
spiritu sancto plenus_, etc.; (2) 329₆, _et in quo loco quidam episcopus
venit_, etc. We do not know enough of the circumstances to draw any
conclusion; we do not know (assuming the records to be correct) that
Patrick’s acquaintance with these men began on these occasions. (3) The
_altare mirabile lapideum in monte nepotum Ailello_, 313₅; supposed to
be the altar of a pre-Patrician community. To these may be added (4)
the _signaculum crucis Christi_, said to have been found by Patrick in
a graveyard in Roscommon (325₃), a story told also by Muirchu (294);
and (5) the implied existence of pre-Patrician Irish Christians in the
expression, _Hiberniae sanctis omnibus praeteritis praesentatis futuris_,
323₂. There is also (6) a passage in the _Additions to Tírechán_, 337,
cited by Petrie to prove pre-Patrician bishops (Colman, Bishop of
Clonkeen). The story of the cross, common to Tírechán and Muirchu, and
evidently a pretty early legend, has, I think, some significance, in so
far as it implies that, at the time when it was invented, the existence
of Christian crosses and Christian sepultures in Ireland before Patrick’s
preaching was taken for granted.

9. If the view put forward below in Excursus 17 as to the Paschal
cycles in Ireland is correct, it is further evidence for pre-Patrician
Christianity.

10. The prophecy of the Druids, which was probably not _post eventum_
(see above, Chap. iv. _ad fin._), suggests the existence of Christian
worship in Ireland. If it stood alone, it would not be of much
significance; but it fits in with the other evidence.


11. _King Loigaire and King Dathi_

The view which I have put forward of the significance of king Loigaire’s
reign in Irish history, and his claims to the title of statesman, is
based on inferences. That his policy was pacific is an inference which
may be fairly drawn from the rare mentions, in the Annals, of wars and
battles during his reign of thirty-six years. The Ulster Annals record
only three battles with Leinster (a victory in 453; the battle of Áth
Dara, in which he was captured, in 458; and the engagement in which he
met his death, _s.a._ 462). No expeditions beyond the sea are attributed
to him, though the condition of Britain might have been tempting to a
monarch ambitious of conquest. The great achievement of his reign was
the codification of the laws of Ireland (see Excursus 12 on Senchus
Mór), and the other feature for which his reign was remarkable was the
spread of Christianity favoured by his attitude towards it. The record
of Tírechán (308₃), that he did not personally adopt the new faith (_non
potuit credere_), is obviously true, for it explains the coolness of
ecclesiastical tradition in regard to him; and the conflicting statement
of Muirchu (285₂₇, _credidit_, etc.), which is in a legendary context,
must be rejected. It bears indeed a mark of internal inconsistency; for
if the High King had been converted, it is hardly credible that Patrick
would have dwelt only on his previous opposition, and prophesied that
no kings of his seed would inherit the kingdom—a prophecy which was not
verified. These words ascribed to Patrick in the legend (_quia resististi
doctrinae meae_, etc., 285₂₉) seem to reflect the true tradition that
Loigaire remained a pagan. If he had become a Christian, the Irish
Church would have been as loud in his praises as the Roman Church in the
praises of Constantine. The legend told by Muirchu represents him finally
converted through fear (_melius est me credere quam mort_), as the crown
and culmination of Patrick’s triumphs at Slane and Tara; but at the
same time it refutes itself by the cold indifference which it manifests
towards the converted king.

The statesmanlike policy of Loigaire in coming to terms with Christianity
is proved by the official recognition of it in the Senchus Mór (see
Excursus 12), and by the toleration of it in his kingdom: see the record
in Tírechán, which seems trustworthy (308₂), _apud illum_ [Loigairium]
_foedus pepigit_ [Patricius] _ut non occideretur in regno illius_. (We
can hardly attach much credit to the story that Patrick acted along
with Loigaire in adjudicating on the inheritance of Amolngaid; Tír.
309₂₈. This might have been an invention for the purpose of magnifying
Patrick’s importance.) The circumstance that members of Loigaire’s family
were baptized (see the conversion of Fedilmid and Fortchernn, _Add.
Notices_, 334-5) was an element in the situation.

In connexion with the conclusion that Loigaire was influenced by the
prestige of the Empire, I referred to his predecessor Dathi’s expedition
to Gaul. Dathi, son of Fiachra, and nephew of king Niall, succeeded Niall
as king of Ireland in 405, and was killed by lightning near the Alps,
according to the Irish Annals, in 428 (see _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 445: through
some error the entry has been inserted under a wrong year). There is a
notice of his death in the _Lebor na hUidre_, p. 38, where he is said to
have been killed in Gaul, while besieging a town of king Fermenus (_rí
Tracia_), whose name suggests (as others have pointed out) the Faramund
of the Merovingian genealogy.[410] Zimmer (_Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 85)
dismisses the story as a reminiscence of the death of an Attacottic
chief in Roman service. But this does not account for the data, and for
the consistent tradition that Dathi met his death on the continent; I
can see no reason to doubt the tradition, there was no motive for its
invention. Accepting it, we are obliged to infer that Dathi went, with
Irish troops, by the invitation of the Romans. The date of the Annals
for Dathi’s death and Loigaire’s succession, A.D. 428, harmonises
with the inference; for just in this year the General Aetius, on whom
the defence of Gaul at this time rested, was engaged in war with the
Franks. Prosper, _s.a._ 428, _pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno quam Franci
possidendam occupaverant Aetii armis recepta_. The name Fermenus supplies
a remarkable confirmation. As has been said, it seems to represent
Faramund, the father and predecessor of Chlojo, according to Merovingian
tradition. Chlojo, who appears a year or two later on the scene, is the
first Merovingian monarch who has a clear place in history. Faramund has
always been regarded as shadowy. The independent survival of his name in
Irish tradition in connection with an event of 428, shortly before the
first appearance of his son Chlojo, may be fairly brought forward as a
piece of evidence for his historical reality. The transference of the
scene from the lower Rhine to the regions of the Alps (due originally to
vague knowledge of Gallic geography) makes the evidence more valuable, as
it shows that the name Fermenus was not introduced into the story from
Merovingian sources; the Alps would not have suggested to any antiquarian
a connexion with a war against the Franks in north-eastern Gaul.

It is said that the corpse of Dathi was brought back by his companions
to Ireland and buried in the cemetery of Rathcrochan. See the poem of
Torna-Éices on the famous men and women who lay there, published by M.
d’Arbois de Jubainville in _Revue Celtique_, 17, 280 _sqq._

    Under thee is the king of the men of Fail [Ireland], Dathi son of
      Fiachra, the good;
    Croghan, you have hidden him from the Galls, from the Goidels.
    Under thee is Dungalach the swift who led the king [Dathi] beyond
      the sea of seas.


12. _The Senchus Mór_

The Irish code of law, entitled the _Senchus Mór_, preserved only in late
MSS., is a work which contains a very ancient code embedded in glosses,
commentaries, and accretions. Passages are quoted from it in Cormac’s
glossary, a work of the tenth century, and these quotations appear to be
the earliest testimonia.

In the tenth century it was believed that the original code was drawn up
in the reign of king Loigaire in the fifth century. Here is the note in
Cormac’s glossary, in Dr. W. Stokes’s translation (_Trip._ p. 570).

    _Nós_ (customary law), the knowledge of nine [_nofis_], to wit
    three kings and three bishops and three sages, namely, a sage
    of poetry and a sage of literature and a sage of the language
    of the Féni. All these were composing the _Senchus Mór_. Thence
    it is said:—

        Loiguire, Corc, dour Daire,
        Patrick, Benén, just Cairnech,
        Ross, Dubthach, Fergus with goodness,
        Nine props, those of the _Senchus Mór_.

The same account is found in the Introduction which was prefixed in late
times to the Senchus, and professes to record the circumstances of its
compilation.

Was this tradition, which was current in the tenth century, genuine,
or was it an invention made for the purpose of enhancing the prestige
of Patrick? In deciding this question, there are two considerations
which seem to me important. (1) If the code, which evidently held such
a high place in public esteem in the tenth century, had been drawn up
in the seventh or eighth centuries, it is inconceivable that an event
of such interest and importance as its publication should not have been
recorded in the _Annals_. In my opinion this argument applies also to
the sixth century. But in any case, if it be admitted that the silence
of the _Annals_ forbids a date later than A.D. 600 at the latest, all
the probabilities are in favour of the correctness of the tradition.
The entries in the _Annals_ for the fifth century are extremely meagre,
so that the omission of a notice of the _Senchus Mór_ would not be
surprising.

It may be said, however, that as a matter of fact, the _Annals_ do notice
the composition of the _Senchus Mór_. Under A.D. 438 we find: _Senchus
mor do scribunn_, “the Senchus Mór was written.” But in the first
place, this entry is in Irish; if it had been a contemporary record,
it would have been preserved in Latin; it is clearly an addition, and
perhaps a comparatively late addition. In the second place, the date is
suspicious. The year A.D. 438 is the very year in which the Theodosian
Code was issued; and therefore we can hardly doubt that the motive of the
insertion of the Irish entry under this year was a desire to synchronise
the issue of the native with that of the great Roman Code. These
considerations force us to reject the entry in the _Annals_ as evidence
of independent value.

(2) If the story of the compilation of the Senchus in the reign of
Loigaire had been a deliberate invention, say of the ninth century,
it could hardly have assumed its actual shape. The persons alleged to
have taken part in the compilation would naturally be those who play a
prominent or well-marked part in the Patrician story. Now, leaving out
Patrick and Loigaire, of the other seven only three, Daire, Benignus, and
Dubthach, are conspicuous in the lives and legends of Patrick. Of the
other four, Ros appears indeed, but not so conspicuously as his brother
Dichu, while Corc, Cairnech, and Fergus are not mentioned at all. The
case of Corc, king of Munster, is particularly to be noted, because
Oengus (Corc’s second successor) comes into the Patrician story, and
would naturally have been selected as Patrick’s colleague if the record
were a pure invention.

The record, I therefore conclude, has a genuine and ancient basis. It
would be rash to be confident that the number nine, and the arrangement
in three classes, may not be an improvement upon the original record;
in other words, some names (_e.g._ Benignus and Daire) may conceivably
be additions. The number nine was considered a number of virtue by the
Gaels; and it is conceivable that a savant of a later age might have
added to the tradition in order to make up that number. But the argument
is double-edged. For it is equally likely that, for just the same reason,
the number of the real commission should have been fixed at nine.

The story that the occasion of the composition of the Senchus was the
slaying of Odhran, Patrick’s charioteer, in order to test Patrick’s
doctrine of forgiveness, is told in the Introduction to the _Senchus_
(pp. 4 _sqq._) and in the _Lehor na hUidre_ (text and translation, in
Stokes, _Tripartite_, 562 _sqq._). A different story of the death of
Odhran at the hands of Foilge is told in _Vita Quarta_, c. 77, and _Vita
Tertia_, c. 59 (where the charioteer’s name is not mentioned): according
to this version the missile was aimed at Patrick. This version, but
without reference to Foilge, is likewise noticed in the Introduction to
the Senchus (p. 6).

The simplest explanation maybe that a driver of Patrick was slain by an
enemy, and that the incident was used by Patrick for raising the question
of criminal justice; mythopoeic instinct then attributed the murder to a
deliberate intention of raising the question.

The story as told in the Introduction seems to preserve a tradition that
an attempt was made by Patrick to change the penalty of eric fine for
murder into a penalty for death. This is the motive of the poem which is
fathered upon Dubthach: “I pronounce the judgment of death, of death for
his crime to every one _who kills_” (p. 13). This is to be reconciled
with the Christian doctrine of perfect forgiveness by considering
that the body only is killed, the soul is forgiven: the “murderer is
adjudged to heaven, and it is not to death he is adjudged” (_ib._). The
commentator notices the disagreement between this principle, which in the
story Patrick is assumed to have established, and the custom of eric fine
which actually prevailed, and explains it on the ground that Patrick’s
successors had no power of bestowing heaven, hence the death penalty was
discontinued, and “no one is put to death for his intentional crimes, as
long as ‘eric’-fine is obtained.”

The historical fact underlying this story is, I submit, that the Church
in Patrick’s day attempted, unsuccessfully, to supersede the system of
composition for manslaughter and private retaliation by making the act a
public offence punishable by death.

[The questions connected with the material of the laws, and the Feine,
lie quite outside my competence, and do not concern the scope of this
book. I may refer to Atkinson’s article “Feine,” in his glossary
(_Ancient Laws_, vol. vi.); Rhŷs, _Studies in Early Irish History_, pp.
52-55 (_Proc, of Brit. Acad._ vol. i.). For the legal processes and
customs, the chief work is M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s _Études sur le
droit celtique_, 2 vols. 1895; see also the Prefaces to the volumes of
the _Ancient Laws_, and Sir H. Maine’s _Early Institutions_.]


13. _Patrick’s Visits to Connaught_

An analysis of the itinerary which Tírechán has traced for Patrick
through Connaught shows that he compressed into a single journey events
which must have belonged to different visits. I pointed this out in a
paper on the “Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught” (_Proc. of R.I.A._ xxiv.
c. 2, 1903). It was remembered that Patrick visited Connaught three times
(Tír. 329₁₂), and we may probably suppose that on the two later occasions
he would have not only worked in new fields, but revisited the scenes of
his earlier work. Tírechán, who used written material as well as oral
information, worked all his records into the compass of a single journey.
This is betrayed by a number of inconsistencies in the narrative, and it
is possible to show that certain events which he ascribes to the same
journey must have happened on different occasions.

1. It is clear that the expedition to Tirawley with the sons of Amolngaid
was the principal motive of one visit, and that Patrick must have
proceeded direct from Tara to Tirawley. Tírechán’s naive reconstruction
implies that having left Tara for this purpose he engaged in a round
of missionary activity, not only in Connaught, but in Meath—performing
labours which would have occupied years—before he finally reached
Tirawley. I have pointed out at length the absurdities involved in the
story, _op. cit._ 166-7.

2. The description of the visit to Elphin implies earlier work in the
same district: (_a_) perhaps the previous foundation of Senella Cella;
(_b_) the presence of Assicus and Betheus, who had been settled there
(_loc. cit._ 163-4).

As to Senella Cella, however, Dr. Gwynn has made a very plausible
suggestion, that Tírechán confused it with Senchua = Shancough, in Sligo.
The information which he gives about Senella Cella—its location in the
land of the Hy Ailella, its association with Mathona, and connexion with
Tawnagh—suits Senchua much better. And this comparison would account for
the introduction of the statement _et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello_,
etc., in 314₁₈, as well as in 328₁. If this view is right, it is another
illustration of Tírechán’s use of written sources. The difficulty is that
we should expect Tírechán to have been sufficiently acquainted with the
geography of Connaught as to know whether _Senella Cella_ was in the land
of the Hy Ailella or not. Can _Senella Cella Dumiche_ be distinct from
both Shankill at Elphin and Shancough?

3. An earlier visit to Tirerrill is implied by (_a_) Patrick’s knowledge
of the stone altar (Tír. 313₅); and (_b_) the fact that Tamnach had
already been founded (314₁₅). Here indeed we can extricate a piece of
Tírechán’s written material, relating to Patrick’s work in Tirerrill,
and showing that he entered that territory from Leitrim, crossing the
Bralieve hills, 314₁₈:—

    Et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello et plantavit aeclessiam
    liberam hi Tamnuch,

and 328, _et exiit ... cell Senchuae_. See Bury, _loc. cit._ 164-6.

4. In the passage in the _Liber Armachanus_, f. 9, rᵒ (301), which Dr.
Gwynn has shown (see above, p. 250) to belong to the work of Tírechán,
the baptism of Hercaith and the dedication of his son Feradach =
Sachellus to the church are noticed; and it is recorded that Patrick
ordained Sachellus at Rome. But immediately afterwards at Selce (319)
Sachellus is already a bishop (of Baslic, _Trip._ 108). Thus two visits,
separated by an interval of years, are here implied. If the statement
is correct that Patrick took Sachellus with him to Rome, then our
conjectural chronology for his visit to Rome (see Appendix C, 15) would
give a lower limit for one of his journeys to Connaught.

5. An earlier visit to north Sligo is implied—but without
inconsistency—in the account of the visit to that region (327), as well
as in the presence of _bishop_ Brón at Selce (and cp. 313₈).

6. The notice of the visit to Ardd Senlis seems to imply an earlier
foundation there (317).

7. Sanctus Iarnascus in Mag-n-Airniu (320₂₆) is introduced as if
Christianity had already been planted there. It may be noticed that in
this passage the words _uiris uiiii. aut xii_. show that Tírechán was
using a written source; he was doubtful about the reading.

8. Entering Tirawley, Patrick crosses the Moy. This implies that he came
from the east, not from the south, as Tírechán’s itinerary would imply.

If we assume as probable the correctness of the statement that Patrick’s
work in Connaught belongs to three different visits, we may draw
tentatively the following conclusions:—

1. In the first visit, which was prior to A.D. 441, he worked (_a_) in
Tirerrill, and (_b_) in north Sligo, where Brón was ordained bishop for
his church (Killespugbrone) under Knocknaree. Perhaps he also visited
(_c_) the neighbourhood of Elphin. He visited (_d_) Mag Airthic and (_e_)
the district of the Ciarrigi, and (_f_) Mag-n-Airniu. In these regions he
converted the father of Sachellus.

It is possible that on this occasion he extended his journey to Mount
Aigli, and fulfilled the special aim of his missionary ambition by
planting a church (Ached Fobuir) near the southern limits of the forest
of Fochlad.

2. On another occasion he crossed the Shannon, as described by Tírechán,
at Lake Bofin; worked in Mag Glais and Mag Ái; revisited the Elphin
district; founded Baslic, proceeded to Lake Tecet, revisited Mag Airthic
and the Ciarrigi, etc.

3. On a third occasion, he proceeded straight (from Tara) to Tirawley in
the company of Endae and the sons of Amolngaid. After his plantation of
his faith in Tirawley he may have revisited other parts of Connaught. The
visit falls soon after Amolngaid’s death, which may have been c. 445 A.D.

It seems not at all unlikely that the second and third visits thus
distinguished occurred chronologically in reverse order. It must also be
borne in mind that he would have probably revisited many places in the
course of the two later visits.

Conclusions very similar to mine have been reached by Dr. Gwynn, who
discusses the subject in a “Supplemental Note to Chapter V.” of his
Introduction to the _Book of Armagh_. There are in the abbreviated
memoranda (which has been described above in Appendix A, ii. 2) vestiges
of the material used by Tírechán, and Dr. Gwynn points out that the first
group supplies evidence of the existence of a tradition as to Patrick’s
work in Tirerrill, independent of the rest of the itinerary which
Tírechán sketched. The first group is:—

    Ailbe iSenchui. altare ... Machet Cetchen Rodán Mathona ...

Here, Dr. Gwynn observes, is a memorandum combining in continuous form
several unconnected passages in Tírechán. “It is reasonable to infer that
the tradition condensed into this memorandum was known to Tírechán; that
he endeavoured to work it into his history by breaking it up into pieces
and inserting them where he judged best.”


14. _King Amolngaid: Date of his Reign_

The death of Amolngaid, king of Connaught, is not noticed in the _Ann.
Ult._, but is recorded _s.a._ 449 in the _Annals of the Four Masters_,
and must have been derived from older Annals. Probably it was given by
Tigernach (this part of his work is not preserved), who generally records
the changes in the succession in Connaught. We cannot indeed infer that
A.D. 449 was the precise year designated in the source of the Four
Masters, because at this period their dates are not very accurate, as can
be shown by a comparison with the _Annals of Ulster_. But we can consider
it as an approximation to the date assigned by the older Annals.

The extant lists of the kings of Connaught, from Amolngaid to Aed (son of
Eochaid Tirmcharna), ob. A.D. 577, are hopelessly confused. The material
which I have examined consists of (1) the names and dates in the Annals
(_Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach); (2) List in _Book of Leinster_, 41a; (3)
List in MS. Laud, 610, f. 116 rᵒ b; (4) (_a_) prose list, (_b_) poetical
catalogue by O’Duinn, in _Book of Ballymote_, 57a, 58a. I owe the
translation of O’Duinn’s poem to the kindness of Mr. E. J. Gwynn.

These sources generally agree (with the exception of 3, which seems
to be worthless) that the three kings following Amolngaid were, in
order, Ailill Molt, Duach, and Eogan Bel. It is in regard to Duach that
the chief difficulty occurs, for he appears again in the lists as the
second (or third) king after Eogan Bel. He was son of Fergus, and is
distinguished as Tenga Uma, and is said to have fallen in the battle of
Segais. The Annals give the date of the Battle of Segais as A.D. 502
(_Ann. Ult._, _Ann. Inisf._) or 500 (Tigernach); but Tigernach has a
notice of Duach Tenga Uma under 550 (p. 139, ed. Stokes), and of his
death under 556 (as well as under 500). The list of O’Duinn distinguishes
clearly two Duachs: Duach Galach, son of Brian, who succeeded Ailill
Molt, and Duach son of Fergus, seventh in the list, who fell at the
battle of Segais. (The list in the _Book of Leinster_ also distinguishes
the two Duachs, designating the first as Galach and the second as Tenga
Uma).[411] This would put the battle of Segais about 550. The earlier
date of that battle must be accepted, as Muirchertach MacErca was
the victor in it, and the notice of it in the Annals is undoubtedly
independent of the lists of Connaught kings. It is also clear that there
was a fixed tradition that Duach Tenga Uma fell at Segais, since O’Duinn,
placing his reign at a later period, has to transfer the battle of Segais
along with him. We may therefore conclude that Duach Tenga Uma preceded
Eogan Bel, and fell in the battle of Segais A.D. 500/502. Now all the
lists agree in giving to the first Duach, who succeeded Ailill Molt,
nineteen or twenty years. This agrees with the circumstance that Ailill
Molt fell in the battle of Ocha A.D. 482.

Eogan Bel, the sources consent, fell in the battle of Sligech. The date
assigned to this battle in the Annals is A.D. 543 or 547 (both dates
in _Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach). The length of his reign is given in the
lists as thirty-seven (or thirty-four: the variation is obviously due
to confusion of uII and IIII); which is not long enough for either
of the obituary dates if he followed Duach in A.D. 500-2. Tigernach,
however, _s.a._ 503, gives his regnal years as forty-two; which would be
consistent with A.D. 543 for the battle of Sligech.

Ailill, the Womanly, Eogan Bel’s son and successor, was slain in the
battle of Cuil Conaire, which is noticed in the Annals _s.a._ 550.

The remaining years up to A.D. 577, the year of Aed’s death, would
be just accounted for by Eochaid Tirmcharna’s reign of one year and
Aed’s reign of twenty-five years (twenty-two years in lists 2 and 4; a
confusion here too of II and u). But at this point, after Ailill, occurs
the repetition of Duach Tenga Uma: he appears in Tigernach as well as in
the lists (except 4); and seven years are assigned to him. Further, the
catalogue of O’Duinn inserts Eogan Srem between this second Duach and
Eochaid Tirmcharna, and gives him twenty-seven years. Eogan Srem also
appears in the prose list in the _Book of Ballymote_, but before Ailill.

If we take as fixed points the death of Ailill in 550 and that of Aed in
577, it is obvious that, even if Aed reigned only twenty-two years, there
is no room for a second Duach and Eogan Srem in this period.

On the other hand, if we take the sum total of all the regnal years as
given in O’Duinn’s poem up to Aed’s death, and reckon back from A.D. 577,
we find that we are taken back to the neighbourhood of the death of king
Dathi. It will be best to give O’Duinn’s list:—

    Amolngaid         reigned 20 years
    Ailill Molt          ”    11   ”
    Duach, son of Brian  ”    20   ”
    Eogan                ”    37   ”
    Ailill               ”     5   ”
    Eogan Srem           ”    27   ”
    Duach, son of Fergus ”     7   ”
    Eochaid              ”     1   ”
    Aed                  ”    25   ”
                             ---------
    Total                    153   ”

Reckoning back 153 years from A.D. 577, we reach A.D. 424. The date of
Dathi’s death was A.D. 428, but if we take into account the conditions of
such a calculation, where incomplete years may be set down as full years,
the divergence might be consistent with the conclusion that the list was
constructed on the initial assumption that Amolngaid succeeded Dathi in
428—which implies that Dathi was king of Connaught (but see below).

We can now see how the chronology was constructed in O’Duinn’s source.
It will be simplest, for the purpose of criticism, to tabulate the dates
(approximately) implied by that construction:—

    Amolngaid ceased to reign 444
    Ailill I.        ”        455
    Duach I.         ”        475
    Eogan I.         ”        512
    Ailill II.       ”        517
    Eogan II.        ”        544
    Duach II.        ”        551
    Eochaid          ”        552
    Aed              ”        577

These dates are entirely at variance with the chronology of the Annals.
We are entitled to criticise them on the assumption that the dates of
the Annals for the battles of Segais, Sligech, and Cuil Conaire are
approximately correct. O’Duinn’s figures would place Segais _c._ 475
instead of 502 (or 500), Sligech _c._ 512 instead of 543 (or 547), Cuil
Conaire _c._ 517 instead of 550. But if we omit from his list Eogan II.
and Duach II., and then reckon back from 577, we get approximately dates
assigned in the Annals to the second and third of these three battles,
namely, 551 for Cuil Conaire, 546 for Sligech; while the contradiction
between the duration of Eogan Bel’s reign and the date of Segais is
the same here as in the other sources. If Segais was fought in 502 and
Sligech in 546/7, and Eogan Bel reigned thirty-seven years, then seven or
eight years are left unaccounted for, and the reign of the second Duach
serves to fill this interval. But there is no room for Eogan Srem between
the battle of Segais and the death of Aed.

