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.