Again, if we take Duach I.’s death at Segais in 502 as a fixed point, and
reckon backward with O’Duinn’s figures, we find 482 for the accession of
Duach I., 471 for the accession of Ailill Molt, and 451 for the accession
of Amolngaid. If Amolngaid followed Dathi in 428, this would imply an
error of about twenty-four years.

We have now the clue to the construction of O’Duinn’s list. A period of
_c._ 153 years from the accession of Amolngaid to the death of Aed had to
be accounted for. The recorded regnal years were insufficient, and the
defect was supplied by an impossible interpolation in the sixth century,
whereas it was in the fifth century, in the period anterior to Duach,
that the supplement was chiefly needed. Having established this point,
we need not consider further the succession of kings subsequent to Duach
Tenga Uma.

It is clear that there was a definite tradition assigning to Amolngaid
twenty years, to Ailill Molt eleven years, and Duach twenty years; and
that the chronologer, whom O’Duinn followed, did not venture to tamper
with these numbers in order to account for the missing years. As for
Ailill Molt, twenty years are assigned to him in the list in the _Book of
Leinster_. But this may be at once rejected; for twenty years represent
the duration of his reign as king of Ireland (462-482), and it is highly
improbable that the throne of Connaught became vacant at the same moment
as the throne of Ireland. Accepting then eleven years as the genuine
tradition, he must have succeeded to Connaught _c._ 471, as he died in
482, and there is no reason to suppose that he resigned the kingship
of Connaught before his death. The interval from 482 to 502 is exactly
covered by the twenty years assigned to Duach Tenga Uma. If Amolngaid
followed Dathi in 428 and reigned for twenty years, the end of his reign
would fall _c._ 448, which would correspond to the record in the _Annals
of the Four Masters_ (449). Thus we should arrive at an interval of about
twenty-four years between Amolngaid’s death and Ailill Molt’s succession
(448-471), which is unaccounted for. [The confusion of Ailill Molt’s
regnal years in Connaught with his twenty regnal years in Ireland served
to shorten this period by nine years; and in the list of the _Book of
Leinster_ the residue of the chronological error is “corrected” by adding
fourteen years to the reign of Amolngaid, to whom thirty-four years are
assigned.]

The question therefore is, who reigned in Connaught between Amolngaid
and Ailill Molt? Now I think it can hardly be insignificant that in the
Annals as well as in the lists Duach Tenga Uma is reduplicated. This
must have had some motive, and the most probable explanation seems to
be that two Duachs did reign in Connaught, and that O’Duinn is right in
distinguishing Duach son of Brian from Duach son of Fergus, though he
confuses the order and chronology. For it is clear that he had knowledge
of Duach Galach son of Brian, whom he describes as falling in battle with
the Cinel Eogain. His notice of this king is as follows (I use the text
and translation furnished by Mr. E. J. Gwynn):—

  Duach mac Briain abus           |  Duach son of Brian next
  XX bliadan a flaithus,          |  was sovereign 20 years;
  fuair a brath, ba tennel tair,  |  he met his betrayal—he was a prince
                                  |    in the east—in
  ’sa cath re ceinel Eogain.      |  battle with the cinel Eogain.

  Ced ri cloindi Briain na mbladh | The first of the family of Brian the
                                  |   famed
  Duach galach gargg dargiallsad, | was Duach valiant (_Galach_) fierce
                                  |   to whom men gave obedience;
  bladh don duine os gach dine    | fame the man had beyond all
                                  |   generations
  gurgab uile in airdrige.        | so that he took the entire
                                  |   overkingship.

  secht oshein rochuala           | 77 years from thence I have heard
  secht ndeich da bliadan buadha  | years of victory
  co Seagais in Coraind cain      | to Segais of fair Corand
  co har Conaill is Eogain.       | to the battle of Conall and Eogan.

The last stanza presents a difficulty. The battle of Segais was not the
“battle of Conall and Eogan,” so that the preposition _co_ “to” either
in v. 3 or in v. 4 must be a mistake for _ó_ “from.” O’Curry, in his
_Manuscript Material_, refers to this poem, and evidently assumes that
_ó_ should be read in v. 4; for he infers that the battle in which Duach
son of Brian was killed was fought 79 [sic] years before the battle of
Segais (which he dates A.D. 504 after the Four Masters), thus obtaining
425 for Duach’s death, and placing his reign before Amolngaid.

Now it is to be observed that the 77 years exactly correspond to the sum
total of the regnal years between the death of the first Duach and that
of the second Duach, according to O’Duinn’s own incorrect arrangement (37
+ 5 + 27 + 7 = 76). The question therefore arises: is the statement as
to the period of 77 years an inference from the arrangement, or is the
arrangement determined by an independent record that 77 years elapsed
between the two battles in question? The former alternative seems less
probable; for it does not appear why this particular interval, if it
were only an inference from the arrangement, should be selected for
special mention. It seems much more probable that (as is suggested by the
expression “I have heard”) the stanza embodies a tradition independent
of this particular reconstruction of the regnal list. If so, O’Curry’s
inference was correct, and we get (502 - 77 =) 425 as the date of the
battle in which Duach MacBriain fell. There would be no difficulty in
this date for Duach’s death; his father, Brian, was son of Eochaid and
brother of Niall; he was himself cousin of Loigaire and Amolngaid.[412]
In this case, one of the causes of the contradictions in the Connaught
succession was a confusion of the Duach who reigned towards the
beginning of the fifth century with the Duach who reigned at the end.

If then the first Duach died _c._ 425, it seems probable that he was
succeeded by Amolngaid. There seems to be no clear evidence that Dathi
was king of Connaught while he was king of Ireland. It is stated in the
_Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach_ (p. 90) that he ruled Connaught and
Ireland. It is quite conceivable that he was king of Connaught before
405, and that in that year he secured the succession to the throne of
Ireland by agreeing to transfer the kingship of Connaught to his cousin
Duach. The hypothesis that Amolngaid immediately followed Duach _c._ 425
is supported by two considerations.

1. Provisionally assuming, for the purpose of the argument, that
Amolngaid might have succeeded Dathi, I pointed out that the sum total
of regnal years in O’Duinn’s list, from Amolngaid’s accession to Aed’s
death, would take us back to the close neighbourhood of Dathi’s death in
428. But there is actually a difference of four years (577 - 153 = 424).
If Amolngaid succeeded Duach in 424/5, we may say that the agreement of
this date with the total of years in O’Duinn’s reckoning is precise.

2. On this hypothesis we are able to solve the main problem—the interval
between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.

For if Amolngaid succeeded in 424/5, and reigned 20 years, his death
would fall in 444/5. There would consequently be an interval of 26 or 27
years between his death and the accession of Ailill Molt in 471. Now if
Duach mac Briain had a son, we might expect to find him elected to the
throne. The prose list in the Book of Ballymote designates Eogan Srem
as the son of Duach Galach (that is, Duach mac Briain); and the regnal
years assigned to Eogan Srem in O’Duinn’s poem are precisely the number
required to fill up the interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.
The inference therefore would be that Amolngaid was followed by Eogan,
Duach’s son, _c._ 444/5.

In order to show the force of the argument, I may say, at the risk of
tautology, that it consists of three converging considerations. (_a_)
Eogan Srem is introduced, in the lists in the Book of Ballymote, among
the Kings of Connaught in the sixth century in defiance of chronology.
His appearance in these lists has to be explained, and is most naturally
explained by supposing that he was at one time King of Connaught, though
not at the time implied in the lists. If the conclusion is right that
Duach mac Briain died in 425, then his son Eogan Srem must be moved back
into the fifth century. (_b_) The 27 regnal years assigned to Eogan Srem
exactly occupy the vacant interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.
(_c_) The succession of Eogan Srem, son of Amolngaid’s predecessor, is
just what we might expect; it is exactly parallel to the successions in
the fifth century to the throne of Ireland. Thus: Niall, Dathi, Loigaire
son of Niall; Dathi, Loigaire, Ailill son of Dathi; Loigaire, Ailill,
Lugaid son of Loigaire.

These considerations seem to me to outweigh the circumstance that
Amolngaid’s death is assigned in the Annals of the Four Masters to A.D.
449. It would be otherwise if the date were recorded in the Annals of
Ulster. But a comparison of the Four Masters with the other Annals shows
that the former compilation constantly deviates by several years, and,
for the early period at least, a date which is found only in it, cannot
be accepted as accurate with any confidence.

       *       *       *       *       *

I have presented this investigation so as to show the steps by which
I reached the conclusion, as I believe that thus it will be easier to
criticise it. The reconstruction which I propose seems at least to
satisfy the conditions of the problem. It may be convenient to tabulate
the list of the kings, in accordance with these results, as follows:—

    Duach Galach, mac Briain   _d._ 424/5
    Amolngaid                  _d._ 444/5.
    Eogan Srem, son of Duach   _d._ 471.
    Ailill Molt                _d._ 482.
    Duach Tenga Uma            _d._ 502.


15. _Patrick at Rome_

The evidence for a visit of Patrick to Rome A.D. 441 depends upon two
records, one in the Annals, the other in Tírechán.

(1) _Ann. Ult. sub a._ 441: Leo ordinatus est xlii<i> Romane ecclesie
episcopus et probatus est in fide catolica Patricius episcopus.

(2) Tírechán, (p. 301₆: see above, p. 250):

    Et exiuit [sc. Sachellus] cum Patricio ad legendum xxx annis et
    ordinauit ilium in urbe Roma et dedit illi nomen nouum Sachellum
    et scripsit illi librum psalmorum quern uidi [sc. Tírechán], et
    portauit [sc. Sachellus] ab illo partem de reliquis Petri et
    Pauli Laurentii et Stefani quae sunt in Machi.

[Cp. Tírechán, 329₂₄, where Patrick is said to have given to Olcan
(ordained bishop at Dunseverick) _partem de reliquiis Petri et Pauli et
aliorum et uclum quod custodiuit reliquias_].

The ordination of Leo is wrongly placed in the _Annals_ in 441; it
belongs to 440. But its close association with the notice of St.
Patrick’s _probatio_ shows the meaning of the words _probatus est_;[413]
and in fact there is no other conceivable meaning than formal approval
by the Church, and the only form which that approval was likely to take
in such a case was the approval of the Church’s chief representative,
the Bishop of Rome. Such approval might have come in the shape of a
formal epistle from the Roman bishop to the bishop in Ireland. But when
we find in our seventh-century authority, Tírechán, a statement that
Patrick was in Rome accompanied by Sachellus, and when we find that in
his time there were relics of Peter and Paul and other martyrs at Armagh
procured by St. Patrick; and seeing that there is nothing improbable in
these records, and that, on the contrary, a visit of Patrick to Rome
is antecedently probable; we may venture, I think, to combine these
testimonies and conclude that Patrick did visit Rome at the beginning of
Leo’s pontificate. The tradition of Sachall has all the appearance of
being genuine; and Tírechán in this passage was using an older written
document, as is proved by his uncertainty about a numeral (_cum uiris
uiii aut uiiii_, 300₂₇; cp. above, App. A, ii. 1).

The notice in the Annals _probatus est in fide Catholica_ is, by its
brief formal character, stamped, in my judgment, as a contemporary entry,
made probably in a fifth-century calendar. If it had been concocted in
the sixth century, or at any later period, it could never have taken this
shape; it would have been expressed more clearly. It implies and assumes
contemporary knowledge—the knowledge, as I contend, of the visit to Rome.

There is another remarkable notice in the Annals, two years later,
which it seems to me may bear on the subject—_Ann. Ult. sub a._ 443:
_Patricius episcopus ardore fidei et doctrina Christi florens in nostra
provincia._[414]

_Ann. Inisf.: Patricius in Christi doctrina floruit._

It is clear that the Ulster Annals give the entry in its original form,
which is abbreviated (and translated into the past tense) by the
Annalist of Inisfallen. It has never been explained why a notice of
this kind should be entered under this particular year. Such a notice,
attached to a certain year, must have had a motive in some particular
occurrence which happened at that date. It belongs unquestionably to that
small group of contemporary entries which, preserved in calendars, found
their way into the later annalistic compilations (see above, p. 282). Now
Patrick’s visit to Rome supplies an explanation which would fully account
for it. His return from Rome, with the new prestige and authority with
which the Roman bishop’s approbation would have invested him, furnishes
a motive which would explain a formal entry recording his activity and
success at this juncture.[415]

       *       *       *       *       *

The passage in Tírechán quoted above calls for a remark. There is
obviously an error in _ad legendum_ xxx _annis_. The error probably arose
from some combination of the genuine tradition that Sachellus accompanied
Patrick to Rome with the false idea (which had arisen before Tírechán’s
time through chronological confusions about Patrick’s life) that Patrick
studied for thirty years abroad.


16. _Appeal to the Roman See_

The genuineness of the canon prescribing reference to the Roman see
has been sufficiently indicated in the text (chap. viii. § 4); but some
observations may be added here by way of illustration. It is clear
that the attitude of the Irish Church to the see of Rome in the sixth
century has a very distinct value as evidence from which inferences
may be made in regard to its relation to Rome in the fifth century.
And for the feelings of Irish ecclesiastics towards the Roman see in
the sixth century, we can have no better evidence than the letters of
St. Columbanus, who was born and educated in Ireland. For on the one
hand Columbanus identifies his own opinions with those of the Irish,
and speaks as if he were writing in Ireland; while, on the other, he
admonishes the bishops of Rome with such boldness and plainness that he
cannot be accused of “Romanising” tendencies. We are therefore justified
in taking the spirit which he displays towards the _Cathedra Petri_ as
indicative of the spirit of the Irish Church.

In the three letters which are addressed to bishops of Rome (Epp. 1, 3,
5) there is the fullest recognition of the Pope’s _auctoritas_ in the
Western Church, and it is just this recognition which makes Columban
lay such solemn weight on his own admonitions—an error (_peruersitas_,
p. 175₄) committed by the Pope being one of the most serious disasters
that could befall the Church. It is clear that Ireland is in no wise
excluded from the general _auctoritas_ of the “Apostolic Fathers” (cp.
pp. 164₃₁, 165₂₃), for Pope Boniface is addressed as _omnium totius
Europae Ecclesiarum capiti_ (Ep. 5, p. 170₁₀). In this letter Columbanus
writes: _nos enim devincti sumus cathedrae sancti Petri_ (174₂₅), and
_vos_ (the Popes) _prope caelestes estis et Roma orbis terrarum caput est
ecclesiarum, salva loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari praerogativa_.
The reservation (showing that the writer is expressing his conviction and
not merely using rhetorical phrases of politeness) renders this evidence
all the more telling; and the same may be said of the reservation which
he makes as to the claim of the Popes as successors of the keeper of
the keys of heaven (175₈₋₁₉). The attitude of Columban is briefly
expressed in the wish: _Rex regum, tu Petrum, te tota sequatur ecclesia_
(177₁₅).[416]

The unity of the Catholic Church is an axiom with Columbanus, and there
is not the smallest reason to doubt that this idea was inculcated in
Ireland. _Unius enim sumus corporis commembra, sive Galli sive Britanni
sive Iberi sive quaeque gentes_ (164). It is not without significance
that in the story of the baptism of the daughters of King Loigaire,
preserved by Tírechán, one of the five rudiments of Christianity in
which the converts are required to express their belief is the _unitas
aecclessiae_ (316₂, Rolls ed.).

The point is that its own solidarity with the rest of Christendom, and
consequent respect for the Bishop of Rome as the head of Christendom,
were axioms of theory, however little they were acted on in the sixth
century, in the Irish Church. And such must have been the teaching of
Patrick himself. Patrick, spiritually reared in the Gallic Church, must
(without direct testimony to the contrary) be presumed to have shared in
the attitude of Gallic churchmen to the Roman see. It was not, indeed,
the attitude of unquestioning obedience and submission of later ages.
What it was has been fully explained in chap. iii. _ad fin._ and in chap.
viii. § 4.

Reference must be made to another passage in Columbanus, which might be
thought to prove something more (_Ep._ 5, p. 171).

    Nos enim sanctorum Petri et Pauli et omnium discipulorum
    divinum canonem spiritu sancto scribentium discipuli sumus,
    toti Iberi, ultimi habitatores mundi, nihil extra evangelicam
    et apostolicam doctrinam recipientes: nullus hereticus, nullus
    iudaeus, nullus scismaticus fuit; sed fides catholica, _sicut a
    vobis primum_, sanctorum videlicet apostolorum successoribus,
    _tradita est_, inconcussa tenetur.

In this assertion of the orthodoxy of Ireland, the words which I have
italicised might be taken to imply that Ireland received the Catholic
faith directly from the Popes. This would be a misinterpretation. The
words can only refer generally to the transmission and maintenance of
orthodox doctrine at Rome.[417]

       *       *       *       *       *

The text of the canon of appeal (Hibernensis, 20, 5, b) is as follows:—

    Si quae difficiles[418] questiones in hac insula oriantur, ad
    sedem apostolicam referantur.

It is referred to in the _Liber Angueli_ (356₁₁), where the claim of
Armagh to decide a _causa ualde difficilis_ is laid down; but if Armagh
does not succeed in settling the question, then _ad sedem apostolicam
decreuimus esse mittendam_ [sc. _causam_]. It is further stated:

    hii sunt qui de hoc decreuerunt id est Auxilius Patricius
    Secundinus Benignus.

If these names are selected from the signatories of a synod at which the
canon was passed, the presence of Secundinus, who died 447-8 (see App. B,
note p. 292), shows that the synod must have been held before that year.
Benignus would have been still a presbyter.[419]


17. _Patrick’s Paschal Table_

[See Dr. B. MacCarthy’s _Introduction_ to the _Annals of Ulster_, vol.
iv.]

The Paschal table drawn up by Dionysius (based on a cycle of 19 years
like the Alexandrine) superseded the Paschal canon of Victorius of
Aquitaine about 525 A.D. in the Roman Church. The canon of Victorius
(based on a cycle of 532 years) had been introduced in 457 A.D. and
continued to be used in Gaul to the end of the eighth century. Before
the reception of the Victorian system, the date of Easter was calculated
in the west by a cycle of 84 years. In the time of St. Patrick, the
terms between which Easter could fluctuate, according to the _supputatio
Romana_ based on this cycle, were the 16th and 22nd of the lunar month,
the 22nd March and 21st April of the calendar. These terms were due to
modifications (which had been introduced in 312 and 343 A.D.) of an older
computation, in which the lunar limits were the 14th and 20th of the
lunar month, the calendar limits the 25th March and 21st April.[420]

There were thus four stages, from the end of the third century, in the
Paschal computation adopted at Rome:

  1. 84 cycle: lunar terms, 14 × 20: cal. terms, M. 25 × A. 21
  2. 84 cycle: lunar terms, 16 × 22: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 21 [after
       343 A.D.]
  3. 532 cycle: lunar terms, 16 × 22: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 24 [after
       457 A.D.]
  4. 19 cycle: lunar terms, 15 × 21: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 25 [after
       525 A.D.]

The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland never adopted the Victorian
cycle, and the great question of the seventh-century controversies was
whether they should adopt the Dionysian computation, and abandon their
old system which was based on a cycle of 84. There is no doubt that a
cycle of 84 was used in Ireland in the 6th and 7th centuries, for we
have the clear and express testimony of one of the great Irish churchmen
of the sixth century, Columbanus of Bobbio and Luxeuil. In a letter
addressed to a Gallic synod 603 or 604 A.D., he writes: _plus credo
traditioni patriae meae, iuxta doctrinam et calculum octoginta quatuor
annorum_.[421] The confirmation supplied by Bede, _H.E._, 2, 2 and 5, 21,
as well as by Aldhelm (ed. Dümmler, _M.G.H., Epp. Mer. et Kar. Aeui_, i.
233), is superfluous.

But what surprises us is that this Paschal reckoning which prevailed
in Ireland in the sixth and seventh centuries was not the _supputatio
Romana_ of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Paschal limits were
different. The Irish celebrated Easter from the 14th to the 20th of
the moon, and not before 25th March.[422] In other words, their system
represented the oldest of the four stages noted above. How is the
survival of this system to be explained?

If we suppose that a table of Paschal computation was brought by Patrick
to Ireland in the first half of the fifth century, it is not probable
that he would have introduced any other than the _supputatio Romana_.
This inference does not depend on the view which we adopt as to Patrick’s
relations to the Church of Rome. It depends upon his connexion with the
Gallic Church. There is no evidence, so far as I can discover,[423]
that the Gallic Church did not agree with the Roman in the fourth and
fifth centuries as to the Paschal limits. We should have to suppose that
Patrick rejected both the system prevailing in western Europe, and the
Alexandrine system, in favour of the older usage prevailing in his native
country, Britain; and this, in view of the circumstances of his career,
seems extremely unlikely.[424]

The evidence, in my opinion, suggests rather a different conclusion. It
suggests that the Paschal system which prevailed in Britain in the fourth
century and survived to the seventh had been introduced from Britain
into Ireland, and taken root among the Christian communities there,
_before the arrival of Patrick_. This is what we should expect. It is in
accordance with the hypothesis of the British origin of pre-Patrician
Christianity in Ireland. It is easy to comprehend that Patrick, though
accustomed to the _supputatio Romana_, acquiesced in the continuance
of the other system or was unable to change it. It would be not at all
easy to comprehend that, if he had found Ireland a _tabula rasa_ ready
to receive any Paschal calculation that he might choose to inscribe, he
should not have introduced the system generally received in the Western
Church unless it were the system generally received in the Eastern
Church. The Paschal evidence appears to be another proof of pre-Patrician
Christianity in Ireland.

But if Patrick acquiesced in the continuance of the old system and
did not make the fixing of the Paschal feast a crucial question in
Ireland, it does not follow that he adopted it himself or may not have
made some attempt to introduce another canon. There is no _a priori_
objection to the possibility that, while the old method continued in the
old-established communities, he may have sanctioned a different table in
the new communities which he founded. This brings us to the consideration
of an important piece of evidence contained in the letter of Cummian
addressed to Segéne, Abbot of Hy (probably in 632 A.D.[425]), arguing for
the Roman Easter. Cummian states definitely that the Pasch of Patrick
differed from the Pasch of the Irish and Britons. He describes the cycle
used by Patrick thus:[426]

    illum [cyclum] quem sanctus Patricius, papa noster, tulit
    et facit (_leg._ fecit), in quo luna a xiv usque in xxi
    regulariter et aequinoctium a xii Kl. April obseruatur.

The Paschal lunar limits in this text are those ascribed to Theophilus
and the Council of Caesarea, in the spurious _Acta_ composed by an Irish
computist[427] (possibly towards the beginning of the sixth century).
The probability, however, seems to be that the text of Cummian has
suffered corruption in the numbers, and the question is whether (1)
xiv. is an error for xv.,[428] and the Alexandrine cycle is implied, or
(2) xiv. and xxi. are errors for xvi. and xxii. respectively, and the
_supputatio Romana_ (with 84 cycle) is intended. Both these alternatives
are possible, for, though we should expect Patrick to have accepted
the Gallic usage, he _might_ have been prepossessed in favour of the
Alexandrine system at Lérins, where there was probably Eastern influence.

In any case, we can hardly feel prepared to reject the statement of
Cummian[429] that Patrick “brought” and sought to introduce a different
Paschal computation from that which prevailed among the Celts in
Cummian’s own time. We may fairly cite in confirmation the express
mention of his studies of the calendar (at Auxerre) in the Hymn of Fíacc
(l. 11, as interpreted by Thurneysen, _Rev. celt._ vi. 233; see above, p.
264).


18. _The Organisation of the Episcopate_[430]

Todd showed in great detail that bishops without sees were common in the
Irish Church in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries (_St. Patrick_,
pp. 1 _sqq._). Strictly speaking, he did not prove it for the fifth
century; nor did he show that there were no bishops with sees, even in
the times to which his instances and illustrations apply. Loofs has
maintained that both in Patrick’s time and in later times there were
“_episcopi paruchiales_” in Ireland. I hardly think that the positive
arguments which he brings forward are very convincing; the inscription of
the letter of Pope John IV. (Bede, _H.E._ 2, 19) proves nothing. But the
passage which he cites from the letter of Columbanus (A.D. 603 or 604) to
a synod of Gallic bishops and clergy may be quoted in this connexion. The
Irish monk writes:

    Inde sanctus Hieronymus haec sciens iussit episcopos imitari
    apostolos, monachos uero docuit sequi patres perfectos. Alia
    enim sunt et alia clericorum et monachorum documenta, ea et
    longe ab inuicem separata.[431]

Had the Abbot of Luxueil who writes with such approbation of the separate
functions and ideals of sequestered monks, and active clergy (including
bishops), whether regular or secular—had he been accustomed in his native
country to a system in which there were no bishops who were not members
of monasteries? This bears on the question whether the Irish Church
in the sixth century was as exclusively monastic as it is generally
represented.

It is quite inconceivable that Patrick and his foreign coadjutors should
have organised a purely monastic Church. Such a Church might have
grown into being by degrees, but it would never have been deliberately
organised in the fifth century; there was no model for it. Nor is it
conceivable that Patrick would have introduced an order of bishops, none
of whom were bound to any defined sphere of activity, but who might go
about the island promiscuously, performing episcopal duties wherever
they liked. It is incredible that he was not guided by geographical
considerations in his ordination of bishops; and it is not easy to see
how a geographical distribution could have been dispensed with.

There is indeed a total absence of evidence to suggest that there were
large episcopal dioceses, and this is perfectly consistent with the
tradition that Patrick ordained an immense number of bishops, variously
stated, with great exaggeration, at 450 and 350.[432] Tírechán, who
gives the former number, cannot mention the names of more than about
forty-five. But the fact that he can record so many shows that the
number of bishops under the Patrician system was not small. It does not
follow that they had no dioceses; it only follows that the dioceses were
comparatively small. _A priori_, this is what we might expect. The number
of small tribal territories in Ireland could not fail to affect and
largely determine the ecclesiastical organisation. And when we find in
the records of Tírechán, concerning the foundations of St. Patrick, that
in some churches he placed presbyters, while for others he consecrated
bishops, we may be sure that in this discrimination he was guided by
considerations of secular geography, and that he did not wish to multiply
bishops beyond necessity.

The evidence of the records and traditions preserved by Tírechán has the
more weight because it is quite undesigned; and, so far as it goes, it
seems to bear out the general view of the Patrician organisation which
has been indicated above. Here are the bishops who were ordained by
Patrick for certain churches in Connaught:—

    Assicus: Elphin (313 Rolls ed.)
    Sachellus: Baslick (304, 320₁₄; cp. _Vit. Trip_, 110)
    Bronus: Caisselire (327)
    Mucneus: Donaghmore, near Fochlad (326)
    [Muirethachus: Killala? (327)][433]
    Senachus: Aghagower (322)
    Cainnech: Cellola Tog (324)[434]
    Felartus: Saeoli (313)

To these may perhaps be added the _epis̃ prespiter bonus_ (whose name is
illegible in the MS.: fol. 13 rᵒ b, l. 12) who founded a church in Imgoe
Mair Cerrigi (in the barony of Costello, Mayo).

As many foundations in Connaught are recorded by Tírechán, with which
no bishop is connected, it is clear that, so far as this evidence goes,
Patrick proceeded on some principle in the distribution of episcopal
churches. There is one passage from which it might be hastily concluded
that he set two bishops in one place. He installed Assicus and his
nephew Bitteus at Elphin, and both Assicus and Bitteus are described as
bishops (313). The true interpretation obviously is that, when Assicus
left Elphin (as described in 313₂₉, _fecit profugam ad montem lapidis_),
he was succeeded by Bitteus, as was natural; and that Bitteus is here
(313₂₂) described as a bishop _proleptically_. (This accords with the
part he took in the ordination of Cairell at a later time, in connexion
with which Assicus is not mentioned: 314₂₆, see below.)

There is one interesting piece of evidence for the multiplication of
bishops after Patrick’s death. Under his arrangement there was no bishop
at Tamnach in Tirerrill; but

    id cairellum

    post haec autem posuerunt episcopos iuxta sanctam aeclessiam hi
    Tamnuch quos ordinauerunt episcopi Patricii id est Bronus et
    Bietheus.

The language is a little loose, but clearly means that afterwards
Cairellus was ordained a bishop for Tamnach by Bronus of Caisselire and
Bitteus (who had succeeded his uncle Assicus) of Elphin, and that he was
succeeded by a line of bishops. Why was this innovation made? Clearly
because the community of Tamnach, founded by Mathona, had grown in
importance and aspired to have a bishop for itself. Here we may recognise
a distinct bit of evidence for the early introduction of the system,
which very soon became prevalent, of bishops without sees attached to
religious houses.

There seems then to be no evidence in support of the improbable
supposition that Patrick’s bishops had not episcopal districts.
Such districts would naturally have been determined by the tribal
divisions of the country. Nor is there any difficulty in explaining the
subsequent development of this episcopal church into a church which was
predominantly monastic. The double position of the bishop is the clew
to the development. For the bishop was not only bishop for a certain
diocese, which would contain several churches and religious foundations,
but he was also head of a particular community. Thus Assicus presided
over a religious community at Elphin,[435] besides being episcopally
responsible for a certain district. This system was a natural consequence
of the condition of the country; there were no cities; monastic
establishments were the substitute. Hence Patrick’s bishops were probably
in most cases monks; we have references to _monachi Patricii_,[436] from
whom Patrick doubtless selected some of his bishops, just as Lérins
supplied some notable bishops for the sees of Gaul. It is easy to
conceive how in process of time other religious communities might aspire
to be self-sufficient and have bishops of their own. If the bishop, whose
jurisdiction included a number of communities, had not been himself the
head of a similar community, such a tendency would not have been likely
to arise. But when there were a number of monastic communities, A, B,
C, etc., in one district, which was under the episcopal jurisdiction
of a bishop who was the _princeps_ of A, one can understand how this
jurisdiction might have soon seemed to B, C, etc., an intolerable claim
to superiority on the part of a neighbouring community. The bishop came
to be regarded, and perhaps came to act, less as the bishop of the
_paruchia_ than as the _princeps_ of his community. The double position
of the bishop exposed him to a jealousy which would not have been aroused
if he had stood outside all communities alike. The consequence was the
multiplication of bishops, many communities wishing to be independent and
to have bishops, each for itself. Thus the diocesan system partly broke
down, and the instance of the ordination of Cairell for Tamnach seems to
be an early instance.

Was there any discriminating designation to distinguish those religious
settlements which were seats of bishops from those which were not? I
venture on the conjecture that the name _civitas_ was originally applied
only to the former communities. In Gaul, in Italy, in Roman Britain,
the bishop’s seat was in a true _civitas_; and we can understand that
in a cityless land, _civitas_ might have been used in the special
ecclesiastical sense of the settlement in which the bishop lived.[437]

It is worth noticing that in the Memoir of Tírechán two episcopal seats
in Connaught seem to be distinguished as places for the ordination
of _bishops_: Aghagower _in quo fiunt episcopi_ (322₇) and perhaps
Donaghmore in Fochlad.[438] Did Patrick specially mark out certain
episcopal residences as places where bishops might be consecrated?

The outcome of this discussion is that Patrick’s organisation was from
one point of view monastic, from another episcopal. It was monastic in
so far as many of the churches in the various regions were connected
with religious communities of a monastic character, and the clergy were
largely monks. But this did not prevent it being episcopal, in the sense
that there were episcopal districts or dioceses. There was not a body of
bishops without sees, who went round visiting churches promiscuously, but
each bishop had his own diocese.

There is another consideration which has not been noticed, and which
seems to me of great weight. It is the position which bishops hold in the
few laws in the _Senchus Mór_ which touch the Church. The bishop appears
in these laws as the dignitary in the Church who corresponds to the king
in the State. There is no mention of presbyter abbots as sharing the
privileges of the bishop, who has the same “dire” fine as a king.[439]
Clearly a state of things is contemplated in which the bishops are the
important administrators in the Church. Such rights could not have been
established from the sixth century forward, when the bishops were of
less account. This feature of the _Senchus Mór_ seems to me, therefore,
to have a double significance, in establishing both the antiquity of
the code itself and the eminence of the episcopal office in the fifth
century; the two things hang together and mutually support each other.

A corroboration is perhaps also supplied by the _De Abusionibus Seculi_,
a treatise of Irish origin, written before 700 A.D. (see App. A, i.
4), where the tenth Abuse is the _Episcopus negligens_, in which the
pastoral duties of the bishop are insisted upon, and his functions as a
_speculator_. It seems by no means improbable that the work is older than
600 A.D.


19. _The Place of Patrick’s Burial_

The decisive reasons for determining the vexed question of Patrick’s
burial-place in favour of Saul have been given in the text; but
something more may be said here in criticism of the evidence. Among
the miscellaneous notices appended to Tírechán’s Memoir (p. 332) by
the scribe Ferdomnach, occurs a comparison of Patrick to Moses in four
points, of which the fourth is: _ubi sunt ossa eius nemo nouit_. The
author of this similitude has simply taken advantage, for his purpose,
of the fact that there were two rival claimants, Saul and Downpatrick.
It does not imply that there was no distinct and universally accepted
tradition placing his burial in this district; for if there had been any
room for doubt about that, Armagh could not have failed to claim his
bones.

Another notice follows, professing to tell how the place of sepulture was
revealed:—

    Colombcille spiritu sancto instigante ostendit sepulturam
    Patricii, ubi est confirmat., id est hi Sabul Patricii, id est
    in aeclessia iuxta mare proxima, ubi est conductio martirum
    id est ossuum Coluimbcillae de Britannia et conductio omnium
    sanctorum Hiberniae iudicii.

Whatever value we may attach to this passage as a record of an opinion
of Columba, it is good evidence for the existence of a tradition that
Patrick was buried at Saul. Todd (_St. Patrick_, p. 494) thinks that
Downpatrick is intended, and thereby reconciles this passage (which he
wrongly ascribes to Tírechán) with the statement of Muirchu that he was
buried there.[440] If it were a case for reconciliation, it would be a
more defensible hypothesis that Muirchu used loose language, and said
that Patrick was buried at Dún, whereas he was really buried in its
neighbourhood. But the two statements should have been protected against
any such arbitrary attempt to reconcile them by the existence of the
third statement _ubi sunt ossa eius nemo nouit_, for they afford us its
explanation. Muirchu meant Dúnlethglasse, as he said; and the writer of
the notice of Columba’s discovery meant Saul, as _he_ said. There were
two rival traditions, the Saul tradition and the Dún tradition; and it
was just the existence of these two traditions which could enable a man
to say, “After all, we know not where the saint was buried; in that too
he was like Moses.”

The whole story, or collection of stories, related by Muirchu (and
reproduced in the text) contain obvious marks of their growth, and
internal inconsistency; though, as put together by Muirchu, they
represent the account accepted at Dúnlethglasse. The first part,
containing the interview with the angel, and the death and _exequiae_
(295₁₈₋297₂₅), does not contemplate Dúnlethglasse at all. It only
contemplates Saul: _revertere ad locum unde uenis, hoc est Sabul_.
It reflects, as I have said, a conciliation between the claim, or
rather disappointment, of Armagh, and the actual burial at Saul; it is
designed to protect, if I may say so, the countenance of Armagh, and
the compromise is reflected in the two petitions representing the two
interests.

After this comes the passage relating the burial at Dúnlethglasse
(298₁₋₂₀). It is quite evident that it has a distinct and subsequent
origin; it was manufactured in a different ecclesiastical workshop. It
adds, like a sort of postscript, a new piece, a new command, to the
discourse of the angel, in a new interest, namely of Downpatrick. If
the whole story had been of one piece, this command would have formed
part of the angel’s original address; it would not be introduced as an
appendix. This criticism is in itself sufficient to exhibit the falsity
of Downpatrick’s claim. It is to be noted that this claim had the further
purpose of establishing an early date for the origin of the church of
Downpatrick. It could not claim to have been founded by the saint; it
alleged that it was founded in connexion with his burial.

The two stories, which Muirchu relates of the contention between the
Ulidians and the men of Orior (_orientales_), supply an instructive
illustration of the genesis of legends. When we have two stories of
this kind, one is generally subsequent to the other, and suggested by
it.[441] The common argument of both is to show how hostilities were
prevented. There can be no doubt which was the genuine and primitive
story. The inundation of the sea, a motive (as I pointed out in the text)
characteristic of the district, furnishes a presumption in favour of the
priority of the first story. The second story obviously arose out of
the Dúnlethglasse legend of the oxen;[442] in fact, its point depends
upon that legend. Thus was myth added to myth in the workshops of Irish
ecclesiastics. The ecclesiastical origin is seen not only in the incident
of the burning bush, but in the invention of the cart and two unyoked
kine (1 Samuel vi. 7 _sqq._).


20. _Legendary Date of Patrick’s Death_

The true year of Patrick’s death is furnished by our oldest document,
Tírechán (302₂₉, a passione Christi ... anni ccccxxxiii [MS. ccccxxxui]);
Ann. of Ulster, _s.a._ 461 (cp. Ann. Inisf. _s.a._ 493); Nennius, _Hist.
Brit._ 16 (pp. 158-9 ed. Mommsen). See the criticism of this material in
Bury, _Tírechán’s Memoir_, pp. 239 _sqq._

But side by side with the true tradition, we find in the Annals another
date, A.D. 493, which has been generally received and is the vulgar
era of the event. It is closely connected with the legendary age of
Patrick—120 years, which is as old as Muirchu’s Life (296₁₉). The
question arises, how came his age to be raised from somewhat more than 70
to 120 years, and why was A.D. 493 fixed on as the date of his death?

In the analogy which was drawn between Patrick and Moses, one of the
items of resemblance is the same length of life. But the Mosaic motive
cannot have been sufficient to determine originally such a marked
perversion of fact. On the contrary, the age of 120 years must have been
otherwise suggested and have then, in its turn, contributed to suggest
the Mosaic analogy.

It is to be noted that in the _Liber Armachanus_ two divergent
subputations of Patrick’s age are found. One of these was originally
appended to the exemplar of Muirchu which was used by the Armagh scribe;
the other is among the notes which are appended to his transcription of
Tírechán.

In the first (300₂₁) it is stated that Patrick, having been captured in
his 20th year, was a slave for 15 years, studied for 40, and taught for
61. Hence it is inferred that his age was 111. There must be errors in
the figures.

In the second (331₂₂) we have the following statement:—baptized in 7th
year, captured in 10th, was a slave for 7 years, studied for 30 years,
and taught for 72. Hence his age at his death is inferred as 120 (10 + 7
+ 30 + 72 = 119), _ut Moyses_.

It is, I venture to think, of the greatest significance that in both
these cases the fictitious age is given as a total, and preceded by a
statement of the items which compose it. This fact furnishes the clue.
The Mosaic age, 120, was not handed down as a legend, nor was the true
age of somewhat over 70 audaciously raised to the Mosaic figure for
the purpose of the Mosaic comparison. The figure 120, or something
approximate, was reached by means of a computation of chronological
items, and it is these chronological items that we must examine in order
to discover the origin of the error.

In the two anonymous computations which I have quoted the items
disagree with each other, and also disagree with the data in Patrick’s
_Confession_. They cannot therefore form the basis of our examination,
because we may safely assume that the computation, by which 120 years
(exactly or approximately) was reached and was generally accepted in
Ireland, did not contravene the data of the _Confession_—data which
were rightly quoted in Tírechán (302₁₇) from the Book of Ultan. We may
safely assume that the computators, who succeeded in establishing the
Mosaic age, started with the incontrovertible fact supplied by the
_Confession_ that Patrick was either 22 years old, or in his 22nd year,
when he escaped from captivity. It is equally clear that the period which
they assigned to his teaching was 60 (rather 61 years)—for that is the
period from his arrival in Ireland, A.D. 433 (rather 432) to the alleged
date of his death, A.D. 493. This would leave 38 (rather 37) years to
be accounted for. Now Muirchu mentions two different records, 30 and 40
years, for the sojourn with Germanus (it is to be observed that, of the
two computations noticed above, one reckons with 30, the other with 40
years). If either of these, 30 years must have been the period accepted
in this computation for St. Patrick’s studies, and an interval of 8 (or
7) years left, which agrees remarkably with the notice of Tírechán (from
the _Liber apud Ultanum_, _ib._): uii. _aliis annis ambulauit_, etc. The
sum worked out thus—

                         22 + 7 + 30 + 61 = 120.

Of these items 22 had the best authority, and 30 and 7 were independent
records or traditions (as we know from Muirchu and Tírechán). The problem
is therefore reduced to discovering the origin of the 61 or 60 years
during which the apostle is wrongly supposed to have taught. That it was
due to a misinterpretation and not to a deliberate invention, there can,
I think, be no question.

A list of the Armagh succession in the Book of Leinster (printed in
Stokes, _Trip._ pp. 542 _sqq._) supplies a hint which suggests an
explanation of the error. The first entry is—

    Patrick: 58 years _from the coming of Patrick to Ireland_ till
    his death.

The fact that a period of 58 years is given here instead of the usual
number (493-433/2) is remarkable. Now if we count back 58 years from
the _true_ date of Patrick’s death, 461, we reach the year 403-404,
which was in the close vicinity of the year in which, as we saw, he was
probably taken into slavery. Hence it seems probable that in an early
record it was stated correctly that 58 years elapsed between the coming
of Patrick to Ireland, meaning his _first_ coming as a slave, and his
death, and that this notice was misinterpreted by subsequent computators
who referred it to his _second_ coming as a teacher. They computed: 22
+ 7 (_ambulauit_) + 30 (_legit_) + 58 (_docuit_) = 117. An age so close
to 120 could hardly fail to suggest Moses; the figures clamoured for
a slight manipulation, and the means adopted was to increase the last
period from 58 to 61. Thus the date of the death was determined: 432 + 61
= 493.

By this computation the coming to Ireland divided the whole life into two
almost equal parts (59 + 61), which would naturally come to be described
in round numbers as each 60 years. This probably led to the alternative
date for the obit given in the _Ann. Ult._ 492 (= 432 + 60).

The computation which established 120 years for the age and A.D. 493 for
the year of the death, thus involving 61 years for the Irish period, was
triumphant and became authoritative. But the computations quoted above
from the _Liber Armachanus_ show that other theories had been propounded
based on the addition of items. In the _Vita Tertia_ the age is given as
132. This figure seems to have been obtained by substituting 72 instead
of the (round) 60 for the last item in the sum; this is suggested by the
fact that in the second computation in the _Liber Armachanus_ the last
item is _septuaginta duo annos docuit_, though the total 120 (119) is
secured by erroneous dates for the captivity. What is the origin of this
number 72? It must have come down in some form, it must have represented
something, when, in order to do justice to it, one computator felt
compelled to raise the Mosaic 120 to 132, and another, though holding
fast to 120, modified the authentic dates of the captivity.

I suggest that this number 72 represents an old and correct record of
Patrick’s age at the time of his death.


21. _Professor Zimmer’s Theory_

The general obscurity which surrounds the early history of Ireland,
the difficulties which have been found in making out the period of
Patrick’s career from indefinite and contradictory data, the fact that
while his death fell on any theory in the fifth century, no mention of
him in literature is found before the seventh, these circumstances have
led to a variety of theories which beset and embarrass the student who
approaches Patrician literature. Patrick has been in turn eliminated and
reduplicated; and, in revenge for undue magnification, his rôle has been
reduced to something quite insignificant. We may say that his writings,
like the poems of Homer, have been taken away from him to be ascribed to
some one else of the same name. It is needless to notice here theories
which are fantastic or baseless, and have never gained any general or
wide acceptance, but the view which has been recently developed by the
brilliant Celtic philologist, Professor Zimmer,[443] cannot be passed
over without criticism.

In another note I have referred to Zimmer’s identification of Patrick
with Palladius. This is necessitated by, but would not necessitate, his
theory. If it were demonstrated to-morrow that Patrick and Palladius were
one and the same person, this would be quite as compatible with the view
of Patrick adopted in the foregoing pages as with the view of Zimmer.
Palladius may provisionally be left out of account for the purpose of the
present criticism, though I shall have a few words to say on the subject
at the end of this excursus.

Zimmer fully admits, though he had once denied, the genuineness of the
_Confession_ and the missive to the subjects of Coroticus; that is, he
admits that they were written by Patricius, a bishop in Ireland in the
fifth century. But he holds that the activity of this bishop was entirely
confined to south-eastern Ireland (Laigin), that he accomplished nothing
for the evangelisation or ecclesiastical organisation of the rest of
Ireland, that he died (A.D. 459: Zimmer) conscious of failure, and for
nearly two centuries after his death had a merely local reputation.
The rejection of the traditional Patrick is, so far as I understand,
based chiefly on two arguments: (1) Zimmer’s interpretation of the
_Confession_; and (2), if Patrick’s work had at all corresponded in
scope, magnitude, and import to the descriptions of it given by Irish
writers of the seventh century, it would have been noticed by Bede in
his _Ecclesiastical History_. As for the _Confession_ I have said enough
in the text, and have shown, I think, that its note is not, as Zimmer
holds, consciousness of failure. As for the argument from the silence
of Bede,[444] on which he lays much stress, I may quote what I said in
reviewing his book: The value of arguments from silence “depends entirely
on the cases; in some cases an argument from silence is conclusive.
But can it be said to weigh much here, if we reflect that a notice of
Patrick and his work in Bede’s book could have been simply a defensible
digression? We can place our finger on the unproven premiss in Zimmer’s
argument; he speaks of ‘Bede’s evidently keen interest in the early
beginnings of Christianity in the British isles’ (p. 11). Substitute
‘Britain’ for ‘the British isles’ and the cogency of the argument
disappears. Ninian and Columba are immediately relevant to his subject,
Patrick is not; and, assuming the common tradition of Patrick’s work (as
believed in Ireland _c._ A.D. 700) to be roughly true, it would be no
more surprising to find nothing about it in Bede than it would be to find
no mention of Augustine in an ecclesiastical history of Germany written
on the same lines as Bede’s.”—_English Hist. Review_, July 1903.[445]

Zimmer’s reason for restricting the sphere of work of his Patricius to
Laigin, or part of Laigin, seems to be the circumstance that the author
of the earliest biography, Muirchu, belonged to this part of Ireland,
being connected with Slébte. [It is possible, though he does not allege
it, that another reason may have been the tradition which associates
Palladius (whom he equates with Patrick) with the territory corresponding
to the county of Wicklow.] The suggestion is that in this neighbourhood,
at Slébte, for instance, were preserved traditions and writings of the
obscure Patricius, who was in the seventh century to be transformed into
the great apostle of Ireland. It is obvious that the argument, even if
it were based on a correct statement of facts, is quite insufficient to
prove the thesis.

But the statement of facts is not correct. There is another document
which, though also dating from the second half of the seventh century,
may claim (see above, p. 248) to have some slight advantage in point of
priority over the _Life_ of Muirchu. This is the _Memoir_ of Tírechán. He
had nothing whatever to do with Laigin; he was connected with Connaught
and Meath. His spiritual master, Ultan, was a bishop at Ardbraccan, and
had in his possession a book concerning the life of Patrick. We might
therefore, if we adopted Professor Zimmer’s method of argument, conclude
that the sphere of the true Patrick’s activity was confined to a part of
the kingdom of Meath. The mere existence of Tírechán’s work forbids us to
attach to the provenance of Muirchu’s work any significance of the kind
which Zimmer attributes to it.

It must also be observed in what a strange light Zimmer’s theory would
place the work of Muirchu. We should have to suppose that this writer,
taking upon himself to be Patrick’s biographer because he belonged to
the province in which Patrick had worked, ignores entirely Patrick’s
connexion with that province (merely mentioning that he landed on the
coast of Laigin), and devotes all his space to legendary adventures in
other parts of Ireland.[446] As a matter of fact, a critical analysis of
his work shows that a large amount of material depends on ancient local
traditions of the Island-Plain in Ulidia.

This brings us face to face with the great difficulty which Zimmer has to
meet. How, and why, and when was the obscure Patricius of fact transmuted
into the illustrious Patricius of tradition? Zimmer’s answer to the
question, when? has at least the merit of precision. He finds the motive
of the glorification of Patrick in the Roman controversy of the seventh
century, and he dates the appearance of the legend about A.D. 625. His
own words must be quoted (_Celtic Church_, p. 80):—

    It would not require a long stretch of imagination if we assume
    that, about 625, Ireland’s pious wish of having an apostle of
    her own was realised by reviving the memory of this Patricius,
    who had been forgotten everywhere except in the south-east.
    It was in this way, I think, that the Patrick legend sprang
    up with its two chief premisses: first, that Ireland was
    entirely pagan in 432, as the lands of the Picts and of the
    Saxons had been in 563 and 597 respectively; and secondly, that
    Patrick converted Ireland within a short time and introduced
    a Christian Church, overcoming all obstacles and winning the
    favour of King Loigaire, incidents analogous to Columba’s
    conversion of King Brude, or Augustine’s of Ethelbert of Kent.

Pointing out that the first mention of Patricius is in connexion with a
Paschal cycle, in Cummian’s letter to Segéne, Zimmer proceeds:—

    Thus the Patrick legend is characterised on its first
    appearance as serving the endeavours of the _Southern Irish_ to
    enter into the _unitas Catholica_ by yielding to Rome on the
    Easter question.

It is to be observed that Zimmer does not categorically allege that the
Patrick legend was invented by the Roman party in south Ireland. He
leaves this open. He says: “If this legend was not expressly invented
by an Irish member of the party in favour of conformity, it was, at
any rate, utilised at once by that party.” Let us take in turn the two
alternatives, (1) that it was invented expressly by the Roman party, (2)
that it was otherwise invented, but precisely in time for them to utilise.

(1) This alternative implies that the legend was manufactured in
south-eastern Ireland (the only place where, _ex hypothesi_, Patricius
was remembered) for the purpose of bringing about the conformity
of the northern Irish. But the legend itself, as developed in the
seventh-century sources, as developed in Muirchu’s work, on which
Zimmer lays great stress, repudiates this origin. Southern Ireland,
south-eastern Ireland, do not appear in the legend at all (except the
single reference to Fíacc and the mention of the landing in Wicklow); and
it would require the strongest direct evidence to prove that, in spite
of this radical fact, the legendary story originated there. The theory
implies that the south-eastern Irish, while they resuscitated Patricius,
made him over entirely, and transferred all their rights in him, to the
north of the island—severed him entirely from themselves. So far as the
single circumstance of the conversion of Loigaire and the incidents of
the first Easter is concerned, that might pass; for in Loigaire, as High
King, the south as well as the north of Ireland had part. But the point
is that the whole setting connects Patrick with the north and not with
the south. Zimmer’s hesitation shows, I suspect, that he was to some
extent conscious of this difficulty; and so he leaves open

(2) The other possibility that the rise of the Patrick legend may have
had another origin. The only motive he suggests is “Ireland’s pious
wish of having an apostle of her own.” Now if the origin of the Patrick
legend was independent of the Roman controversy, why need it be placed
in A.D. 625? How are we to determine its date? The answer, which seems
to be implied by Zimmer, is that it must have been subsequent to the
times of St. Columba and St. Augustine, the object being to set up a
primitive apostle, to be for Ireland what Columba and Augustine were for
Pictland and for England. This is, of course, the purest speculation;
but setting aside the question of date, we should have to suppose—if we
are not to fall into the same difficulty as in the case of the first
alternative—that the idea arose in north Ireland, and that the legend
was invented there. This would imply that the northern ecclesiastical
mytho-poets had recourse to south-eastern Ireland to find an obscure
ecclesiastic to glorify; that they detached him ruthlessly from his
home and appropriated him entirely. We need not, however, consider this
improbability, as Zimmer himself does not contemplate it. His view is
that Patrick was resuscitated “in the district of his special activity,”
“with the help of his own writings and of documents about him.”

It would seem far more natural that if the Irish were in search of a
founder, they should seize on Palladius, whose mission was recorded by
Prosper. Zimmer therefore identifies Palladius with Patricius; but the
Irish had no idea of such an identity.[447] For in the oldest _Life_,
Patricius and Palladius are distinguished. If, as Zimmer thinks, the
creation of an apostle was due to a “specific tendency,” namely,
approximation to Rome, it would be strange if Palladius, for whose direct
mission from Rome there existed the record of Prosper, were not chosen.
The legend of the conversion, the story of the first Paschal celebration,
could as easily have been spun round him as round the author of the
_Confession_. Zimmer avoids the difficulty by identifying them.

For his combination of the rise of the Patrick legend with the Paschal
question, Zimmer lays much stress on Muirchu. I have pointed out above
(Appendix A, ii. 3) that a certain indirect connexion between Muirchu’s
work and events connected with the Roman controversy may be fairly
inferred. But this inference does not furnish any support for Zimmer’s
daring theory. And it is important to notice in this connexion that
Muirchu did not believe that Patrick went to Rome; he admits that he
wished to do so, but denies that he passed beyond Gaul. This in itself
would make us hesitate to believe that the story of Patrick, as expounded
by Muirchu, was a recent fabrication in the interests of the Roman cause.

But we may waive all particular criticisms of Zimmer’s reconstruction,
and state the general and decisive objection to his or any similar
theory. It is this. The nature of the traditions which are preserved in
the two seventh-century compilations written by Tírechán and Muirchu
forbids the hypothesis of recent fabrication. In the first place a
critical examination of the texts of these works enables us to conclude
that they were largely based on older _written_ material. In the second
place, it is perfectly inconceivable that all the detailed traditions
which Tírechán collected both from written and from oral resources
concerning Patrick’s work in Connaught should have been deliberately
invented, between 625 and 660, in a region where Patrick’s name was never
known. In the third place, the really characteristic Patrician stories,
the death of Miliucc, the events of the first Easter, the story of
Daire, are not of the kind which are fabricated, generations after the
life of the hero, for a deliberate purpose. They belong to the legends
that spring up soon after the death of their hero, or even during his
lifetime. I may refer to what I have said in the text (p. 111). If we had
no other evidence, the tale of the first Easter at Slane and Tara would
be in itself a guarantee that the “Patrick legend” could not have been
deliberately invented in the seventh century.

One more observation. It would be difficult to explain how it came that,
if the author of the _Confession_ spent his life in Leinster, and his
name was sufficiently well remembered to make his fortune in the seventh
century, no particular church in that region claimed him. Zimmer may
get out of the difficulty through his identification of Palladius with
Patrick; he may say that Patrick’s church was the Palladian Cell Fine,
where memorials of Palladius were preserved. But this explanation would
only serve to emphasise the improbability of the theory of identity.
It is impossible to understand how Cell Fine remembered its founder as
Palladius and not as Patricius, seeing that (_ex hypoth._) the name
Patricius (as used by the author of the _Confession_) had so completely
superseded the name Palladius, that the bishop was not only glorified
as Patricius in the seventh century, but even distinguished definitely
from Palladius. Again: either it was remembered in south Ireland or it
was not remembered at the beginning of that century, when the Patrician
legend is alleged to have taken shape, that Palladius and Patricius
were the same person. If it _was_ remembered, then how came it that
Palladius-Patricius was differentiated into two, when it was assuredly
more in the interests of the Roman cause to glorify an apostle sent
by Celestine than to discriminate a successful missionary who was not
sent by a Pope, from an unsuccessful missionary who was? If it _was
not_ remembered, then the only passage which Zimmer can quote for the
identification (_Lib. Arm._ p. 332, see above, p. 389, note) can be at
once eliminated from the discussion, as resting on mere conjecture.

[The argument, which Zimmer adduces for his theory, from the statement
that Patrick’s burial-place was unknown, falls to the ground when the
evidence in regard to his burial-place is criticised as a whole. See
above, Appendix C, 19.]




FOOTNOTES


[1] I may be permitted to remark that in vindicating the claims of
history to be regarded as a science or _Wissenchaft_, I never meant to
suggest a proposition so indefensible as that the presentation of the
results of historical research is not an art, requiring the tact and
skill in selection and arrangement which belong to the literary faculty.
The friendly criticisms of Mr. John Morley in the _Nineteenth Century and
After_, October 1904, and of Mr. S. H. Butcher in _Harvard Lectures on
Greek Subjects_ (1904), Lecture VI., show me that I did not sufficiently
guard against this misapprehension.

[2] For the expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries see
Harnack’s invaluable work _Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums
in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten_ (1902).

[3] Rufinus, _Hist. ecc._ ii. 7. For the Georgian legend of Nino see
_Life of St. Nino_, translated by Marjory and J. O. Wardrop, in Oxford
_Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica_, vol. v. (1900).

[4] _De Vocatione Gentium_, ii. 32.

[5] On the other hand it may be questioned whether the army itself did
anything to diffuse Christianity within the Empire. In the west certainly
its chief significance in the history of religion was what it did to
spread the solar, Mithraic worship. Cp. Harnack, _op. cit._ 268, 388.

[6] Rufinus, _Hist. ecc._ i. 9.

[7] Armenia was already Christian at the beginning of the fourth century
in the days of Maximin.—Eusebius, _Hist. ecc._ ix. 8. 2.

[8] Socrates, _Hist. ecc._ vii. 30.

[9] The island of Man is indeed another exception. The Scottic
colonisation of north-western Britain (Argyle, etc.) was comparatively
late, but before the middle of the fifth century (see below, chap. ix. p.
192).

[10] Professor Rhŷs thinks that it was to Ireland, more than to Britain,
that the Gallic Druids went to learn their art, and that Caesar (in _B.
G._ vi. 13) was badly informed; and he has recently stated this view in
_Studies in Early Irish History_ (_Proceedings of British Academy_, vol.
i.), p. 35. It is remarkable that, apart from Caesar’s assertion, the
only evidence for Druidism in southern Britain pertains to the island of
Anglesey (Tacitus, _Ann._ xiv. 29), and Professor Rhŷs holds that in the
first century A.D. Anglesey (Mona) was not yet Brythonic. Druidism in
the Isle of Man is attested by a stone inscribed _Dovaidona maqi Droata_
“(the burial-place) of Dovaido, son of (the) Druid.” See Professor Rhŷs
in the _Academy_ for August 15, 1890.

[11] Tacitus, _Agricola_, c. 24, medio inter Britanniam atque Hispaniam
sita. Cp. Caesar, _B.G._ v. 13. The notice in Orosius (_Hist._ i. 2, §
72) of the lighthouse at Brigantia in north-western Spain as built _ad
speculam Britanniae_ is noteworthy. Compare the remarks of Professor
Rhŷs, _op. cit._ p. 47.

[12] Tacitus, _ib._ aditus portusque per commercia et negotiatores
cogniti.

[13] Tacitus, _ib._ The policy recommended by Agricola, who considered
one legion sufficient to hold the island, was based partly on the ground
of political expedience. The conquest of Ireland, he thought, would have
a similar wholesome effect on Britain to that which the conquest of
Britain had on Gaul, by removing the spectacle of liberty (_si Romance
ubique arma et uelut e conspectu libertas tolleretur_).

[14] The baronies of Upper and Lower Deece, in Co. Meath.

[15] Decies within Drum, and Decies without Drum, in Co. Waterford.

[16] See note, Appendix B.

[17] _Ib._

[18] It seems probable that Pelagius sprang from these Gaelic settlers in
Britain. See below, p. 43.

[19] See below, cap. viii. _ad fin._

[20] Un peuple n’emprunte pas l’alphabet des voisins s’il n’a pas à
correspondre avec eux.... Qui donc constate un emprunt de monnaie et
d’alphabet, en tous temps et en tous lieux, peut affirmer un échange de
produits et d’idées (V. Bérard, _Les Phéniciens et l’Odyssée_, i. p. 20).

[21] See Appendix C, 1.

[22] See note, Appendix B.

[23] See Appendix C, 2, for the following account of the invasions of
Britain.

[24] _Circa_ A.D. 389; see Appendix C, 3.

[25] See note, Appendix B.

[26] There is no evidence, and no probability, that the name Paul was
adopted on his conversion, or that it had anything to do with Sergius
Paullus.

[27] Frigeridus is Gothic Frigairêths.

[28] For date see Appendix C, 3.

[29] See Appendix C, 4.

[30] Croagh Patrick, close to Westport.

[31] Dalriada = north Antrim; Dalaradia = south Antrim and Down. The
Latin form, Ulidia, is used in this book for Ulaid in the narrower
meaning.

[32] It has been conjectured that Miliucc’s dwelling was on the hill of
Skerry, on the northern side of the Braid; see below, p. 86.

[33] Another possible theory is mentioned in Appendix C, 4.

[34] See note, Appendix B.

[35] The association of Saint Elias with the sun was due to the
resemblance of the name to the Greek ἥλιος.

[36] See Appendix C, 6.

[37] St. Honorat.—Lero is Ste. Marguerite.

[38] A.D. 426.

[39] A.D. 433.

[40] His own expression “as a son” shows that _parentes_ here means
kinsfolk, not parents, and justifies the inference that his parents were
dead.

[41] Pelagius, _Letter to Demetrias_, Migne, _P.L._, xxxii. 1100.

[42] Prosper has an epigram on the thesis that the whole life of
non-Christians is sin:

    Perque omnes calles errat sapientia mundi
      Et tenebris addit quae sine luce gerit.

          (_Epig._ 83, ed. Migne, 51, p. 524.)

[43] Compare Celestine, _Ep._ iv. (Migne, _P.L._, 1. 434), nullus inuitis
detur episcopus.

[44] The conjecture is due to Professor Zimmer.

[45] The old kingdom of Leinster, or Laigin, was south of the Liffey,
and in this book “Leinster” is used in this sense (not equivalent to the
modern province, which includes the old kingdom of Meath). See below,
chap. iv.

[46] See Appendix C, 9, on Patrick’s consecration.

[47] No better illustration of this can be found than Pope Gregory’s
provision for the mission of Augustine to England, as recorded in Bede,
_Hist. ecc._ i. 29; he sent, besides fellow-workers, “uniuersa quae ad
cultum erant ac ministerium ecclesiae necessaria, uasa videlicet sacra,
et vestimenta altarium, ornamenta quoque ecclesiarum, et sacerdotalia uel
clericilia indumenta, sanctorum etiam apostolorum ac martyrum reliquias,
necnon et codices plurimos.”

[48] It has recently been held, more plausibly but erroneously, that
Patrick was on his way to Rome when the news of the death of Palladius
overtook him. See Appendix C, 8.

[49] Celestine probably died July 27, and Xystus succeeded July 31, 432.
These dates have been determined by M. Duchesne, _Liber Pontificalis_, i.
pp. ccli.-ii.

[50] It is probable that excommunication by a Roman bishop was also
recognised as universally binding. The question whether the popes had
the right of annulling sentences pronounced by provincial councils on
bishops, depends on the question of the authenticity of the Council of
Sardica. See J. Friedrich, _Sitzungsber._ of the Bavarian Academy, 1901,
417 _sqq._; E. Babut, _Le concile de Turin_, 75.

[51] A.D. 366-384.

[52] See Babut, _Le concile de Turin_ (1904), a valuable work.

[53] This has been well brought out by M. Babut.

[54] _Novella_, xvi.

[55] _Commonitorium_, ii. 33, 34.

[56] The chief source for the social and economic conditions of ancient
Ireland is the collection of the _Ancient Laws of Ireland_ (6 vols.,
1865-1901). A clear account of the general framework of society, with
interesting details and illustrations, will be found in Dr. Joyce’s
_Social History of Ireland_, vol. i.

[57] _Tuath_ = people, tribe, tribal district.

[58] _Flaith_ = noble.

[59] The _bó-aires_.

[60] The tributes and presents which are due from the under-kings to the
over-kings, the donations which the over-kings owe to the under-kings,
the privileges which the various kings possess, are the subject of the
_Book of Rights_ (edited and translated by O’Donovan, 1847), which still
awaits a critical investigation. It is easy to see that it was compiled
in Munster in the tenth century, but it was based on older material of
high antiquity, and clearly reproduces the general character of the
mutual relations which theoretically bound together the Irish kingdoms.

[61] The king of Aileach was so called because his palace was at Aileach,
near Londonderry. His territory was north Ulster to the Bann. Ulaid was
east Ulster; Oriel, south Ulster.

[62] This is clearly to be inferred from the _Book of Rights_, where
no relations or mutual obligations are mentioned as existing between
the three Ulster kings. Nor was there, since the destruction of the old
Ulidian kingdom in the third century, any name to designate the whole
province, for Ulaid was confined to the kingdom in the east of Ulster.
The use of Ultonia to describe the province, as distinguished from Ulidia
= Ulaid, is of course merely a literary convention.

[63] See Petrie, _Tara Hill_, 135.

[64] His date, according to the Annals, was A.D. 358-366; Niall reigned
A.D. 379-405; his nephew, Dathi, 405-428; and then his son, Loigaire,
428-463. For Amolngaid (Dathi’s brother), king of Connaught, see Appendix
C, 14.

[65] Tyrconnell.

[66] The derivation of the word _druid_ (nom. _drui_, gen. _druad_)
is uncertain. Perhaps, as Professor Rhŷs holds, Druidism was not of
Celtic origin, and the word “was adopted by the Celts from some earlier
population conquered by them” (see his “Studies in Early Irish History,”
in _Proceedings of the British Academy_, vol. i. p. 8). _Druidecht_ is
the Irish for magic. For the functions and powers of the Druids some
excellent pages in Dr. Joyce’s _Social History_, I. c. ix., may be
recommended; illustrations and references will be found there.

[67] Mug Ruith, servant of the wheel, was the name of a mythical Druid.

[68] The _Feth Fiada_.

[69] For these superstitious ceremonies at baptism cp. Duchesne,
_Origines du culte chrétien_, pp. 296-7 (the exorcism of salt), 299, 317;
cp. 349.

[70] In the remarkable ancient Irish Christian incantation, the Lorica,
ascribed to St. Patrick (see Appendix A, 5), the Trinity, Angels,
Prophets, and other Christian powers are invoked, but also “might of
heaven, brightness of sun, brilliance of moon, splendour of fire, speed
of light, swiftness of wind, depth of sea, stability of earth, firmness
of rock,” to intervene between him who repeats the spell when he arises
in the morning and “every fierce merciless force that may come upon my
body and soul; against incantations of false prophets, against black laws
of paganism, against false laws of heresy, against deceit of idolatry,
_against spells of women and smiths and druids_, against all knowledge
that is forbidden [so Atkinson] the human soul.”

[71] M. Réville, dealing with the third century, puts this very well.
“Chacun croit sans le moindre difficulté à toutes les merveilles et à
toutes les folies. On dirait même que plus une pratique est merveilleuse,
plus elle a de chance d’être admise sans contestation. Chose singulière!
les adeptes des religions opposées ne contestent pas la réalité des
miracles allégués par leurs adversaires: Celse admet les miracles des
chrétiens, et ceux-ci ne se refusent pas à admettre les miracles païens;
des deux parts on attribue aux mauvais esprits les merveilles invoquées
par les adversaires” (_La Religion à Rome sous les Sévères_, p. 131).

[72] See note, Appendix B.

[73] The _Memoir_ by Tírechán.

[74] The _Life_ by Muirchu.

[75] Cuchullin of legend.

[76] Then called Brene Strait.

[77] The Slaney (see Appendix B, note). It flows from L. Money past
Raholp.

[78] It has been conjectured that the stronghold of Miliucc was on the
hill of Skerry, north of Slemish, on the other side of the Braid valley.
Muirchu says that Patrick saw the conflagration from the south side of
Slemish. We may interpret south to mean south-west. A cross, mentioned
by Muirchu, was erected on the spot where the legend supposed Patrick to
have stood, and the memory of this is still preserved in the name of the
townland of Cross, on a hill to the west of Slemish.

[79] Dr. W. Stokes, taking the story literally, suggests that Miliucc
committed self-destruction as “a mode of vengeance” (_Book of Lismore_,
p. 295).

[80] _Mag-inis_, later known as Lecale (_Leath Cathail_), now the
baronies of Lower and Upper Lecale. It is accurately described as a
peninsular plain.

[81] But meaning _barn_.

[82] There is a second story (also recorded by Muirchu), clearly inspired
by the same motive. Patrick was resting near Druimbo (in the north of
Mag Inis, and close to a salt marsh), and he heard the noise of pagans
who were busily engaged in making an earthwork. It was Sunday and he
commanded them to cease from work. When they refused he cursed them:
“Mudebrod! may your work not profit you!” and the sea rushed in, as in
the other story, and the work was destroyed. The curse _mudebrod_ (or
_mudebroth_) has not been explained.

[83] See above, chap. i. p. 14.

[84] See Appendix C, 11.

[85] See above, cap. iv. p. 72.

[86] Compare what has been said above in chap. i. p. 9.

[87] This name is the same as the British Vortigern (Welsh Gwrtheyrn),
and the original Goidelic form was similar. It occurs in Ogam
inscriptions, thus: ... Maqi Vorrtigern<i>, on a stone of Ballyhank (near
Cork), now in the Dublin Museum (Rhŷs, _Proc. of R.S.A.I._, pt. i. vol.
xxxii. p. 9, 1902).

[88] The distance of Tara from Slane is about ten miles.

[89] Yet more remote from the Paschal season was the feast of Samhain at
the close of autumn (November 1), when on the hill of Tlachtga, not far
from Trim, a fire was kindled, from which, tradition says, all hearths in
Ireland were lit. It was at Samhain too, according to tradition, that the
High Kings used to hold such high festivals at Tara as are designated in
the story. See note, Appendix B.

[90] This incident is obviously suggested by St. John xx. 19, 26. When
St. Columba went to the palace of King Brude the closed gates opened of
their own accord (Adamnan, _V. Col._ ii. 35).

[91] See note, Appendix B.

[92] See note, Appendix B.

[93] Tírechán, p. 308, perrexitque ad civitatem Temro ad Loigairium
filium Neill iterum quia apud illum foedus pepigit ut non occideretur in
regno illius.

[94] See Appendix C, 12.

[95] At Crag, in Co. Kerry.—Macalister, _Studies in Irish Epigraphy_, ii.
p. 52.

[96] Cp. Appendix A, ii. 5.

[97] It should be Donagh-shaughlin, for Donagh is _domnach_, a church,
whereas _dún_ is a fort. There is no doubt that Dún here is a corruption,
as we get the form Donnaclsacheling in a document of A.D. 1216 (Reeves,
_Eccl. Ant._ p. 128).

[98] See Appendix B, note on cap. ii. p. 23.

[99] See Appendix A, i. 6. One of the best quatrains is the fourth:

    Dominus illum elegit ut doceret barbaras
    nationes, ut piscaret per doctrinae retia,
    ut de seculo credentes traheret ad gratiam
    Dominumque sequerentur sedem ad etheriam.

[100] The _Confession_ shows that this comparison was sometimes in
Patrick’s mind.

[101] Perfectam vitam, _Hymn_ v. 4. Secundinus died A.D. 447, acc. to
_Ann. Ult._

[102] Telltown comes by popular etymology from the genitive Taillteann.
The site is marked by a round rath. O’Donovan said in 1856 that it
had been in recent times a resort for the men of Meath for hurling,
wrestling, and other sports (_Four Masters_, i. p. 22).

[103] Herbord, _Vit. Ott._ ii. 14. The silence of early authorities is
decisive against the isolated statement that Patrick preached at Taillte
against the “burning of the first-born offspring.” (See Appendix B, note.)

[104] Mac Fechach.—Tírechán, 310₂₄.

[105] Áth Brón.—Tír. 307₂₈.

[106] St. Colomb’s House. For its description and measurements see Petrie
(_Round Towers_, 430-31), who compares it with St. Kevin’s House at
Glendalough, and Dunraven’s _Notes on Irish Architecture_, vol. ii. p. 50
(plans and photograph).

[107] Tírechán, 310-11.

[108] See Appendix C, 4, _ad fin._

[109] See note, Appendix B.

[110] It may be observed that if the idol of Mag Slecht had been
eminently important for all Ireland, and had been destroyed at a period
subsequent to St. Patrick, there could hardly fail to be a Christian
record of its fall. In the _Annals of the Four Masters_, s.a. 464, it
is said that Conall, son of Niall, ancestor of the lords of Tyrconnell,
was done to death by the “old Folks” of Mag Slecht, who caught him
unprotected. The thought occurs that Conall had supported the attack on
the worship of Cenn Cruaich, and that his death was an act of vengeance
wreaked by people of the plain who still clung to the old faith.

[111] Perhaps A.D. 444-5. See Appendix C, 14.

[112] See Appendix C, 13, on Patrick in Connaught.

[113] At Duma Graid, close to Lake Kilglass. See Tírechán, 313, and _Vit.
Trip._ p. 94.

[114] Between Sligo and Leitrim.

[115] May the name be the same as that of the tribe of the Anghaile
(Annaly), who extended their power subsequently into Tethbia (cp.
O’Donovan, _Book of Rights_, p. 11, _note_)?

[116] Tamnach.

[117] “Church of Bishop Brón.”

[118] In Mag Airthic. See Appendix C, 13.

[119] Ciarrigi. Through the baronies of Costello, Clanmorris, and
Kilmaine. Possibly Aghamore, south of Kilkelly, may lie on the supposed
route. It has been conjectured that the church _in campo Nairniu_
(Tírechán, 321) was there.

[120] In quo fiunt episcopi.

[121] Muiriscc (_Muir_ = sea) Aigli. (The promontory dominated by
Knocknaree in Sligo Bay was also called Muiriscc, Tír. 327.) The
promontory was also known as Umail. This name is preserved in the
_Owles_, designating the regions on both sides of Clew Bay, now the
baronies of Murrisk and Burris-_hoole_; the latter word also contains the
name Umail.

[122] Its height is 2510 feet. Mount Nephin, close to Lake Conn, is
higher.

[123] Carrick-on-Shannon.

[124] He first went to a place called Duma Graid, and ordained there
the arch-presbyter Ailbe, who resided at Shancoe (as mentioned above).
It may be suspected that the name Duma Graid (for which we expect a
modern Doogary) is preserved in Dockery’s Island, near the mouth of Lake
Kilglass.

[125] See note, Appendix B.

[126] Tuatha De Danann, people of the goddess Danann. They are said, in
the mythical history of Ireland, to have colonised the country and to
have been conquered by the Milesians.

[127] Fountain of Clebach.

[128] See note, Appendix B.

[129] See Appendix A, ii. 1.

[130] See Appendix A, i. 4, on the tonsure question.

[131] Selce has not been identified.

[132] Kill-araght. From here Patrick may have revisited Mag Airthic and
the Kerries.

[133] _Irrus_ Domnand, “the peninsula of Domnu” = barony of _Erris_ in
Mayo. Cp. Rhŷs, “Studies in Early Irish History,” p. 38.

[134] Ballina.

[135] It was one of the many Donaghmores, “great churches,” which Patrick
is said to have founded. He consigned it to the care of Mucneus.

[136] The name of a townland, in which there is an old churchyard and
traces of ruins, to the right of the road from Ballina to Killala, a mile
south of Killala. For Donaghmore and Mullaghfarry (_farry_ = _forrach_
= _foirrgea_, Tír. 327) see O’Donovan, _Hy Fiachrach_, pp. 466 and 467,
notes.

[137] See Appendix C, 8.

[138] _De laude sanctorum_ (Migne, _Patr. Lat._ xx.).

[139] Jerome, _Adversus Vigilantium_, c. 5.

[140] A.D. 440.

[141] See above, chap. iii. p. 64.

[142] For the evidence see Appendix C, 15.

[143] It may be Ptolemy’s _Regia_ (Ῥηγία). Cp. Rhŷs, “Studies in Early
Irish History,” p. 49 (_Proc. of British Acad._ vol. i.).

[144] See note, Appendix B.

[145] The dimensions of these houses are given, _Vit. Trip._ p. 226:—“27
feet in the Great House, 17 feet in the kitchen, 7 feet in the oratory
[_aregal_, supposed to be derived from _oraculum_]; and it was thus that
he used always to found the _congbala_” [_i.e._ the sacred enclosures,
or cloisters]. If these houses were circular, the numbers represent the
diameters. For the topography of Armagh see the paper of Reeves, _The
Ancient Churches of Armagh_ (Lusk, 1860), with a plan. The locality
of the first settlement, _ubi nunc est Fertae martyrum_, “the grave
of the relics” (Muirchu, 290), he fixes, by means of the monastery
of Temple-fertagh, which existed at the beginning of the seventeenth
century, to the land south of Scotch St., near Scotch St. river (p. 10).

[146] The two stages, first below, and then on the hill, are doubtless
historical. We may conjecture that the second and final foundation is
that which is recorded in the Annals, and that the first settlement had
been made before the visit to Rome.

[147] This is expressed by _quantum habeo_, “so far as it is mine,” in
Muirchu, 292₃₁.

[148] See note, Appendix B.

[149] _Ib._

[150] There can be little question that the (contemporary) expression _in
provincia nostra_ in _Ann. Ult._, A.D. 443, means “in Ireland,” conceived
as a single ecclesiastical province, like the province of a metropolitan.

[151] Láthrach Patricc (_Trip._ 349₈). Cp. Reeves, _Antiquities of Down
and Connor_, pp. 47 and 236; for Glore, _ib._ 87, 338; for Dunseveric,
_ib._ 286. For Clogher and Ard-Patrick (Louth) see note, Appendix B.

[152] _Ep. against Corot._ 375.

[153] _Ann. Ult._, A.D. 439.

[154] Or Killishea.

[155] See note, Appendix B.

[156] Áth Fithot, south of Tallow.

[157] Old Kilcullen, south of (new) Kilcullen, in Co. Kildare.

[158] See note, Appendix B.

[159] _Ib._

[160] In barony of Slievemargy, in Queen’s County, a mile or so
north-west of the town of Carlow.

[161] The _Life_ by Muirchu, see Appendix A, ii. 3.

[162] See note, Appendix B.

[163] Generally described inaccurately as the Acts of a Synod. The
genuineness of the document is vindicated in Appendix A, 4.

[164] For this sphere of Christian activity in the early Church see
Harnack, _Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums_, p. 120.

[165] A Christian who believes in a supernatural female form (_lamia quae
interpretatur striga_) seen in a mirror is to be anathematised. One is
reminded of

    Was seh’ ich? Welch ein himmlisch Bild
    Zeigt sich in diesem Zauberspiegel!

                  (Goethe, _Faust_, Part I.)

[166] See Appendix A, i. 4.

[167] Chap. iii. pp. 61 _sqq._

[168] Collection of Irish Canons, 20. 5. b (ed.² Wasserschleben, p. 61).
For the possible date of the canon, and for some further illustration of
the subject, see Appendix C, 16.

[169] See Appendix C, 17.

[170] _Confession_, 368₉.

[171] _Ib._ 372₁₇; cp. 367₁₃.

[172] _Ib._ 368₂₆.

[173] Otto of Bamberg is said to have baptized 22,156 converts in
Pomerania during his first journey! Mon. Prieflingensis, _V. Ott._ ii.
20; Ebbo, _V. Ott._ ii. 11.

[174] _Confession_, 369₂₂.

[175] _Confession_, 367₁₆.

[176] _Ib._ 372. It may be conjectured, from the context, that this
happened in Connaught.

[177] So Otto of Bamberg used to distribute presents in Pomerania as a
means of propagating Christianity, Herbord, _Dial._ 2. 7.

[178] The question arises, Where did Patrick get his money? Did he
inherit from his father? It is useless to ask.

[179] _Confession_, 371₂₅.

[180] See the anecdote in Tírechán, p. 303.

[181] Epistles of Gregory, vi. 10 (A.D. 595), _M.G.H._ vol. i. p. 389.

[182] Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 154.

[183] The early abbots of Hi (Iona) were almost entirely chosen from
a branch of the family of Tirconnell (Reeves, _Adamnan_, genealogical
table, p. 342).

[184] See the bequest of Fith Fio in _Lib. Arm._ (_Trip._ 338). It is
added that if there be no suitable person in the community of Drumlease,
some one from Patrick’s community (Armagh, or any Patrician community?)
should be chosen.

[185] _Corus Bescna_, p. 73 (_Ancient Laws of Ireland_, vol. iii.).

[186] Tírechán, 330₂₉, _fecit alteram (aeclessiam) hi Tortena orientali
in qua gens oThig Cirpani, sed libere semper_. Cp. 321₇.

[187] _Additional Notices_ in _Lib. Arm._ (338₄, _liberauit rex Deo et
Patricio_). The exact boundaries of the land are given, as if from the
original document. Two interests were concerned here, that of Caichán and
that of MacCairthin, and the land is described as “Caichán’s Fifth.” The
two men are designated as _flaith_ (lord) and _aithech_ (tenant-farmer?),
and they jointly devoted the land to ecclesiastical use.

[188] _Corus Bescna_, p. 73.

[189] _Ib._ p. 71.

[190] Cp. _Ancient Laws_, iii., Introd. p. lxxii.

[191] _Ib._ luii., _Corus B._ pp. 41, 43.

[192] _Ib._ pp. 39-43.

[193] Cp. Introd. pp. luiii. _sqq._

[194] See Appendix C, 18.

[195] Todd, _St. Patrick_, 51 _sqq._

[196] See Appendix C, 17.

[197] See above, chap. vii. p. 143.

[198] It has twenty-one letters, a b c d e f g h i l m n o p q r s t u v,
and ng (a guttural nasal, which occurs in the name _Amolngaid_; cp. the
Greek double gamma). If the Goidels had originally invented an alphabet
to suit their own language they would never have constructed this. They
had to resort to various devices to represent their sounds by its means.
See further note, Appendix B.

[199] More strictly, a new letter was added, and _u_ was differentiated
into two, to represent its two sounds. It is as well to say that in
describing the ogams as a cipher it is not intended to imply that they
were cryptic, but only that they were not an independent alphabet.

[200] For the Iberian alphabet see Hübner’s _Monumenta linguae Ibericae_
(1893). Cp. Strabo, 3. 1. 6.

[201] _B.G._ vi. 14.

[202] Desjardins, _Géographie de la Gaule_, ii. 214, note 3.

[203] Ail Clúade.

[204] _Milites._

[205] _Conf._ 360₈.

[206] Cp. _Letter, ad init., inter barbaras itaque gentes habito
proselitus et profuga._

[207] _Conf._ 374₂₉. Compare 357₁₅.

[208] _Conf._ 370₂. The passage 373₅₋₉ also supports the view in the
text. In that passage the oldest MS. has _ab aliquo uestro_; and we
should probably read _uestrum_ with the later MSS.

[209] _Ib._ 359₂.

[210] _Ib._ 372₃₁.

[211] See above, chap. iii. p. 53.

[212] But see note, Appendix B.

[213] See Appendix A, 5.

[214] This is the theory of Professor Zimmer.

[215] The Second Letter to the Corinthians seems to have been especially
before him. This was natural. In it Paul was vindicating his character.

[216] The legend will be found in _Vit. Trip._ pp. 112 _sqq._

[217] The old lists of the Armagh succession agree in assigning to
Benignus ten years as bishop, so that, as Benignus died in 467 (_Ann.
Ult., sub anno_), he would have succeeded in 457.

[218] March 17.

[219] Oirthir, not to be confounded with the kingdom of Oriel (Oirgéill),
of which it formed the eastern portion.

[220] Inundations are a recurring motive in the legends of the
Island-plain. See the salt-marsh stories, above, p. 91.

[221] This second incident can be shown to be a subsequent invention. See
Appendix C, 19.

[222] This story is also told by Muirchu, but not in immediate connexion
with the story of the waggon and oxen seized by the men of Orior. It
seems probable that the latter was suggested by the former. We meet
the duplicate waggon and oxen in the Life of St. Abban (Colgan, _Acta
Sanctorum_, i. March 16, cc. 41 _sqq._), where the account of that
saint’s death and burial and the struggle between the north and the south
Leinster men is obviously borrowed from the stories about St. Patrick.
Another story of wild bulls drawing a saint’s body to its tomb will be
found in the Life of St. Melorus of Cornwall, _Acta Sanctorum_ (Boll.),
Jan. 1, vol. i. p. 136.

[223] It is to be seen in the National Museum at Dublin. For the evidence
as to the bell and the staff, see notes, Appendix B. For the copy of the
gospels, which used falsely to be supposed to be his, see note, Appendix
B, on chap. viii. p. 162.

[224] This theory of Professor Zimmer is examined at length in Appendix
C, 21.

[225] Except in regard to Britain, and the British Church was similarly
isolated.

[226] _De Cons. Stil. Lib._ iii. l. 151.

[227] Zimmer put forward the theory that the original _Confession_
contained more biographical details than our texts (_Celtic Church_, p.
50). See my criticism showing that his argument has no basis (_Eng. Hist.
Review_, xviii., July 1903, pp. 544-6).

[228] _St. Patrick_, p. 347.

[229] _Councils_, ii. p. 296, note _a._

[230] _Celtic Church_, _ib._

[231] Bury, _ib._

[232] Huc usque uolumen quod Patricius manu conscripsit sua: septima
decima Martii die translatus est Patricius ad caelos.

[233] Sixth century or not much later, because the writings of Muirchu
and Tírechán attest its existence in the second half of the seventh
century.

[234] The attempt of Pflugk-Harttung (_Die Schriften S. Patricks_,
in _Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher_, p. 71 _sqq._, 1893) to prove the
_Confession_ and _Letter_ spurious is a piece of extraordinarily
bad criticism. He designates the _Liber Armachanus_ as “Irlands
pseudoisidorische Fälschung.”

[235] Now fully admitted by Zimmer, who formerly doubted it.

[236] iteneris A.

[237] terreno A.

[238] requissistis A (with sign of query, Z, in margin).

[239] paradissum A.

[240] aeclessia A.

[241] Curie A.

[242] = ἐλέησον.

[243] It may be well to translate this sentence. “Church of the Scots,
nay of the Romans, in order that ye may be Christians as well as Romans,
it behoves that there should be chanted in your churches (_uobiscum_) at
every hour of prayer the _Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison_.” Compare Mr.
Jenkinson in the _Academy_, Aug. 11, 1888.

[244] aeclessia A.

[245] See Tírechán, p. 302.

[246] The assumption that all these details are taken from the book is
confirmed by the one explicit exception. The sojourn in the _insula
Aralanensis_ is given on the oral authority of Bishop Ultan (302₂₄). This
was evidently Ultan’s explanatory comment on the text _in insolis_, etc.

[247] In a paper on Muirchu in the _Guardian_, Nov. 27, 1901.

[248] It may be pointed out that the small number of the _dicta_—three,
or more probably two—is in favour of their genuineness.

[249] Since writing this, I observe that the same thing struck Loofs (_De
ant. Brit. Scot.que eccl._ p. 50). He held the _Dicta_ to be genuine,
admitting the possibility of later additions. So too B. Robert, _Étude
crit. sur la vie et l’œuvre de St-Patrick_ (1883), p. 74.

[250] This is also shown by the addition of _Christe eleison_, as Mr.
Brightman has pointed out to me. Cp. Gregory the Great, _Ep._ ix. 12.
Milan is also excluded; the Milanese only use _Kyrie_. I have had the
advantage of communicating with Mr. Brightman on the subject; otherwise
I should hardly have ventured to deal with it, as I have no liturgical
knowledge.

[251] So the missionary Boniface insists on the necessity of synods
and _canonica iura_ in a letter to Pope Zacharias (Ep. 50, p. 299, ed.
Duemmler in M.G.H. _Epp._ iii.).

[252] Bradshaw has clearly distinguished two recensions of the
collection, which he designates as the A-text and the B-text. Theodore’s
_Penitential_ is the latest work quoted in the A-text, Adamnan’s _Canons_
the latest in the B-text. See Bradshaw’s letter to Wasserschleben in
Wasserschleben’s edition of the Canons, p. lxx.

[253] Spelman i. 59 _sq._, Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 333 _sqq._

[254] The canons which are cited in the Valicellane only are marked by
square brackets. The list of correspondences in Haddan and Stubbs, ii.
333, _a_, is incomplete.

[255] See Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 333, _a_.

[256] 1. 8. b; 5. 2; 6. 2. b (two MSS. give _Sin. Rom._, one _Sin. Rom.
siue Kartagin._, the rest _Sin. Kartagin._); 7. 3. a; 20. 3. b; 40. 13.
a; 46. 35. c; 46. 38. a, b; 47. 12. b; 47. 12. c; 47. 20; 66. 19. a.
There is another case of _Syn. Rom. uel Kart._ in one MS.; 9. 1. a. The
quotation from Pope Symmachus, _Ep. ad Caes. ep. Arel._ c. 1, under the
title _Regula canonica Romana_ in 17. 8 may stand on a different footing.

[257] 14. 2. c; 17. 7. b; 17. 9. b; 18. 2. a; 20. 3. a; 20. 3. c; 20.
5. a; 21. 2; 33. 1. f; 35. 4. c; 41. 6. a and b; 42. 7; 42. 25. a; 45.
13; 45. 14; 46. 29; 52. 2; 52. 3; 52. 6; 56. 4. a; 66. 16. To these may
be added three other items: 20. 6. a, _institutio Romana_; 28. 5. b
and 33. 4, _disputatio Romana_. Also 42. 23 _Sinodus Romana_, but the
chapter is found only in one MS.; and in 3. 4 one MS. has an additional
quotation from _Synodus Romanorum_. I do not include 42. 24, because the
heading _eadem sinodus_ may be referred to the heading of c. 22 _Sinodus
Hibernensis_, and not to the heading of 23 _Sinodus Romana_, which, as I
have mentioned, is found in only one MS. (Sangallensis).

[258] Here are the two sections:—

    e. _Sinodus Romana_: Omnis qui fraudat debitum fratris ritu
    gentilium excommunis sit donec reddiderit. f. _Item_: Qua
    fronte rogas a Deo debitum tibi dimitti cum debitum proximi tui
    non reddidisti?

[259] It may be observed that in the Valicellane MS. we find some
instances of _Hibernensis uel Romana_; 33. 4, 6, and 9.

[260] 11. 1. b; 20. 5. b; 21. 12; 21. 6. b; 25. 3; 25. 4; 29. 7; 37. 27;
37. 29; 42. 26. b; 44. 9; 46. 32. b; 47. 11. b; 67. 2. d. Of these 37.
29 has the curious heading _Sinodus totius mundi et Patricius decreuit_
(with the variants _Sinodus Hibernensis et Pat. decr._, and simply
_Sinodus Hibernensis_).

[261] 21. 25 occurs only in one MS., 37. 6 in two.

[262] 25. 3 and 4.

[263] In Ware’s _S. Patricio ... adscripta Opuscula_ (London, 1656, a
rare little volume), pp. 85-7. See below, p. 245.

[264] “Brit. ecc. ant.,” in _Opera_, vol. vi. p. 491. The same view was
urged by Varin. But neither Ussher nor Varin gave positive proof.

[265] It is officially recognised in the 40th canon of the Fourth Council
of Toledo, A.D. 633.

[266] Cp. the 15th canon of Nicaea, Mansi, ii. 200.

[267] So too in the _Hibernensis_, i. 22, a and c.

[268] _Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne Gaule_, vol. i. p. 41.

[269] Cp. also canon 27 of the Council of Hippo, A.D. 393 (Mansi, iii.
923): ut episcopi non proficiscantur trans mare nisi consulto primae
sedis episcopo suae cuiusque prouinciae, ut ab eo praecipue possint
formatas sumere.

[270] Printed by Pamelius in his edition of Cyprian; by Ware in his
_Opuscula_ of St. Patrick (1656); by Migne, _P.L._ 40, 649 _sqq._

[271] For his alleged relationship see below, p. 292.

[272] To this rule the MSS. present two exceptions, which should be
corrected: v. 70, _praeuidit_, which has been corrected to _praeuidet_
(cp. Atkinson, _Lib. Hymn._ ii. 13), and v. 66, _qui ornatur uestimento
nuptiale indūtus_, where we ought evidently to read _inclŭtus_.

[273] 311₂₉, Rolls ed.

[274] _Ann. Ult. s.a._

[275] 314₂₈; _Ann. Ult. s.aa._

[276] See Bury, _Tírechán’s Memoir of St. Patrick_ (_Eng. Hist. Rev._
April 1902), p. 255.

[277] _Ib._ pp. 237, 238, 260.

[278] 311₂₃₋₂₅. Cp. Bury, _ib._ 261.

[279] 311-312.

[280] Bury, _ib._ 258. “His whole book is a practical service to the
cause of the claims of Armagh. It is virtually a list of the churches
which claimed to have been founded by Patrick. If it had been completed,
it would have exhibited the full extent of the _paruchia Patricii_.”

[281] 313₂₇, 307₇, 313₂₈, 323₂₉, 319₅, 318₂₅ × 301₉.

[282] 311₂₈.

[283] _In libro apud Ultanum_, 302₃.

[284] Bury, _Tírechán’s Memoir_, 248-250.

[285] Bury, _Tírechán’s Memoir_, 239.

[286] 319₄. Bury, “Supplementary Notes” (_Eng. Hist. Rev._ Oct. 1902),
702-703.

[287] It stops at p. 331, l. 9, in the Rolls ed. See my paper in _E.H.R._
_ut cit._ p. 237.

[288] _Proc. of R.I.A._ (xxiv. sect. C, 3), 1903, p. 164 _sqq._

[289] This has been fully recognised by Dr. Gwynn, _loc. cit._

[290] _Machia_ (330₂₂) probably means Domnach Maigen, not Armagh (Gwynn,
_loc. cit._).

[291] 348₁₈, d.g. [= _Duma Graid_, Reeves, but this is far from certain];
Ailbe i Senchui altáre; and Machet Cetchen Rodán Mathona. Compare also
350₈ with 331₄.

[292] The credibility of the Genealogy, as an independent record, is
particularly strong; the Ballymote scribe was acquainted with the
_Tripartite_, and quotes from it _à propos_ of the sons of Forat,
notwithstanding the contradiction. The discrepancy with the Patrician
tradition is, in fact, a guarantee that the record is trustworthy.

[293] P. 269₁₃ Rolls ed.: _patris mei Coguitosi_, the brilliant
correction of Bishop Graves for the corrupt _cognito si_ in A. On the
passage, and on Cogitosus, see his paper in the _Proceedings R.I.A._
viii. 269 _sqq._

[294] See Graves, _ib._ The conjecture is accepted by Dr. Stokes (_Trip.
Life_, 269, note 2).

[295] Colgan, _Acta SS._ p. 465 and _n._ 31.

[296] _Ann. Ult. s.a._

[297] See Reeves, _Adamnan_, pp. l. li. Professor Kuno Meyer has just
published an old Irish treatise on the “Law of Adamnan” passed at this
synod (“Cáin Adamnáin,” in _Anecdota Oxoniensia_, 1905). The document
contains a list of the bishops, abbots, and kings present at the
synod which was held at Birr. Muirchu appears (p. 18): Murchu maccúi
Machthéine. Muirchu appears in the Martyrologies under June 8 (see
_Calendar of Oengus_, ed. Stokes, p. xciii.).

[298] I suggested this in the _Guardian_, Nov. 20, 1901, p. 1615, c. 2.

[299] Muirchu does not name his father’s work, but his expression
_ingenioli mei_ (269₁₄) may be an echo of the _rusticus sermo ingenioli
mei_ in the prologue to the _Vita Brigidae_.

[300] 271₁₇.

[301] 269₁₉.

[302] This is suggested by the use of the third person. In the Preface
Muirchu writes in the first person. The note is similar to the note which
is prefixed to the memoir of Tírechán and is obviously due to a copyist.

[303] See 495₃ Rolls ed. (ad Britanias nauigauit), and 495₂₆₋ (the second
captivity).

[304] Some mistakes have occurred in the course of compilation and
transmission: see below, p. 348.

[305] See Bury, _Tírechán’s Memoir of St. Patrick_, p. 16; but I did not
see then that the source was probably Irish.

[306] Tírechán, 330₁₅₋₁₉: Muirchu, 276₁₁₋₁₄, and 300₁₀₋₁₃: Bury, _ib._ p.
14.

[307] “The Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” in _Hermathena_, xxviii. pp. 199
_sqq._

[308] On account of the notice of Auxilius (of Killossy) and Iserninus
(of Kilcullen). It seems very probable that the notice of Iserninus in
the _Liber Arm._ (f. 18) may have been derived from information furnished
by Bishop Aed on the occasion of his visit to Armagh. See above p. 253.

[309] In the Table of Contents to Book II. this is the title of the first
and the last section alike; but the last item in the table was wrongly
taken to be a heading of sect. 1 (though there are no other headings to
the sections), until the true explanation was pointed out by Dr. Gwynn.

[310] _Ann. Ult. s.a._

[311] This is the conjecture of Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, p. 81.

[312] These parts were first published by Rev. E. Hogan, _Anal. Boll._
vol. i. I have had the advantage of using a photograph of the MS., kindly
given me by Dr. Gwynn.

[313] See also Todd, _St. Patrick_, 489; Stokes, Intr. to _Tripartite_,
cxi. _sq._; Bernard and Atkinson, _Liber Hymnorum_, ii. 175-6.

[314] Criticised by Thurneysen, _Revue celtique_, 6, 326 _sqq._, who
rejects the theory of interpolation except in the case of stanza 17. So
too Stokes and Strachan.

[315] The stanzas which are abnormal, or defective, in metre, assonance,
etc., are—2, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33 (for
criticisms on their subject-matter see Atkinson, _ib._ xliii. _sqq._).
Stanza 16 has a “glossatorial” character (_ib._ xlviii.). The ejection
of 10 on ground of subject-matter may be confirmed by the abnormal
endings (_nua_ and _tua_, cp. Atkinson, xlii.). 18 (rejected by Zimmer
and Atkinson) is clearly an imitation of 18, and this is indicated by
the repetition of the rhymes. The rejection of 19 and 20 depends on the
subject-matter, and 21 repeats 19. The irrelevance of 22 is obvious.
I leave the second stanza as doubtful, for though there is a metrical
anomaly (_daec_ a disyllable), there is no objection on the ground of the
subject-matter; but it could be dispensed with.

[316] Cp. Muirchu, 296₁₂.

[317] See Bury, _Guardian_, Nov. 27, 1901, p. 1647.

[318] There is no other edition.

[319] I have shown, from misunderstandings in V₄ that its author was
ignorant of Irish, while the author of V₂ was an Irishman (_op. cit._
197).

[320] Dr. W. Levison of Bonn kindly called my attention to a _Vita_
preserved at St. Omer which proves to be a copy of the _Vita Secunda_
different from that used by Colgan. It is contained in Cod. 716
(_Legendarium beatae Mariae de Claromarisco_), a book of the thirteenth
century, vol. ii. ff. 155-9. For the text of _Vita Quarta_, the Stowe MS.
105A (Brit. Mus.) is important (see my _Tradition_, etc., p. 186 _note_).

[321] Except so far as to show that neither of the two existing MSS. was
used by Colgan. The text is based on Rawlinson B. 512, but it is not
explained why this was chosen as the basis in preference to Egerton 93
(which—I speak under correction—does not seem inferior).

[322] _Ann. Ult. s.a._

[323] _Ib._

[324] _The Tripartite Life of St. Patrick_, in _Trans. of R.I.A._, xxix.
Pt. vi. 1889.

[325] A scribe of Armagh, _ob._ 725 (_Ann. Ult._).

[326] _Ann. Ult. s.a._

[327] The narrative here (c. 14) is very confused, and perhaps there is
interpolation.

[328] I observe that Lanigan wished to derive _Hermon_ from _her_,
“great,” and _maen_, “rock.”—Todd, _St. Patrick_, 337 note.

[329] The literature which I have used in working through the Nennian
problem is as follows:—Zimmer, _Nennius Vindicatus_, a brilliant and
indispensable book, but too ingenious, and full of wiredrawn arguments;
many of the conclusions have been upset by the Chartres text (Mommsen’s
Z) which Zimmer left out of consideration. This text was published by
Duchesne, _Nennius retractatus_, in _Revue celtique_, xv. 173 _sqq._;
and was used by Mommsen for his authoritative edition of the work in
_Chronica Minora_, vol. iii. (it is much to be regretted that he did
not devote a separate column to printing the text of Z in full). New
light was then thrown on the problem by Thurneysen, _Ztsch. f. deutsche
Philologie_, xxviii. 80 _sqq._ His interpretation of _exberta_ in the
title in the Chartres MS. as a mistake for _excerpta_ (_Incipiunt
excerpta filii Urbagen_) seems probable (Dr. Traube’s emendation
_experta_ has not convinced me); his identification of this son of
Urbagen with Run map Urbgen, who baptized the Northumbrians in 627
(_Hist. Britt._ c. 63), though plausible, cannot be considered certain.
Duchesne, in a judicious and instructive criticism with reference to
Mommsen’s edition and Thurneysen’s article, has summed up the conclusions
which may safely be drawn from the data: _Revue celtique_, xvii. 1 _sqq._
Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson, who had reached several of Professor Thurneysen’s
conclusions independently, published his views in _Ztsch. f. celtische
Philologie_, iii. 104 _sqq._ The most important point in this paper is
that the true reading of the important words in the title of the Chartres
MS. is: _exberta fili vrba gen_. See also L. Traube in _Neues Archiv_,
xxiv. 721 _sqq._

[330] Nennius, _Preface_, ed. Momms., p. 143; Elbodug died A.D. 809,
Zimmer, _Nenn. Vind._ 51.

[331] (1) Noteworthy is the explanation of _sed prohibuit illum Deus quia
nemo_ etc. (Muirchu 272₂₀) by the insertion of _per quasdam tempestates_
after _Deus_. In the context this is incongruous, and it can hardly have
been originated by Nennius. Had he a MS. of Muirchu containing additions
inserted from Muirchu’s source? [_Deus_ is in the Bruxellensis, but
omitted in the Armachanus.] (2) He changes Muirchu’s _Victoricus_ into
_Victor angelus Dei_. (3) He says that Patrick’s first name was _Maun_
(_Magonus_, Tírechán, 302₅). (4) It is to be observed that while Muirchu
mentions two views as to the duration of Patrick’s sojourn with Germanus,
namely, forty or thirty years, Nennius gives a much smaller period, _per
annos septem_. Thus Muirchu’s _Life_ does not explain Nennius, c. 52; he
had some additional material.

Nennius agrees with Brux, and V₂ V₄ in recording that Palladius died _in
terra Pictorum_.

[332] Todd Lecture, Series iii. The _Codex Palatino-Vaticanus_, 830, p.
354 _sqq._, cp. 252 _sqq._

[333] _Ib._ 247 _sqq._

[334] Cp. Columbanus, _Epist._ (M.G.H., Epp. iii.) 157, and the notice
in the Würzburg MS. of St. Matthew, quoted by Zimmer, _Nenn. Vind._
252, note (Scheps, _Die ältesten Evangelienhandschriften der Würzburger
Bibliothek_, 27).

[335] A genealogy of Brito is ascribed by Gilla Coemgin to _senior
nobilis Guanach_, and Todd pointed out that the reference was to the
_Liber Cuanach_ (Zimmer, _Nenn. Vind._ 250-1). Calling attention to the
notice in _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 616, _usque hunc annum scripsit Isidorus
cronicon suum_, Zimmer observes that the old recension (up to 616) of
Isidore’s chronicle was known in Ireland, and conjectures that its
arrival may have been the stimulus which prompted the work of Cuana.

[336] An older authority, Maucteus, was quoted by Cuana (_Ann. Ult. s.a._
471).

[337] Dr. MacCarthy quotes appropriately the 20th canon of the Council of
Milevi, A.D. 416.

[338] See Migne, P.L. 87, 969.

[339] For such entries in the blank spaces of a Paschal Table, compare,
_e.g._ the _Paschale Campanum_ (_Chron. Min._, ed. Mommsen, i. 745
_sqq._).

[340] Mr. Phillimore’s suggestion that _cum_ is a misrendering of the
Old-Welsh _cant_ = by, seems improbable, as the notice is not likely to
be a translation. I should say that _cum_ is simply a dittogram of the
last syllable of _dominicum_, and has ousted _a_.

[341] We are indeed enabled to infer that before the tenth century A.D.
457 had been maintained by some to be the date of Patrick’s death.

[342] An examination of the dates in the sixth century suggests that
the entries of contemporary events did not begin before the seventh.
Certainly the erroneous date of the battle of Mons Badonis was a late
insertion.

[343] For references see Tillemont, _Mémoires_, xv. 769. Leo had taken
the step of writing to the Emperor Marcian on the matter in 453.

[344] _Vit. Hilarii. Arel._ 16. See Levison, _Neues Archiv_, xxix. p. 99.

[345] Levison, _loc. cit._ pp. 125 _sqq._

[346] Compare Zimmer’s criticism, _Celtic Church_, 64-5.

[347] Stokes (_Urkeltischer Sprachschatz_, 198) and Rhŷs seek a Celtic
etymology for Magonus. Rhŷs treats it as a derivation from Goidelic
_magus_ (whence the Irish _mug_, “servant”), meaning perhaps originally a
“boy.”

[348] His day was Nov. 27; _Mart. of Donegal_, p. 319.

[349] Dichu of Saul appears in the _Martyrology_ of Donegal under April
29 (p. 114).

[350] Instances are collected by Professor Rhŷs in _Proceedings of
R.S.A.I._ Pt. i. vol. xxxii. p. 5; to which add the Donard stone (_ib._
Pt. ii. vol. xxxiii. p. 114).

[351] This comes from Muirchu’s Irish source for the legend. See above,
App. A, ii. 3.

[352] For _scriptum erat_ I would read _scriptum quod scriptum erat_.

[353] _sine honore_, supposed to mean “without recognition of my
episcopal title.”

[354] _male uidimus faciem designati nudato nomine_ (365₂₉). This gives
much better sense than the ordinary rendering, which refers _designati_
to Patrick, and _nud. nom._ to the suppression of the episcopal title. I
observe that Mr. White, though he does not adopt it in his translation,
gives it as an alternative interpretation in his note.

[355] Another petition (which in _V. Trip._, p. 116, appears in connexion
with Mount Crochan) is added in V₃, c. 88. See Bury, _Trans. of R.I.A._
xxxii. C. Part iii. p. 223.

[356] I retract the date “_c._ A.D. 850” in my note †, _op. cit._ p.
218. I have abandoned a view of the relations of the Nennian MSS. which
prompted me to assign this date.

[357] The Armagh tradition, connecting Columba with St. Patrick’s tomb,
is referred to in the _Additions to Tírechán_ (see Appendix C, 19).

[358] I have shown that this was possibly the original corruption,
“Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 196.

[359] _haut_ has been restored for -cha _ut_ of the Brussels MS. The
restoration, obviously right, is borne out by Probus (Colgan, _Trias
Thaum._ 47), who here transcribes Muirchu. See Stokes, _ad loc._

[360] Probus here, using another but related MS. of Muirchu, gives
_Nentriae prouinciae_.

[361] Mr. Nicholson’s explanation that it is a corruption of _Britanniae_
will hardly be accepted. Palaeographically it has no probability; it was
hardly necessary, and we should rather expect _Britanniarum_.

[362] It is obvious how readily the corruption rose from
_bannauētabernie_ or -_urnie_.

[363] Stokes, _Tripartite_, Introduction, p. cxxxvii. He refers to
Gregory of Tours, _Hist. Franc._ x. 28, _in uico Nemptudoro_. Skene
(_Celtic Scotland_, ii. 436, n.) identifies Nemthur with _Neutur_ in the
Black Book of Caermarthen (_Four Ancient Books of Wales_, vol. ii. p. 3).

[364] It is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that Ammianus when he
says that Theodosius _instaurabat urbes_ does not refer to Valentia
(which he has not yet mentioned) in particular, but to Britain in general.

[365] In A.D. 383 he was sent on an embassy to the Persians (whom Keller
calls “Parthians,” p. 15), and married Serena soon after (384 or 385). In
A.D. 386 he was engaged in the campaign with the Gruthungi.

[366] This seems to me a just remark of Mr. Hodgkin, _Italy and her
Invaders_, vol. i. (2nd ed.), p. 716.

[367] “Tyrants of Britain, Gaul, and Spain,” _Eng. Hist. Review_, 1886,
i. 55, note 3. This is the chief study on the subject (republished in
_Western Europe in the Fifth Century_, 1905, chaps. ii., iii.). Cp. App.
20 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.

[368] II. k. Jan. ed. Mommsen, p. 465.

[369] Prosper’s notice, _sub ann._ 407, agrees with the implication in
Olympiodorus.

[370] Preface to edition of Gildas (_Chron. Min._ iii. 1), p. 7.

[371] The Picts are described as a _gens transmarina_ (the Picts of
Dalaradia?).

[372] _Ann. Ult. sub a._ 461.

[373] _Ann. Inisf._ ed. O’Conor _sub a._ (“488” =) 493: _anno ccccxxxii a
passione Domini_.

[374] Ed. Mommsen, p. 158-9.

[375] Rolls ed. p. 365₁₅, _nescio, Deus scit, si habebam tunc annos
quindecim_.

[376] _Ib._₁₁.

[377] 366₁₀.

[378] 365₁₀.

[379] So it is interpreted by Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 392; by Neander,
_Allg. Geschichte der christlichen Religion u. Kirche_, iii. 185, note;
by Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, p. 43.

[380] I adopt the admirable correction of Dr. N. J. D. White for
_occasionum—inuenerunt me_ (MSS.).

[381] The truth is that the length of time which elapsed since the
wrongdoing is not pertinent. The point is the interval between the
confession of it to his friend, who offered no obstacle to his ordination
as deacon (nor later to his ordination as bishop), and the occasion on
which it was used against him. It is this lapse of 30 years which makes
his friend’s conduct so unaccountable.

[382] It is interesting to note that this name is found on three ogam
stones, in the genitive forms _Gosoctas_, _Gossucttias_, and _Gosocteas_
(see Rhŷs, _Ogam-inscribed Stones_, in reprint from _Proc. of Royal Soc.
of Antiquaries of Ireland_, Part i. vol. xxxii. 1902, p. 24).

[383] The force of _adhuc_ here (not synonymous with _iterum_) is exactly
like its force in _adhuc capturam dedi_. See above, Appendix B, note on
p. 34.

[384] Muirchu’s _et erat annorum triginta_ (496₁) must not be alleged; it
is based on a misconception of the _annos triginta_ of the _Confession_
(365₁₀), and influenced by the Scriptural parallel to which Muirchu
refers.

[385] Jerome, Ep. cxxiii. (_ad Ageruchiam_), Migne’s ed. vol. i. 1057-8.

[386] After A.D. 439.

[387] vii. § 50. Orosius, vii. 38 and 40, gives no details of the
devastations.

[388] Edited by Brandes in the _Corp. Script. Eccl._ 1889.

[389] Compare the sketch of Professor Dill, based on these poems, in
_Roman Society_, bk. iv. cap. 2 (p. 263, ed. 1).

[390] So I would amend the corrupt _metuendis_. Ellis reads _tetricis_,
and suggests _mediis_. But there is greater point in _nudis_; it implies
“without the crops, etc., which would naturally attract an enemy.”

[391] P. 18.

[392] Pp. 16-18, and Appendix B.

[393] Cp. Arrian’s _Cynegeticus_, esp. chaps. 1, 2, 3.

[394] The nature of the cargo is another argument against the view that
Britain was the destination.

[395] _Annis_ xxx. Tír. _loc. cit._ The numeral is less probably a
mistake for iii. than the result of a mistaken attempt to account for
the chronology of Patrick’s life on the hypothesis that he lived to the
age of 120. Other schemes assigned 30 or 40 years to the Auxerre period
(Muirchu, 271₂₂).

[396] For the traditions and legends connecting Palladius with Scotland
see Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, ii. 29 _sqq._

[397] Schoell, _De ecclesiasticae Britonum Scotorumque historiae
fontibus_, 1851, p. 77; Loofs, _De antiqua Britonum Scotorumque
ecclesia_, p. 51 (1882). Compare B. Robert’s criticisms on their
arguments, _Étude critique_, etc., pp. 28 _sqq._

[398] Professor Zimmer (_Early Celtic Church_, p. 38) regards Palladius
as a Roman rendering of Patrick’s name Sucatus (warlike), following a
suggestion of Mr. O’Brien (_Irish. Eccl. Record_, 1887, pp. 723 _sqq._).
This is quite unconvincing, in the absence of any evidence that Palladius
was a Briton. Why should he not have belonged to the _stirps Palladiorum_
of Bourges (Apoll. Sidon. _Epp._ vii. 9, 24)? Cp. Duchesne, _Fastes
épisc._ ii. p. 26, _note_.

[399] P. cxxv. ed. Stokes (1871). This calendar, Mr. Stokes has shown,
cannot be earlier than the end of the tenth century.

[400] The name of Palladius does not appear in any Irish calendar of
saints. It appears under July 6 in the Breviary of Aberdeen. See Todd,
_St. Patrick_, p. 299.

[401] Cp. _Chron. Scot._ pp. 24-25; Cormac’s _Glossary_ sub _Mogheime_.

[402] M. d’Arbois de Jubainville has a note on Sen Patrick in _Revue
celtique_, ix. p. 111 _sqq._ He thinks a second Patricius came over to
Ireland as a mere name in a copy of the Hieronymian Martyrology towards
end of sixth century; and that of him were made the two Patricks of
August 24 in _Mart. of Tallaght_.

[403] See Bury, “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 205.

[404] The name of this place, whether in the form _Ebmoria_ (_Lib. Arm._)
or in the variant form _Euboria_ (for the variants see Bury, “Tradition
of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 185) is unknown. The context shows that it lay
between Auxerre and the north coast of Gaul. Ebroica = Evreux would be
my guess. (It probably became the seat of a bishop before the end of the
fifth century, but probably not long before. Cp. Duchesne, _Fastes ép._
ii. 226).

[405] On the evidence for this date see _note_ 15 in my “Sources of
Early Patrician Documents” (_E.H.R._, July 1904), where I refer to the
discussion of Dr. W. Levison in his monograph cited above, Appendix A, i.
7.

[406] _Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 123, _note_. Later compilers divided
_Amatho rege_. In Irish conditions a _rex episcopus_ would not sound so
strange as in Gaul, though I do not know of an instance before Cormac of
Cashel at the beginning of the tenth century. In _Tripartite Life_ (p.
34) we get a further step in the evolution; the bishop appears as Amatho
rí Románach (King of the Romans); and the final stage is reached when
Patrick is ordained _coram Teodosio imperatore_.

[407] I pointed out this inference in “Sources of Early Patrician
Documents” (_cit. sup._).

[408] _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 439. For the separate coming of Iserninus see
account in _Lib. Arm._ f. 18 rᵒ a (342, Rolls ed.). It is there indeed
supposed that they started at the same time from Gaul, but were severed
by storms, and so arrived separately in Ireland. The motive for this tale
is evidently the genuine record that they did not come together.

[409] There are three cases (Zimmer, _ib._ 24-26):

1. Long ō instead of long ā: _e.g._ _trindōit_ (= _trinitatem)_; _altōir_
(= _altāre)_; _caindlōir_ (_candelarius_); _notlaic_ (_nātalicia_);
_popa_ (_papa_). If the Latin forms had come directly to Ireland, the ā
would have been preserved; ō for ā is characteristically British.

2. _c_ for _p_: _casc_ (_pascha_); _crubthir_ (_presbyter_). Words of
this kind must have been “interpreted to the Irish by British mouths,”
for if they had been borrowed from Latin, _p_ would have been preserved.
The motive for the change of _British p_ to _c_ in the loan-words was the
observed fact that in native words Gaelic _c_ corresponded to British
_p_ (representing the velar _q_). The treatment of Patrick’s name is a
significant instance. From its British form we get in Irish _Coithrige_,
from its Latin form _Patraicc_. _Caille_, a veil (_caillech_, a nun), is
supposed to be another case (= _pallium_). Mr. Nicholson suggests that it
is Celtic, = _capillia_ (_Keltic Researches_, p. 104).

3. _sr_ for _fr_, _sl_ for _fl_: _e.g._ _slechtan_ (_flectionem_),
_srogell_ (_flagellum_). In case of a direct borrowing, _sr_, _sl_ would
have been kept; but coming through British they were treated on the
analogy of Irish _sruth_ = Br. _frut_.

[410] _Tracia_ being an error for _Frācia_.

[411] The prose list in the _Book of Ballymote_ describes both Duachs as
Tenga Uma (and as slain by Muirchertach), but in the case of the first
_Duach Galach_ is written above.

[412] Dai Galach is mentioned as Brian’s youngest son, and destined to
reign in Connaught, in the text printed, with translation, by Dr. W.
Stokes, from the _Yellow Book of Lecan_ (col. 898), concerning the sons
of Eochaid Muigmedoin, in _Rev. Celt._ xxiv. (1903), p. 182.

[413] The notice is discussed by Todd, _St. Patrick_, pp. 469-70, but he
does not attempt any explanation of _probatus est_, and by omitting the
first part of the notice altogether he shows that he did not apprehend
the significant association of the _probatio_ with Leo.

[414] _Nostra provincia_ is ecclesiastical Ireland, or north Ireland—not
a particular district or kingdom.

[415] The _Vit. Trip._ (Part 3, p. 238) places the visit to Rome _after_
the foundation of Armagh. This order seems to be simply an inference from
the fact that the relics which Patrick got at Rome were brought to Armagh.

[416] The references are to Gundlach’s ed., _Epp. Mer. et Kar. Aeui_,
vol. i.

[417] Mr. Warren rightly rejects the pregnant meaning found in this
passage by Döllinger (_Liturgy and Ritual_, p. 39).

[418] _difficiles_ is in three MSS., including the Coloniensis (eighth
century): it is clearly wanted, and (if there was not some stronger and
fuller phrase in the original canon) it has a very pregnant meaning.

[419] I believe that the silence of Cummian in his letter to Segéne
(Migne, _P.L._ 87, 970) has been urged as an objection to the
authenticity of the canon. But the argument from silence in such a case
as this has no cogency. It is quite possible that he was not aware of the
canon.

[420] See B. Krusch, _Der 84jährige Ostercyclus und seine Quellen_, 1880.

[421] Columbanus, _Epp._ ed. Gundlach, Ep. 4, p. 162.

[422] _Ib._ Ep. 1 (to Gregory I.), p. 157; _Catal. Sanct. Hib., unum
Pascha, quarta decima luna post aequinoctium vernale_ (H. and S.,
_Councils_, ii. 292, 293).

[423] Dr. MacCarthy’s explanation (Introd. to _Annals of Ulster_, iv. p.
lxxix) of an entry in the Chronicle of Marius Aventicensis (ad ann. A.D.
560), as implying a survival of the old 84 cycle in Gaul, does not seem
tenable (see A. Anscombe, _Z. f. Celtische Philologie_, iv. p. 333).

[424] I have omitted all reference to the abstruse technique of the
computations, and the question as to the difference between the two
cycles of 84 (differing in the number of the _saltus_), for which see
MacCarthy, _op. cit._ pp. lxv. _sqq._; Krusch, _op. cit._

[425] For dating, see MacCarthy, _op. cit._ cxl. cxli.

[426] Migne, _Patrol._ 87, 969.

[427] Krusch, 302 _sqq._ For dating, see MacCarthy, _op. cit._ cxvii.,
where the proof of fabrication will be found.

[428] So MacCarthy, cxxxvii., note 2.

[429] Dr. MacCarthy shows that Cummian was uncritical (cxl.), but I
cannot go quite so far as he. He accepts, as genuine tradition, the
statement that Patrick brought a cycle with him (rightly observing
that the addition of _et fecit_ cannot be pressed), but holds that it
was identical with the Celtic cycle of later times. It is with much
diffidence that I venture to differ from him on this point; but I owe
it to his investigations that I have been able to reach a definite
conclusion.

[430] The learned Appendix A, pp. 123 _sqq._, in Reeves, _Eccl. Ant._, is
valuable still.

[431] Ed. Gundlach, _M.G.H., Epp. Mer. et Kar. Aeui_, i. p. 163. See
Jerome, _Ep._ 58 (Migne, 22, 583).

[432] 450 in Tírechán and one MS. of _Catal. Sanctorum_; 350 in other
MSS. of _Cat. Sanct._

[433] It is not, of course, certain that Bishop Muirethachus _qui fuit
super flumen Bratho_, for whom Patrick and Bronus wrote an alphabet,
is identical with the _epscop Muiredaig_, “an aged man of Patrick’s
household,” who is said in _Vit. Trip._, p. 134, to have been left by
Patrick in Cell Alaid. The foundation of Cell Alaid is not mentioned by
Tírechán.

[434] The text of Tírechán leaves it doubtful whether the foundation
of Cellola Tog was laid under Patrick’s auspices, and whether Patrick
ordained Cainnech bishop. He is not included in the author’s catalogue of
bishops ordained by Patrick (p. 304).

[435] For the _monachi_ of Assicus, see 313₃₃ and 328₃₀.

[436] Cainnech was a _monachus Patricii_, 324₁₃. Another _mon. P._ is
mentioned 329₉. The deacon Coimanus of Ardd Licce seems to have been
another, 317₂₆. Gengen and Sannuch are described as _mon. P._ 305₁₇; and
for the foreigners _Conleng and Ercleng_, see 313₁₂.

[437] Thus Slébte, the seat of Bishop Fíacc, would have been a _civitas_.
It is called _Slebtiensis civitas_ by Muirchu (271₁₉). See also _Lib.
Angeli_, 355, _omnis aeclessia libera et civitas <quae> ab episcopali
gradu uidetur esse fundata_. Cp. an Irish canon, ascribed to Patrick,
in the _Hibernensis_, 29, c. 7 (p. 101 ed. Wasserschl.), _aut a sancta
ecclesia aut in civitate intus_.

[438] 326₂₁, _quia deus dixit illi ut legem relinquerent_ [?—_et_, as
Stokes suggests] _et episcopos ordinaret ibi, et prespiteros et diaconos
in illa regione_. This suggests, though it does not necessitate, the
inference in the text.

[439] _Senchus Mór_, i. 40. See also the following passages: i. 54 (a
false-judging king and a stumbling bishop are placed on a level); i. 78,
the king’s testimony is valid against all except the man of learning, the
bishop, and the pilgrim.

[440] In his treatment of the Muirchu narrative Todd does not go below
the surface, but he recognises that the first part embodies a concession
on the part of Armagh. The question is discussed in Reeves, _Eccl.
Antiquities_, 223 _sq._

[441] The simplest case is when an incident is reduplicated, as in the
Cyclops story in the _Odyssey_ (Book 9), where the second stone-casting
of the Cyclops at the escaping ship is a later addition by an expander
who sought to outdo the original incident but failed in his effect.

[442] I may note here that the river Cabcenne, where the Orior men
discovered the deception, has not been identified, but ought naturally to
be sought near their destination, Armagh. So Todd, p. 195.

[443] In his article “Keltische Kirche” in the _Realencyklopädie für
protestantische Theologie u. Kirche_, 1901; translated by Miss Meyer
(_The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland_), 1902.

[444] In Bede’s _Martyrology_, under March 17, we find _in Scotia S.
Patricii Confessionis_. Zimmer (p. 10) accepts this, without question, as
Bedan. I should like to know how far we can distinguish in this document
what is Bede’s from later additions.

[445] There is, however, another consideration which may be taken into
account by those who wonder at the absence of any reference to Patrick
in Bede’s _Ecclesiastical History_. The Latin literature concerning St.
Patrick only began to appear in Bede’s time. Tírechán’s _Memoir_ cannot
have been written long before his birth; and he was nearly thirty years
old when Muirchu’s _Life_ was composed. The older Patrician literature,
as we have seen reason to believe, was in Irish, and inaccessible to
Bede. The Columban church in north Britain was not concerned to propagate
the fame of Patrick. There was rivalry between the Columban and Patrician
communities in Ireland (cp. Tírechán, 314₈).

[446] As I observed above (p. 262) if Muirchu’s work were anonymous
and nothing were said of Aed, we should never suspect that the author
belonged to the south of Ireland; we should certainly connect him with
north Ireland.

[447] The particular passage on which Zimmer relies—the only _positive_
evidence—is in the “Additions” to Tírechán in the _Liber Armachanus_ (p.
332, Rolls ed.), where Palladius is said to have been called _Patricius
alio nomine_, but is distinguished from the second Patrick. But this can
be otherwise explained. The double date of Patrick’s death (see Appendix
C, 7) led to a duplication—a first and a second Patrick, and one attempt
to fix the personality of the earlier Patrick was to identify him with
Palladius.




INDEX


  Abban, St., Life of, 210 _note_.

  _Abgitorium_, 311

  _Abusionibus Saeculi, Liber de_, 239, 245, 379

  Abyssinia, foundation of church in, 6 _sq._

  Achad-fobuir (Aghagower), 130, 360, 379, 376

  Adalbert, apostle of the Slavs, 215

  Adamnan, _Canons_ of, 235;
    synod of (at Birr), 255, 261;
    _Law_ of, 255 _note_;
    _Life of Columba_, 267;
    once mentions Patrick, 310;
    alleged work on Patrick, 271

  Adoption, rites of, 293

  Adrochta, her church, 145

  “Adzehead,” prophecy of, 79, 299

  Aed, bishop of Slébte, relations to Armagh, 253, 261 _sq._;
    connexion with Muirchu’s work, 255 _sqq._;
    attends Adamnan’s synod, 255, 261;
    date of death of, 255

  Aed, king of Connaught, 361, 362

  Aegidius, Roman general, 191

  Aetius helped by Dathi, 95, 354;
    campaigns against Franks, 317, 354;
    appeal of Britons to, 224, 330

  Aghade, church of Iserninus at, 164

  Aghagower, _see_ Achad-fobuir

  Aghanagh, church of, 128

  Agricola, British Pelagian, 297

  Agricola, Roman general, Irish policy of, 12 _note_, 289

  Aigli, Mount, _see_ Crochan Aigli

  Ail Clúade, _see_ Alcluith

  Ailbe, alleged pre-Patrician saint, 351

  Ailbe of Shancoe, 129, 360

  Aileach, kingdom of, 70 and _note_;
    Patrick’s work in, 162

  Ailill Molt, 106, 303;
    date of his reign in Connaught, 361 _sqq._

  Ailill, son of Eochaidh Muighmeadhoin, 128 (cp. Tirerrill)

  Ailill, the Womanly, date of reign of, 362 _sqq._

  Ailred, _Life of Ninian_, 313

  _Airbacc giunne_, 241

  _Aithech_, 176 _note_

  Alans in Gaul, 338

  Alaric in Greece, 24;
    in Italy, 25

  Alcluith (Ail Clúade), 190-91, 314, 323

  Alofind, _see_ Elphin

  _Aloo_ (genitive) “of Ail Clúade,” 314

  Alphabets:
    Latin introduced in Ireland, 15 and _note_
    (_abgitoria_) written by Patrick, 184, 311
    ogam, 185 _sq._, 312
    Iberian, 186

  Amatho, 347 _note_ (cp. Amator)

  Amator, bishop of Auxerre, ordains Patrick, 49, 337, 347 _sqq._;
    (_Amathorege_), 258, 347

  Ambrose, St., supports monasticism, 38;
    discovers tombs of Gervasius and Protasius, 151

  Ambrosius Aurelianus, 190, 315

  Amolngaid, king of Connaught, 27, 72 _note_, 96, 306;
    date of his reign and death, 360 _sqq._

  Anghaile, tribe of, 129 _note_

  Anglesey, island, Druids in, 11 _note_

  _Annals_, Irish, 279 _sqq._;
    of Ulster, 279, 281, 282 _sqq._;
    of Inisfallen, 280;
    of Four Masters, 281

  _Annals_, Welsh, 284 _sq._

  _Antiphonary_ of Bangor, 311

  _Aralanensis insula_, 277, 294, 338

  _Árd-rí_, High King, 69

  Ardbraccan, 230, 231, 248

  Ardd Licce, 378 _note_

  Ardd Mache, monastery at, _see_ Armagh

  Ardd Senlis, 359

  Ardpatrick, 162 _note_, 309

  _Aregal_, 156 _note_

  Arelate, 294

  _Armagh, Book of_, _see_ _Liber Armachanus_

  Armagh, foundation of, 154 _sqq._;
    new settlements, 159;
    ecclesiastical centre, 160;
    Patrick sets out for, before his death, 207;
    Patrician relics at, 211;
    Patrician material collected at, 252 _sqq._;
    connexion with Slébte, 261;
    mentioned in Fíacc’s hymn, 265;
    claims of the see supported by _Vit. Trip._, 270;
    by _Liber Angueli_, 287;
    date of foundation of, 308;
    “northern” church at, 159, 308

  Armenia, conversion of, 8 and _note_

  Armorica, story of Patrick’s connexion with, 274, 293

  _Arnon, mons_, explanation of, 276-7

  Arthur of Britain (not a “king,”), 190, 315

  Assicus, Bishop, 135 _sq._, 358, 376, 377

  Athanasius, 7

  Áth Brón, 121 _note_

  Áth Dara, battle of, 353

  Áth Fithot (Aghade), 164 and _note_

  Attacotti, 325, 354

  Augustine, missionary, 221, 389

  Augustine of Hippo, 245

  Augustinus, companion of Palladius, 299

  Autissiodorum, _see_ Auxerre

  Auxerre, church at, 48;
    name of, 49;
    Patrick studies at, 49 _sq._, 296;
    ordination at, 337

  Auxilius (Ausaille), ordained at Auxerre, 49, 297;
    his coming to Ireland, 348;
    relations with Patrick, 163, 310;
    at Killossy, 259 _note_;
    with Patrick in Leinster, 163 _sq._;
    acts with Patrick in drawing up canons, 234, cp. 166, 371


  Badon, Mt., battle of, 284, 285 _note_

  Bala Lake, 145

  Ballina, 148 _note_

  Ballintogher, 301

  Banna, 322

  Bannaventa, position of, 17, 322 _sqq._;
    preface, _ad fin._

  Baptismal rites, 193, 306-7, 316

  Baronies, modern, represent old kingdoms, 68 _sqq._

  Baslick, church of, 144, 360;
    Tírechán at, 249, 311

  Beccan MacCula, feast of, 303

  Bede, _Chronicle_ of, 282;
    on Nynias, 313;
    on Dalriada, 316;
    silence as to Patrick, 385, 386;
    his _Martyrology_, 386 _note_

  Bell of Patrick at Armagh, 211, 320-21

  Beltane customs, 107, 267, 303

  Benedictus, companion of Palladius, 299

  Benignus (of Tirerrill), 307

  Benignus (successor of Patrick at Armagh), ordeal of, 109, 145;
    adopted, 173-4;
    date of death, 284;
    succeeds Patrick, 206 and _note_, 319, 332;
    helps to compile _Senchus Mór_, 355, 356;
    canon attributed to, 371

  Bernicia, 325

  Bishops in Irish Church, 180 _sqq._, 243 _sqq._, 286, 375 _sqq._;
    in _Senchus Mór_, 379

  Bitteus, Bishop (Betheus), 135 _sq._, 358, 377

  _Bó-aire_, 68 _note_

  Boderg, Lake, 134

  Bofin, Lake, 134

  Boniface, Bishop (Winfrith), at Geismar, 124;
    compared to Patrick, 217, 233 _note_

  Boniface, Pope, 370

  _Book of Armagh_, see _Liber Armachanus_

  _Book of Clonmacnois_, 281

  _Book of Cuana_, see _Liber Cuanach_

  _Book of the Island of Saints_, 281

  _Book of Rights_, 69 _note_, 70 _note_

  Bordeaux, 34, 274, 341

  Braid, river, 29

  _Bratho, flumen_, 376 _note_

  Brechtan (Bright), 89, 90, 301, 302

  Breg, plain of, 104

  Brene Strait, 84, 301

  Brian, son of Eochaidh Muighmeadhoin, 365

  Brian, sons of, 144

  Brigantia, 12 _note_

  Bright, _see_ Brechtan

  Brigit, St., _Life_ of, by Cogitosus, 255, 256, 332;
    date of birth, 284

  Britain, Scottic colonisation in north of, 10 _note_;
    Druidism in, 11 _note_;
    Roman rule in, 12;
    annexed by Claudius, 13;
    close relations of, with Gaul, _ib._;
    Irish settlements in south-west of, 14;
    invasions of by Picts, Scots, and Saxons, 20 _sqq._, 325 _sqq._;
    by Niall, 25 _sq._, 331;
    Patrick returns to, 41;
    church of, appeals to Gallic Church to crush Pelagianism, 50;
    Germanus and Lupus sent on a mission to, 51;
    _dux Britanniarum_, 314, 328;
    _comes Britanniae_, 328;
    _comes litoris Saxonici per Brit._, 328;
    relations of British Church to Irish, 244;
    kings and tyrants in, 315;
    Celtic revival in, _ib._

  Brón MacIcni, Bishop, 130, 145, 307, 359, 377, 378

  Brotgalum, 274, 341

  Brude, King, 108 _note_

  Bruno of Querfurt, 215

  Búan, 335

  Burgundians, conversion to Christianity, 9


  Cabcenne, river, 381 _note_ (Stokes and Strachan conjecture that
        _Culcenne_ should be read)

  Caichán, 176 _note_, 311

  Cainnech, Bishop, 376, 378 _note_

  Cairell, Bishop, 377

  Cairnech, helps to compile _Senchus Mór_, 355, 356

  Caisselire, 130

  _Calendar of Luxeuil_, 319

  _Calendar of Oengus_, 343 _note_

  Calpurnius, father of Patrick, 16 _sqq._;
    decurion, 20, 290;
    names his son, 23, 289, 291

  _Canabae_, 290

  Candida Casa (Whitern), 313

  Canons, Irish, 166 _sqq._, 233 _sqq._; see _Hibernensis_

  Caplait, Druid, 138, 142 _sq._, 240 _sqq._

  Capraria, island, 294

  Caprasius, 295

  Captives, instrumental in spreading Christianity, 5 _sqq._;
    redemption of, 167

  Capua, 276

  Carausius II., tyrant, 330

  Caredig, 315

  Cashel, kingdom of, 69, 299;
    Patrick at, 163

  Castlereagh, Patrick in district of, 144

  _Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae_, 240, 285 _sqq._

  Celestine, bishop of Rome, sanctions mission of Germanus to Britain,
        51, 297;
    notices condition of Irish Christians, 51, 52 _note_;
    sends Palladius, 54, 349;
    death of, 60 _note_;
    alleged mission of Patrick, 251, 343;
    alleged visit of Patrick to, 276;
    Prosper’s notices of, 349

  Celidonius, Bishop, 285

  Cell Alaid, 376 _note_

  Cell Angle, 129

  Cell Fine, Church of the Tribes, 57, 298, 390

  Cell Garad, 145

  Cell Raithin, at Granard, 122

  Cellola Tog, 376

  Celts, intercourse of insular and continental, 11

  Cenn Cruaich (Crom Cruaich), idol, 123, 299, 306

  Cenngecán, bishop of Cashel, 271

  Cenondae, _see_ Kells

  Censurius, Bishop, 247

  Ceretic, _see_ Coroticus

  Cetchen, 360

  Chlodwig, king of Franks, attitude of, to Christianity, 101;
    code of (_Lex Salica_), 113

  Chlojo, king of Franks, 354

  Chrism, 316

  Christianity, diffusion of, furthered by Roman Empire, 3;
    means of diffusion beyond the Empire, 4 _sqq._;
    introduction to Ireland before Patrick, 14 _sq._, 51-2, 349 _sqq._;
    in Britain, 20;
    in Galloway, 187

  _Chronicon Scotorum_, 280-81

  Church-Moyley, 302

  Ciarán, alleged pre-Patrician saint, 351

  Ciarán of Belach Duin, 271

  Ciarán of Clonmacnois, 286

  Ciarrigi, 130, 359, 360

  Cinuit, 191, 314

  Cipia, mother of Bitteus, 135

  _Civitas_, ecclesiastical term, 180, 378

  Claudian, notices of Britain examined, 325 _sqq._;
    on Roman history, 222

  Claudius, Emperor, conquest of Britain, 13

  Clebach, fountain, 138

  Clergy, married, 290

  Cliu, 310

  Clogher, 162 _note_, 309

  Clonmore, 164

  Cœnachair of Slane, 273

  Cogitosus, 255, 256, 266

  Coimanus of Ardd Licce, 378 _note_

  Coins, Roman, found in Ireland, 288

  Coirpre, son of Amolngaid, 306

  Coirpre, son of Niall, attempts Patrick’s life, 119, 120

  Coithrige, _see_ Cothraige

  Coleraine, church at, 162

  Collait of Druim Roilgech, 271

  Colman, bishop of Clonkeen, 352

  Colman Uamach, 271

  Colombcille, _see_ Columba

  Columba, St., at palace of King Brude, 108 _note_;
    house of, at Kells, 121 _note_;
    discovers Patrick’s grave, 210, 251, 321, 380;
    finds his relics, 321;
    alleged work on Patrick, 271;
    Columban communities, 386;
    compared to Patrick, 215

  Columbanus, St., attitude to Roman see, 369 _sqq._;
    notice of Paschal cycles, 372;
    on the Episcopate, 375

  Conaille Muirthemni, 83

  Conall, son of Niall, baptized by Patrick, 119;
    death of, 125 _note_

  Concessa, mother of Patrick, 23, 292

  Condiri, land of the, churches in, 162

  _Confession_ of St. Patrick, 196 _sqq._;
    _see_ under Patrick

  _Congbala_, 156 _note_

  Conlaid, sons of, 311

  Conleng, 378 _note_

  Connacán, son of Colman, 271

  Connaught, Patrick’s captivity in, 27 _sq._;
    kingdom of, 69;
    Patrick’s work in, 126 _sqq._;
    order of his visits to, 358 _sqq._;
    chronology of kings of, 360 _sqq._

  Connor, diocese of, 162

  Constantine the Great, 2, 3

  Constantine, tyrant, 329

  Constantius, author of _Vita Germani_, 247

  Corc, king of Munster, concerned in the _Senchus Mór_, 114, 355, 356

  Corcu Ochland, 135

  Cormac, king and bishop of Cashel, 347 _note_;
    his _Glossary_, 355

  _Corona_ (tonsure), 242

  Coroticus, rules in Strathclyde, 190 _sq._;
    invades Ireland, 192;
    Patrick’s _Letter_ against, 193 _sq._, 226, 227 _sq._, 316;
    evidence for his identification, 314;
    date of, _ib._;
    source of legend of his death, 261, 317;
    guess as to date of his raid, 303

  Cothraige (Coithrige), name of Patrick, 268, 291, 351 _note_;
    ancient etymology of, 264, 265

  Crimthann, king of Ireland, 331

  Crimthann, king of the Hy Ceinselaich, baptized, 163

  Croagh Patrick, 28 _note_;
    _see_ Crochan Aigli

  Crochan Aigli, Mount, Patrick’s captivity conjectured to be near, 28,
        274, 335;
    Patrick’s fast on, 131 _sqq._;
    his petitions on, 320

  Croesus, death-pyre of, 86, 111

  Cromm Cruach, idol, 123 _sqq._ and _note_, 299, 306

  Cross, townland of, 86 _note_

  Crosses, early, in Ireland, 352

  Crosspatrick, church of, 148

  Crozier of Patrick at Armagh, 211, 320

  _Crubthir_ or _cruimthir_ = presbyter, 291, 350 _note_

  Cruithne (Picts), 342

  Cuana mac Ailcene, 281;
    See _Liber Cuanach_

  Cucummne, 236

  Cuil Conaire, battle of, 362, 363

  Cummian, his _Letter_, 283, 371, 374, 388

  Cup of Patrick, 321

  Cyprian, 245

  Cyril (Constantine), Slavonic apostle, 217, 219


  Dacia, conversion of West Goths in, 4

  Daire of Orior, coadjutor of Loigaire, 114, 308, 356, 357;
    grants site of Armagh to Patrick, 155 _sqq._;
    was he king of Oriel? 155, 308;
    provenance of story of, 262

  _Dairenne_, 251

  Dalaradia, land of the Picts, 28 and _note_, 29, 342

  Dalmatia, islands on coast of, 295

  Dalriada, in Scotland, 316

  Dalriada, land of the Scots, 28 and _note_

  Damasus, _decretals_ of, 62

  Darerca, 292

  Dathi, nephew of Niall, 72 _note_;
    his expedition against the Franks, 95, 354;
    date of reign, 331;
    date of reign in Connaught, 362 _sqq._;
    burial of, 355

  Daventry, 322 _sq._

  Decies, district of in Co. Waterford, 14 _note_

  Declan, St., 351

  _Decretals_, 62

  Decurions, 17 _sqq._, 290

  Dee, river (Vartry), port of, 81, 83

  Deece, district of, 14;
    baronies of, _ib._ _note_

  Demetrias, Letter of Pelagius to, 45

  Derlus (at Bright), 301

  Dessi, tribe of, expelled from Meath, 13;
    new settlements of, 14, 288

  Dichu converted by Patrick, 85;
    grants Patrick site for church, 87;
    historical reality of, 89, 301

  _Dicta Patricii_, 228 _sqq._, 341

  Diocesan jurisdiction, 180 _sqq._, 243;
    _see_ _sub_ Bishops

  Dogs, Irish, 31, 341 _sq._

  _Domnach Airgit_, 309

  Domnach Airte (Donard), 56

  Domnach Féicc, 165, 310

  Domnach Maigen, 251

  Domnach Sechnaill, _see_ Dunshaughlin

  Donaghmore in Tirawley, 148 and _note_, 376, 379

  Donaghpatrick, church of, 119, 305

  Donard, church at, 56, 298

  Dovaido, stone of, 11 _note_

  Downpatrick, ancient earthworks at, 91;
    claims Patrick’s tomb, 380 _sq._;
    _see_ Dún Lethglasse

  _Druidecht_, “magic,” 76 _note_

  Druids, Gallic, in Ireland, 11 _note_;
    practised sorcery, 76 _sq._;
    derivation of word Druid, _ib._ _note_;
    prophesy coming of Patrick, 79, 352;
    variants of the prophecy, 269, 299;
    Gallic, 304;
    survival of Druidism, 305

  Druimbo, 91 _note_, 302

  Druim-Urchaille, 310

  Drumlease, 175 and note

  Drummut Cerrigi, 311

  Duach Galach, son of Brian, date of reign of, 361 _sqq._

  Duach Tenga Uma, date of reign of, 361 _sqq._

  Dubthach maccu Lugair, poet, helps to compile _Senchus Mór_, 115,
        267, 298, 355, 356;
    at Tara, 116, 305

  Duma Graid, 129 _note_, 134 _note_

  Dún Aillinn, 164

  Dún na m-Bretan (Dumbarton), 191

  Dunlang, king of Leinster, sons of, 163, 304

  Dunlavin, rath of, 56

  Dún Lethglasse (Downpatrick), fortress of, 84, 87, 301, 302;
    legend of Patrick’s burial at, 209

  Dunseveric, 162 and _note_

  Dunshaughlin, church of, 117 and _note_


  Easter fires, 104 _sqq._, 107 _note_, 111, 303-4;
    cycles, 371 _sqq._, 215

  Ebmoria, 346, 347

  Ebroica, 347 _note_

  _Ecclesiae liberae_, 176, 311, 378 _note_

  Egli, Mount, _see_ Crochan Aigli

  Elbodug of Bangor, 278

  Eleran, 271

  Elias, St., invoked by Patrick, 33 and _note_

  Elphin, Patrick at, 135-6, 358;
    Tírechán at, 249

  Elvira, Council of, 291

  Emain (Navan), fort, Daire dwells at, 154, 308

  Endae, son of Amolngaid, meets Patrick, 146, 360

  Endae Cennsalach, 164

  Eochaid Muighmeadhoin, king of Ireland, 72 and _note_, 96, 331

  Eochaid Tirmcharna, king of Connaught, 362, 363

  Eogan Bel, date of reign, 361 _sqq._

  Eogan Srem, date of reign, 362 _sqq._

  Episcopate, organisation of Irish, 375 _sqq._;
    _see_ Bishops

  Ere, converted by Patrick, 105

  Ercleng, 378 _note_

  Ermedach of Clogher, 271

  Erris, barony of, 146 _note_

  Ethelbert, 101

  Ethne, daughter of Loigaire, conversion of, 138, 307

  Ethne, river (Inny), 121

  Eucherius at monastery of Lerinus, 39;
    treatise of, _ib._;
    dwells aloof in island of Lero, _ib._, 295

  Euric, King, code of, 113

  Eusebius, _Chronicle_ of, 282

  Exorcists, employed by Patrick, 77 and _note_, 310


  Faramund, king of Salian Franks, 354

  Fastidius, 297

  Faustus, bishop of Reii, 40, 296

  Fedelm, daughter of Loigaire, conversion of, 138, 307

  Fedilmid, son of Loigaire, 102, 302

  Feine, the, 357

  _Feis Temrach_, 303

  Felartus, Bishop, 376

  Feradach, _see_ Sachall

  Ferdomnach, scribe, 225, 229, 254, 260;
    notes of his own composition in _Lib. Arm._, 251, 252

  Fergus, a compiler of _Senchus Mór_, 355, 356

  Fergus, bishop of Downpatrick, 302

  Fergus, grandson of Loigaire, 253

  Fermenus, _rí Tracia_, 354

  _Feth Fiada_, 76 _note_, 246

  Fethfió, 175 and _note_

  Fíacc, consecrated bishop by Patrick, 115, 116, 165, 310;
    Sletty tradition about, 258, 305;
    hymn ascribed to, 259, 263 _sqq._

  Finian of Clonard, 286

  Fith, _see_ Iserninus (cp. 297 and 350), 164

  _Flaith_, 67 _note_, 176 _note_

  _Flurumritt_, 304

  Fochlad (Fochlath), wood of, home of Patrick’s master, 27, 28, 29;
    people of, cry to Patrick in a dream, 42, 335;
    extent of, 127;
    in Fíacc’s hymn, 264

  Foilge slays Patrick’s charioteer, 357

  Forat, sons of, 254

  _Formatae_, 244

  Fortchernn, 102 _note_, 302

  Franks, mentioned by Patrick, 194, 317;
    Dathi fights against, 354

  Freewill, doctrine of, cp. Pelagianism

  Frigeridus, Renatus Profuturus, name of analogous to that of Patrick,
        23 and _note_

  Frumentius, founds church of Abyssinia, 7;
    work of, 8

  _Fudirs_, 68

  Fuirg, 254


  Galla, wife of Eucherius, 39, 295

  Gallinaria, 294

  Gara, Lake (Tecet), 130

  Garrchu, tribe of, 55, 58

  Gaul, Patrick in, 34, 341;
    condition of S.-W. Gaul, 35;
    invasions of, A.D. 407, etc., 329;
    condition of, A.D. 409-16, 338 _sqq._

  Gengen, monk, 378

  Georgia, conversion of, 5 and _note_

  Germanus crushes Pelagianism in Britain, 50 _sq._, 297;
    consecrates Patrick, 59, 338, 348;
    supports Hilary of Arles, 64;
    at Arles, 285;
    secular career of, 297;
    _Life_ of, by Constantius, 247 _sq._;
    lost _Life_ of, 277;
    mentioned in Fíacc’s hymn, 264;
    church of, in Wales, 277;
    mountain of, 276-7;
    Patrick studies under, 344-5

  Gervasius, tomb of and relics, 151

  Gildas, 188, 330

  Gilla Coemgin, 281

  Glastonbury fictions about Patrick, 273, 344

  Glenavy, 162 and _note_

  Glore, 162 and _note_

  Goidels in Britain, 13, 288, 289

  Gorgon, island, 294

  Gosact, son of Miliucc, tomb of at Granard, 122, 336;
    _Gosoctas_ in inscriptions, 336 _note_

  “Gospel of the Angel,” 321

  Granard, church of, 122

  Gratian, tyrant, 329

  Gregory I., Pope, 174, 214

  Gregory of Nyssa, values relics, 151

  Gregory of Tours, 245

  Guasacht, _see_ Gosact

  Gundobad, code of, 113


  Hagiography, early Irish, written in Irish, 266 _sqq._

  _Heptateuch_, 311

  Hercaith, 359

  “Hermon,” Mount, explanation of, 276-7

  _Hibernensis, Collectio Canonum_, 235 _sqq._

  Hilary, bishop of Arelate, at monastery of Lerinus, 39;
    his struggle with Pope Leo, 64;
    anti-Pelagian, 296

  _Historia Brittonum_, 277 _sqq._

  _Homily_ on St. Patrick, 279

  Hono, Druid, 135

  Honorat, Saint, modern name of island of Lerinus, 38 _note_

  Honoratus, St., cultivates isle of Lerinus and founds monastery
        there, 38, 39, 295

  Honorius, Emperor, sends for Britannic legion, 25;
    at Ravenna, 63;
    rescript to Britain, 315;
    Britain under, 326 _sqq._

  Hostages, 71

  Hy (Iona), 236, 175 _note_

  Hy Ceinselaich, 163

  Hy Lugair, 305

  Hy Nialláin, 308

  Hymns, _Genair Patraicc_, 259, 263 _sqq._;
    preface to, 279

  Hymns of Patrick, _see_ _Lorica_

  Hymns of Sechnall, _see_ Secundinus;
    preface to, 279


  Ia, _see_ Hy

  Iarlathus, Bishop, 319

  Iarnascus, St., 359

  Ibar, alleged pre-Patrician saint, 351

  Ibar, Bishop, 284

  Iberia, conversion of, 5

  Iberians, same race as Ivernians, 11

  Iberians of Spain, alphabet of, 186

  Ictian Sea, 331

  Inis Patrick, isle of, 83

  Inscriptions—
    at L. Selce, 145, 307
    ogam, cp. 312
      of Ballyhank, 102 _note_
      of Breastagh, 306
      of Burnfort, 289
      of Crag, 115 _note_
      of Donard, 312
      of Drumlusk, 299
      of Killeen Cormac (bilingual), 298, 305
      of Killorglin, 289
      of Man (stone of Dovaido), 11 _note_
      stones with _Gosoctas_, 336 _note_

  Inver-dea (Inber-dee), port of, Patrick makes his escape from, 31,
        293;
    lands at, 81, 300

  Ireland, Teutonic settlements in, 1 _sq._;
    church founded in, 2;
    Gallic Druids in, 11 _note_;
    communication of, with Britain, Gaul, and Spain, _ib._;
    position of, in ancient geography, 12 and _note_;
    trade of, with the Empire, _ib._;
    exiles from, in Britain, 13;
    relations of, to Roman see, 66;
    political and social condition of, 67-80;
    tribal districts and social grades, 67 _sq._;
    kingdoms of, 69 _sqq._;
    provinces of, 70;
    political condition of, 71 _sq._;
    religion and cults in, 74 _sq._;
    sorcery and Druidism, 76-80;
    poets of, 115;
    Christianity in, before Patrick, 349 _sqq._;
    closer connexion of, with Roman Empire, 213 _sq._;
    monasticism in, 214;
    schools of learning in, 220

  Irmin pillar, fall of, 124

  Irrus Domnand, 146 _note_

  Iserninus (Fith) ordained at Auxerre, 49, 297, 350;
    relations with Patrick, 163-4, 310;
    birthplace of, 164, 310;
    his coming to Ireland, 348;
    founds church at Aghade, 164 and _note_;
    draws up canons with Patrick, 166, 234;
    notice of, in _Lib. Arm._, 259 _note_ (cp. 253), 297

  Isidore of Seville, _Chronicle_ of, 281 _note_, 282

  Italy, Patrick escapes from his companions in, 35 and 36, 342

  Ivernians, communication with the Continent, 11

  Ivvera (Ireland), 305


  Jerome, St., founder of monastic institutions, 38;
    his description of devastation of Gaul, 338, 340

  Jocelin, _Life_ of Patrick, 279

  John of Tinmouth, _Sanctilogium_, 273

  Joseph, bishop of Armagh, 270

  Julian, Emperor, his treatment of decurions, 19

  Justianus, mac hu Daiméne, 309

  Justus, deacon of Patrick, 311


  Kells, St. Columb’s house at, 121 and _note_

  Kerry, district of, in Connaught, 130

  Kilcullen, 297 and 164 _note_, 310

  Killala, 149, 376

  Kill-araght, 145 _note_

  Killeen Cormac, graveyard of, 298

  Killespugbrone, 130, 307, 359

  Kilglass, Lake, 134

  Killossy (or Killyshea), church of, 163, 310

  Kilmore, in Moyglass, 135

  Kilmurchon, 255

  Kings of Ireland, 67 _sqq._

  _Kyrie eleison_, 229, 231 _sq._


  Laigin (Leinster, _q.v._), kingdom of, 69, 70

  Láthrach Patricc, _see_ Glenavy

  Latin, ecclesiastical language of western Europe, 218 _sqq._, 321;
    Latin loan words in Irish, 350-51

  Lecale, upper and lower baronies of, 87 _note_

  Legions in Britain, 328

  Leinster, Palladius in, 55;
    old kingdom of, _ib._ _note_;
    province of, 70;
    Patrick in, 163 _sqq._;
    early Christian communities in, 351

  Leo I., Pope, 64;
    _Epistle_ of, 152;
    decision on Easter, 285;
    Patrick’s relations to, 152 _sq._, 367 _sqq._

  Lérins, _see_ Lerinus

  Lerinus, islet of, reclaimed by Honoratus, 38;
    Patrick in monastery of, 39 _sqq._, 294 _sqq._, 337 _sq._, 342;
    Eastern influence on Lérins, 374

  Lero, isle of, 38 and _note_;
    Eucherius and Galla in, 39, 295

  _Less_, space or enclosure, 156

  Letha (= (1) Latium = Italy; (2) Letavia = Gaul), 264, 276, 292

  _Lex Catholica_, 247

  _Liber Angueli_, 253, 287, 371

  _Liber apud Ultanum_, 230, 249, 257, 346, 383

  _Liber Armachanus_, 226, 229, 251, 252 _sqq._ (and frequent
        references in Appendix)

  _Liber Cuanach_, 281, 310

  _Liber Hymnorum_, 246, 263

  Liturgy, introduced by Patrick, 170, 231, 286, 311

  Llanarman, 277

  Loan words (Latin) in Irish, 350-51

  Loarn, Bishop, disciple of Patrick, 90, 302

  Lochru, enchanter, 105

  Loigaire, High King, son of Niall, reign of, 72 and _note_;
    reign and policy of, 95 _sqq._, 353 _sq._;
    attitude of to Christianity, 99 _sqq._, 267, 351, 353;
    compact with Patrick, 112, 353;
    his Code, the Senchus Mór, 113 _sqq._, 355 _sqq._;
    mode of burial, 112, 304;
    feast of at Tara, 104, 303;
    story of the conversion of his daughters, 138 _sqq._, 250

  Lombards (anachronistic use of name), 292

  Lomman, Patrick’s nephew, founds church at Trim, 103, 292, 302

  _Lorica_, Irish Christian incantation, ascribed to Patrick, 77
        _note_, 246, 266

  Lucetmael, sorcerer, 106, 108

  Lugut, poet, tomb of, 115 and _note_

  Lupita, 292

  Lupus, bishop of Troyes, at monastery of Lerinus, 39;
    sent to Britain with Germanus, 51, 297;
    anti-Pelagian, 296


  MacCairthinn, 309, 176 _note_

  Maccu Cor, isles of, 83

  MacCuill, 258, 267

  MacFechach, grandson of Niall, 120

  Machet, 360

  Machia (Domnach Maigen), 251 _note_

  MacManus, Cathal, 279

  MacTaill, _see_ Mactaleus

  Mactaleus, 310

  Mael, Druid, 138;
    converted by Patrick, 140;
    name of and proverb concerning, 142 _sq._, 240 _sqq._

  Mael Póil, 273

  Maeve, 106

  Mag Ái, 135

  Mag Airthic, 130 _note_, 359

  Mag Domnon, 146, 148

  Mag-inis, plain of, 87 and _note_, 300

  Mag Nairniu, 130 _note_, 359

  Magonus, name of Patrick, 23, 278, 292

  Mag Slecht, idol in, 123 _sq._, 305-306

  Mahee Island, 302

  Man, Isle of, independent of Rome, 10 _note_, 288;
    Druidism in, 11 _note_;
    MacCuill bishop of, 267

  Marcellinus, _Chronicle_ of Count, 282

  Marcus, tyrant in Britain, 329

  Marguerite, Ste., modern name for isle of Lero, 38 _note_

  Margy, hills of, 165

  Marianus Scotus, 279

  Martin of Tours, 38;
    legendary connexion with Patrick, 273, 274;
    relations to Ninian, 313

  Mathona, 306, 358, 377

  Maucteus, 281;
    (Mochtae), 309-10

  Maun (Magonus), 278 _note_, 292

  Maxentius, Emperor, punishes Christians by making them decurions, 18

  Maximus, second abbot of Lerinus and bishop of Reii, 39, 40

  Maximus (tyrant), usurpation of, how it affected Britain, 21 _sq._,
        326 _sqq._, 330

  Meath, Dessi driven from, 13;
    kingdom of, 70;
    Patrick in, 104 _sqq._ (cp. 251)

  Mechar, 254

  Methodius, apostle of the Slavs, 217

  Milan, see of, 62 _sq._

  _Milites_ in Strathclyde, 314

  Miliucc (Milchu), Patrick’s master, 29 and _note_;
    perishes on a pyre, 85, 86 and _note_, 264, 335

  Miss, Mount, 29 _sq._;
    funeral pyre of Miliucc seen by Patrick from, 86, 335

  Mithraic worship, spread by Roman soldiers, 6 _note_

  Mochae, 303

  Mochtae (Maucteus), 309-10

  Mock-birth and mock-suckling, 293

  Moinenn = Ninian, _q.v._

  Monasticism in Ireland, 214

  Monesan (_genitive_ Moneisen), 307

  Moses, comparisons of with Patrick, 131, 210, 251, 276, 279, 380,
        382, (cp. 311)

  Moy, river, 148, 359

  Moyglass, 134

  Mrechtan (Brechtan), 301

  Mucneus, Bishop, 148 _note_, 311, 376

  _Mudebrod_, 92 _note_, 246, 302

  Mug Ruith, a mythical Druid, 76 _note_

  Muirchertach MacErca, 286, 361

  Muirchu, Life of Patrick, 82 _note_, 255 _sqq._;
    sources of, 257 _sqq._, 266 _sq._, 268;
    may have visited Ulidia, 300;
    prominence of Easter legend in his work, 303;
    on Patrick’s intended journey to Rome, 344 _sqq._

  Muirethachus, 376 and _note_

  Mullaghfarry, 148 _note_, 149

  Mumen (Munster, _q.v._), kingdom of, 70

  Municipal councils in Roman Empire, 17

  Munster, Patrick in, 163, 310

  Murder, Irish legislation on, 357

  Murrisk, promontory of (Muiriscc), 28, 131 _note_ (Umail)

  Múscraige Tíre, 254

  Muskerry, Patrick in, 163


  Naas, palace of kings of Laigin, 163

  Naí, 292

  Nantes, 34, 341

  Náo, 292

  Natfraich, king of Munster, 163

  Nathi, MacGarrchon, 299, 300

  Navan (Emain), 308

  Nemthur, 264, 323, 324

  Nennius (_Hist. Brittonum_), 278

  Nentria, 323

  Niall, king of Ireland, invades Britain, 25 _sq._, 331, 334;
    power of, 72 and _note_, 96;
    the slaying of, 331

  Nicon, Russian patriarch, 219

  Ninian, Bishop, 187, 313;
    builds a church at Whitern, 187

  Nino, apostle of Georgia, 5 and _note_

  Noendrum, 302

  _Norma magica_, 241

  _Notitia Dignitatum_, 328-9

  Nynias, _see_ Ninian


  Ocha, battle of, 361

  Odhran, charioteer of Patrick, 357

  Odissus, deacon, 264, 289

  O’Duinn, poem on kings of Connaught, 361 _sqq._

  Oengus, son of Natfraich, king of Munster, 162, 356

  Ogams, 185, 312;
    _see_ Inscriptions

  Olcan, Bishop, 368

  Oran, 144

  Oriel, kingdom of, 70 and _note_, 308

  Orientius, _Commonitorium_, 338-9

  Orior (Oirthir), 208 and _note_, 308

  Ossory, Patrick in, 163, 310

  Otto of Bamberg, apostle of the Pomeranians, 120, 171 _note_, 173
        _note_, 222

  Ovanus, 305

  Owles, 131 _note_


  Palladii, family of Bourges, 343 _note_

  Palladius, interested in suppression of Pelagianism in Britain, 51,
        297;
    in Ireland, 52;
    consecrated bishop by Celestine and sent to Ireland (A.D. 431), 54;
    his landing in Wicklow, 300;
    in Leinster, 55;
    death of, _ib._ and 59;
    churches founded by, 56 _sq._, 298;
    in Ulidia, 89 _sq._, 342-3;
    statement that he was called Patricius, 251, 343, 389 _note_, 391;
    account of in _Hist. Britt._, 278;
    companions of, 299;
    theory of his identity with Patrick, 343-4, 385, 389 and _note_,
        390-91

  Palmaria, island, 294

  _Paruchia_ (παροικία), meanings of, 244

  _Paruchia Patricii_, 249, 253, 287

  Paschal Tables, 283;
    cycles, 283, 352, 371 _sqq._, 388

  Patiens, bishop of Lyons, 247

  Patrick, birth and home of, 23;
    his family and relatives, 290, 292;
    his names, 23, 230, 291 (_see_ _sub_ Sucatus and Cothraige);
    his education, 23 _sq._;
    carried captive to Ireland, 26;
    captivity and escape, 27-34;
    place of captivity, 27 _sqq._, 334 _sqq._;
    his conversion, 30;
    takes passage on a ship, 31;
    his dream, 33;
    his journey through Gaul to Italy, 34 _sq._, 338 _sqq._;
    his account of this episode, 36;
    at the cloister of Lerinus, 39 _sqq._;
    returns to Britain, 41, 337;
    sees Victorious in a dream, 42;
    his resolve to go to Ireland, 47, 297;
    studies at Auxerre, 49, 296;
    is ordained deacon by Bishop Amator, 49, 297, 348;
    consecrated bishop, 59, 347 _sqq._;
    lands in Ireland, 81 _sq._;
    in Ulidia, 83-92;
    in Meath, 102 _sqq._;
    “first Easter” in Ireland, 104, 267, 303;
    influence of, on Irish legislation, 114 _sq._, 355 _sqq._;
    in Connaught, 126 _sqq._, 358 _sqq._;
    actual and alleged visits of, to Rome, 150 _sqq._, 344 _sqq._, 367
        _sqq._;
    founds Armagh, 154 _sqq._;
    ecclesiastical position of, in Ireland, 161, 182;
    in Dalriada, 162;
    in Munster, 163;
    in Leinster, 163 _sqq._;
    canons of, 166 _sqq._, 233 _sqq._;
    Paschal Table of, 170, 283;
    liturgy of, 170;
    numbers of his converts, 171;
    church organisation of, 171 _sqq._, 375 _sqq._;
    perils of, in Ireland, 172;
    expenditure of money by, 173;
    foundations of, 174 _sqq._;
    diocesan system of, 181 _sq._, 375 _sqq._;
    his denunciation of Coroticus, 193 _sqq._, 226, 227 _sq._, 316;
    his detractors and enemies, 195, 198 _sqq._, 318;
    his _Confession_, 196 _sqq._, 225 _sqq._, 317;
    Zimmer’s view of his _Confession_, 385;
    his illiteracy, 199, 206, 318;
    his false friend, 52, 202, 298, 318, 332;
    his youthful fault, 202, 332;
    his knowledge of the Scriptures, 206;
    citations of, from Scripture, 293, 319;
    popular Irish idea of, 204 _sq._;
    death and burial of, 206 _sqq._, 380 _sqq._;
    petitions of, 207, 319 _sq._, 251, 279;
    historical significance of, 212 _sqq._;
    compared to other missionaries, 215 _sqq._;
    chronology of his life, 331 _sqq._, 336 _sqq._;
    date of advent to Ireland, 283;
    day of death, 319, 227 _note_;
    alleged “second captivity,” 294;
    his charioteer, 357;
    his crozier and bell, 211, 320 _sq._;
    cup, 321;
    alleged opening of tomb of, 321;
    psalter written by, 311;
    mass of, _ib._;
    _Dicta_ of, 228 _sqq._ (see _Dicta Patricii_);
    Irish _Hymn_ ascribed to, 77, 246;
    favourite expressions of, 228, 231, 246;
    hagiographical comparisons with Moses (_see_ Moses);
    legendary travels of, 274 _sqq._;
    accretion of legends round, 266 _sq._;
    duplications of, 333 _sq._

  Patrick of Rosdela, 344

  Patrick, Old, _see_ Sen Patraic

  Paul, Apostle, double named, 23 and _note_;
    relics of, 154, 367

  Paulinus, friend of Probus, 273

  Paulinus of Pella, 339

  Pelagianism, 43 _sqq._;
    at Lérins, 47;
    crushed in Britain by Germanus, 50 _sq._, 297;
    in Ireland, 52, 53, 298

  Pelagius, sprung from Gaelic settlers in Britain, 15 _note_, 43, 296,
        350;
    promulgates the doctrine of freewill, 43 _sqq._;
    opposes Augustine and Jerome, 46

  Pennicrucium, 123

  Peter, St., relics of, 154, 367

  Petitions of Patrick, 319 _sq._

  Petra Cloithe (Alcluith), 314

  _Petra Coithrigi_, 291

  Picts, of Caledonia, invade Britain, 20 _sq._;
    of Dalaradia, visited by Palladius, 55, 342;
    Emain once their stronghold, 155;
    conversion of, in Galloway, 187, 313;
    apostates, 313, 315, 316

  Pillar worship in Ireland, 74, 123, 299

  Plague in Ireland (seventh cent.), 248

  _Pontificialia dona_, 235 (cp. 200)

  Potitus, father of Calpurnius, 16, 20;
    (Potid), 264, 289

  Presbyters in Irish Church, 286

  _Princeps_, ecclesiastical term, 243, 378

  Probus, his Life of Patrick, 273 _sqq._, 335, 341

  Prosper Tiro, epigram of, 46 _note_;
    notice of Palladius, 283, 298, 349;
    at Rome, 298

  _Providentia Divina, De_, 338, 339

  _Provincia_, use of the word, 368 _note_

  Ptolemy, his account of Ireland, 12

  Pyritz, 120


  Quadriga (Cothraige), 269 (cp. 291)

  Quoile, river, 84


  Raholp, _see_ Rathcolpa

  Rathceltchair (Downpatrick), 301

  Rathcolpa (Raholp), church at, 90, 302

  Rathcrochan, Patrick at, 137 _sqq._;
    mounds of, 306;
    Dathi’s tomb at, 355

  Rechrad, Druid, 148

  _Regia_, Ptolemy’s (Emain), 155 _note_

  Relics, 151 _sq._, 307 _sq._

  Restitutus, 292

  Rethmitus (? Sechtmaide), king of Britain, 274

  Rhydderch, 314

  Rodán, 360

  Rodercus, 314

  Roman Empire, prestige of, 8 _sq._, 93 _sqq._;
    idea and influence of, 222 _sq._

  Roman see, position and authority in western Europe, 61-66, 152, 169,
        216;
    between Leo I. and Gregory I., 214;
    appeal to, recognised in Ireland, 169 _sq._, 239, 369 _sqq._;
    attitude of Ireland to, _ib._

  Rome, Patrick’s visit to, 150 _sqq._, 367 _sqq._;
    alleged visit to, 344 _sqq._, 275, 389 _sq._

  Ros, _see_ Rus

  Rosnat, _see_ Whitern

  Rubin, 236

  _Ructi_, error for _Sucti_, 274

  Rufinus inspires Pelagius, 46

  Run map Urbgen, 278 _note_

  Rus, son of Trechim, 89, 301, 355, 356, 307

  Russia, relations to New Rome, 98;
    Christianity in, 99;
    _raskol_ in, 219


  _Sabhall_, name of churches, 309

  Sabhall, _see_ Saul

  Sachall, pupil of Patrick, 130, 174;
    bishop of Baslic, 145, 359, 376;
    psalter of, 311;
    at Rome, 367, 368, 369

  Saeoli, 249, 376

  Salt marshes in Mag-inis, 91 and _note_, 267

  Salvian, his notice of devastation of Gaul, 338

  Samhain, feast of, 107 _note_, 304

  Sandan, burning of the God, 111, 304

  Sannuch, 378 _note_

  Sardica, council of, 61 _note_

  Saul, church at, 87, 88, 301;
    death and burial at, 207 _sqq._;
    tomb at, opened, 321

  Scirte, _see_ Skerry

  Scoth Noe, 302

  Scots, pagan, in North Britain, 315;
    date of settlement there, 316

  Sechnall, _see_ Secundinus

  Sechnassach, 253

  Sechtmaide, king of the Britons, 293

  Secundinus, church of, 117;
    hymn of, 117, 246 _sq._;
    arrival of, in Ireland, 166;
    difficulties about his relation to Patrick, 292;
    alleged connexion with Armagh, 319

  Segais, battle of, 361, 363

  Segéne, abbot of Armagh, 261, 262

  Segéne, abbot of Hy, 374

  Segitius, presbyter, accompanies Patrick to Ireland, 59, 275, 345

  Selce, hill at Lake, 145, 359

  Selce, Lake, church near, 144, 249, 272, 307

  Semi-Pelagianism, 296

  Senachus, Bishop, 376

  Senchua, parish of (Shancoe), 129, 358

  _Senchus Mór_, code of Logaire, 97, 353, 355 _sqq._;
    bishops in, 379

  Senella Cella, 358

  Senior, St., 274

  _Seniores_ (in the _Confession_), 318

  Sen Patraic (Old Patrick), fictitious, 319, 343-4

  Septimius Severus, 293

  Setanta (Cuchullin), 83 and _note_

  Shancough, or Shancoe, _see_ Senchua

  Shannon (Sinona), river, 133 _sq._, 306, 360

  _Sidhe_, or fairies, 75

  Sidonius Apollinaris corresponds with Faustus, 40;
    friend of Constantius, 165, 247

  Siricius, Pope, 291

  Skerry (Scirte), 29 _note_;
    stronghold of Miliucc, 86 _note_, 258, 301

  Slan (Slaney), river, 84 and _note_, 301

  Slane, hill of, Patrick lights Pascal fire on, 104, 301, 303;
    Erc buried at, 105

  Slébte (Sletty), 116, 255, 258;
    dedicated to Armagh, 261;
    _civitas_, 378 _note_

  Slemish (Mount Miss), 29

  Sliab Húa-n-Ailella, altar in, 272, 352, 359

  Sligech, battle of, 362, 363

  Snakes in Lerinus, 296

  Solar worship, 74, 299

  Sorcery, _see_ Druidism

  Spain, Christianity in, 4;
    intercourse of, with Ireland, 11 _sq._

  St. Nicholas, island of, 273

  Staff of Jesus, 275, 276, 320

  Stettin, temple of, 125

  Stilicho, defends Britain, 22, 326 _sqq._;
    sends Britannic legion to Italy, 25, 328

  Stoechades, islands, 295

  _Stowe Missal_, 233, 311

  Strangford Lake, 85

  Strathclyde, 316

  Sucatus, name of Patrick, 23, 264;
    (Succet), 269, 274;
    meaning of, 291, 343 _note_

  Suck, river, 144

  Sulpicius Severus, _Life of Martin_, 248

  Syagrius, general, 191

  _Synodus I. Patricii_, 233 _sqq._

  _Synodus II. Patricii_, 237 _sqq._

  “_Synodus Romana_” (in _Hibernensis_), 237 _sq._;
    abandonment of, 263


  Tablets, wooden, 311

  Tacitus on trade of Ireland, 12 and _note_

  Taillte, in Meath, 119 and _note_, 305

  Tamarensis, insula, 273

  Tamnach (Tawnagh), 129 and _note_, 359, 377

  Tara, kingdom of, 69;
    “mound of the hostages” at, 71;
    Feast of, 112 _sq._, 303

  Tassach, artificer of Patrick, 90, 301;
    bishop of Raholp, 208 [acc. to Stokes and Strachan, _Tassach_ = _t’
        Assach_, “thy Assicus,” hypocoristic]

  Tecet, Lake, 145

  Tech na Rómán, 56, 298

  Telltown, _see_ Taillte

  Temple-fertagh, 156 _note_

  Tethbia, kingdom of, 121

  Theodore of Tarsus, 235

  Theodosius I. the Great, laws of, concerning decurions, 19 _sq._;
    sends Stilicho to defend Britain, 22, 326;
    recognises Maximus, 327

  Theodosius, father of Theodosius I., delivers Britain, 21, 325

  Theodosius II., Code of, 97, 99, 356;
    connected with Patrick’s ordination, 347 _note_

  Thomond, kingdom of, 71, 310

  Tigernach, 280

  Tigroney (Tech na Rómán), 56

  Tirawley (Tír Amolngid), the land of Amolngaid, 27, 28, 307;
    Patrick visits, 127, 358, 360

  Tírechán, Memoir of, 82 _note_, 248 _sqq._;
    section of, discovered by Dr. Gwynn, 229, 250;
    his story of Mael and Caplit, 240 _sqq._;
    nature of sources of, 249-50, 252, 254, 266, 360;
    relation to _Vit. Trip._, 272;
    at Baslick, 311;
    nature of his Itinerary, 358 _sqq._;
    his uncertainties about numerals, 250, 312, 359, 368, 369

  Tirerrill (Tír Ailella), 128, 358

  Tlachtga, hill of, 107 _note_

  Tonsure in Ireland, Roman tonsure enforced in, 167, 239 _sqq._, 286;
    native tonsure adopted afterwards, 183, 215

  Torbach, Abbot, 225, 254

  Torna-Éices, poem of, 355

  Tot-mael, 242-3

  Trajectus, 274, 341

  Trechim, father of Dichu, 89

  Tribes, Irish, 67 and _note_;
    ecclesiastical system of, 174 _sqq._

  Trim, story of foundation of, 102 _sq._, 253, 302;
    date of foundation, 308

  Troyes, synod at, sends Germanus and Lupus to Britain, 51

  _Tuath_, 67 _note_

  Tuatha De Danann, 137 _note_

  Turin, Council of, 63 and _note_, 299

  _Tyrants_ in Britain, 315

  Tyrconnell, territory of, 72 _note_

  Tyrrhenian Sea, 228, 264, 337


  _Uentre_, corrupt reading in MS. of Muirchu, 322

  Uisnech, hill of, 120, 305

  Ulaid (Ulster), geographical meaning, 28 and _note_;
    kingdom of, 70 and _note_

  Ulidia, Latin form of Ulaid (_q.v._), 28 and _note_;
    tradition of Patrick in, 82;
    Patrician legends in, 89

  Ulster, 70 and _note_

  Ultan, Bishop, 229, 248, 249, 271, 387

  Ultonia (Ulster), 70 and _note_

  Umail, promontory of, _see_ Murrisk

  _Unitas ecclesiae_, 140, 215, 370


  Vaison, Council of, 231

  Valentia, province, 188;
    position unknown, 324

  Valentinian III. confers sovereign authority in the west on the
        Bishop of Rome, 64

  Vandals in Gaul, 35, 329, 338

  Vartry, river, 31

  _Vici_, Roman, 290

  Victor, angel, 264, 278

  Victorian cycle, 280, 371-2

  Victoricus appears to Patrick in a dream, 42;
    becomes Victor, 278, 296

  Victoricus of Domnach Maigen, 296

  Victorius of Aquitaine, 371

  Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, 152, 187

  Vincentius at Lerinus, 39, 64

  Visigoths, conversion of, in Dacia, 4

  _Vita Secunda_, 268 _sq._

  _Vita Tertia_, 272 _sq._, 275

  _Vita Quarta_, 268 _sq._

  _Vita Quinta_, 273 _sqq._

  _Vita Tripartita_, 254, 266, 269 _sqq._, 275

  Vladimir, 99

  Vortigern, 102 _note_, 277

  _Vulgate_, use of the, in Patrick’s writings, 293, 319


  Whitern (Candida Casa), 187, 313, 325

  Wicklow, port of, 55, 293, 300

  Willibrord, apostle of the Frisians, 215

  Wizards, _see_ Druids

  Wolf-hounds, traders in Irish, take Patrick on their vessel, 31

  Women, position of, in Irish Church, 286

  Wulfilas, work of, 4 _sq._, 8, 217


  Xystus, Bishop of Rome, 60 _note_


  York, 328


  Zosimus, Bishop, 63

THE END

_Printed by R. & R. CLARK, LIMITED, Edinburgh._




WORKS by Professor BURY


_With Maps and Plans. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d._

_Library Edition. Revised. Two Volumes. 8vo. 25s. net_

A History of Greece To the Death of Alexander the Great

SOME PRESS NOTICES

_GUARDIAN._—“Professor Bury may be heartily congratulated on the
successful performance of a most difficult task. He has written a
thoroughly satisfactory History of Greece in a single volume, and
produced a book of value not only for students at school and at the
Universities, but also for scholars of maturer years and judgment.”

_SATURDAY REVIEW._—“Professor Bury has supplied a real want. At last we
have to hand in a single volume a History of Greece which is at once
comprehensive, critical, and up to date—a history, moreover, which may be
read not only with profit but with pleasure.... Will, no doubt, be found
useful even by specialists. To schoolmasters and tutors it is a veritable
Godsend.”

_SPECTATOR._—“Told with such clearness, fulness, and sense of proportion
that the book will stand as a model for a one-volume history, rivalled
only by J. R. Green’s similar work on the English people.... It has all
the qualities of accuracy, lucidity, and art in arrangement which are
the special merits of a short history. The book also contains numerous
excellent illustrations.”

_PILOT._—“Recognising in Professor Bury exceptional erudition, untiring
industry, brilliant scholarship, and a marked genius for historical
study, we expected much from his _History of Greece_. We may say in a
word our expectations are more than realised.”


_Globe 8vo. 3s. 6d._

A History of Greece for Beginners


_Two Volumes. 8vo. 32s._

A History of the Later Roman Empire

From Arcadius to Irene, A.D. 395-800

_CLASSICAL REVIEW._—“Mr. Bury’s volumes are an important and valuable
contribution to our knowledge of a period the history of which has been
too much neglected by scholars.”

_ATHENÆUM._—“This scholarly and vigorous work.”

_EDINBURGH REVIEW._—“His illustrative matter is, on the whole, ample and
correct.”

_OXFORD MAGAZINE._—“The bright and attractive chapters on literature and
on social life, which are scattered among the more solid matter, deserve
a word of special praise.”




EDITED by Professor BURY


HISTORY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN GREECE AND ITALY. By EDWARD A. FREEMAN.
Second Edition. Extra Crown 8vo. 12_s._ 6_d._


Prof. BURY’S EDITIONS OF PINDAR

THE NEMEAN ODES. 8vo. 12_s._

THE ISTHMIAN ODES. 8vo. 10_s._ 6_d._


FOREIGN STATESMEN

Edited by Professor BURY

_Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. each_

    CHARLES THE GREAT. By THOMAS HODGKIN, D.C.L.

    PHILIP AUGUSTUS. By Rev. W. H. HUTTON.

    COSIMO DE MEDICI. By Miss EWART.

    WILLIAM THE SILENT. By FREDERIC HARRISON.

    PHILIP II. OF SPAIN. By Major MARTIN HUME.

    RICHELIEU. By Prof. R. LODGE.

    MAZARIN. By ARTHUR HASSALL.

    MARIA THERESA. By Dr. J. FRANCK BRIGHT.

    JOSEPH II. By Dr. J. FRANCK BRIGHT.

    CATHERINE II. By Prof. J. B. BURY. [_In preparation_

    MIRABEAU. By P. F. WILLERT.

    CAVOUR. By the Countess MARTINENG CAESARESCO.

MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD., LONDON