Rawlinson MS., have clearly been inserted here from the end of Part III.
(pp. 256-8). The motive of this repetition is, doubtless, supplied by
a remark of Dr. M’Carthy: “That upon the recurrence of his festival a
sketch of the life and labours of St. Patrick should be delivered in
the churches of Ireland would be a procedure in mere conformity with
ecclesiastical usage.” The _Tripartite Life_ was practically used as
material for sermons, though we may not feel warranted to go so far as to
say that it represents sermons reduced to literary form. The particular
paragraphs in question were added to Part I. as a “wind-up” for pulpit
purposes. There is a similar but shorter wind-up to Part II.
Among these added paragraphs (p. 60 = p. 256) occurs a bibliographical
notice:—
“These are the miracles which the elders of Ireland declared and
connected with a thread of narration. Colombcille, son of Fedlimid,
first declared Patrick’s miracles and composed them. Then Ultan, son of
Conchobar’s descendant; Adamnan, grandson of Tinne; Eleran of the wisdom;
Ciarán of Belach Duin; Bishop Ermedach of Clochar; Colman Uamach;[325]
presbyter Collait of Druim Roilgech” (trans. Stokes).
Of these works we know nothing, though we may suspect that “Ultan” may
refer either to the memoir of Tírechán (cp. the lemma in the _Lib.
Arm._) or to the book which Ultan lent to Tírechán. Observe that no
mention is made of Muirchu’s Life. But Muirchu was certainly a source of
the _Tripartite_. If, therefore, this list represents the works which
were used in the compilation, the compiler did not use Muirchu’s Life
directly, but some later work in which it had been wholly or partly
incorporated. This agrees with a conclusion which I had entertained on
other grounds, namely, that the compiler used W (the common source of
V₂ and V₄) in which the Muirchu narrative had been incorporated with
non-Muirchu material. The inference would be that the author of W is to
be sought in the list. For instance, Ciarán of Belach Duin, who died A.D.
775,[326] would suit chronologically.
The material of Tírechán appears almost entirely in Parts II. and III.
But there are considerations which suggest that it was not derived
merely from Tírechán, but from the older written material from which
Tírechán himself selected the memoranda which he has recorded. The
compiler certainly used Tírechán’s memoir, which was accessible to him
if he wrote at Armagh; but he has added supplements which produce the
impression of having belonged to the original records and not of being
later interpolations. (Cp., for example, the account of the altar in
Sliab Húa-n-Ailella, p. 94, and of the inscriptions at Selce, p. 106.)
It would, perhaps, be impossible to prove this directly, but there is
another fact connected with the sources of the Life which enables us to
establish the probability indirectly.
The Life contains a great number of notices of acts of Patrick in various
parts of Ireland which are not recorded by Tírechán, but which are
closely similar in character and style to the acts which he records. Now
we know that this material existed in the eighth century. For in the
_Additional Notices_ in the _Liber Armachanus_ (ff. 18 vᵒ b, 19 rᵒ), as
we have already seen (above, p. 254), we find the greater part of it
indicated by a series of memorial words (names of men and places), most
of which (not all) are explained in the _Tripartite Life_, Parts II. and
III.
The _Tripartite Life_, therefore, contains a considerable body of ancient
material, homogeneous with the material which Tírechán worked into his
memoir, and not to be found elsewhere. We have a means for controlling it
in the collection of jottings in the _Liber Armachanus_, and an attempt
to discriminate later accretions might be successful within certain
limits.
For an analysis of the _Tripartite Life_ in connexion with the jottings,
see Dr. Gwynn’s _Introduction_, chap, vi., with _Appendix_.
8. _Vita Tertia_
An anonymous _Life of Patrick_, dating perhaps from the ninth century,
is preserved in MSS. representing two different recensions, which I have
investigated and attempted to reconstruct in “A Life of St. Patrick”
(_Transactions of R.I.A._ xxxii. C, Part iii.) 1903. A corrupt text,
with large accretions at beginning and end, was published by Colgan in
the _Trias Thaum_. as his “Tertia Vita,” and this designation may be
conveniently retained. The Life was written in Ireland by an Irishman,
but the archetype of our MSS. was written in West Britain, as is shown
by Brythonic (Welsh or Cornish) interpolations. One interpolation,
which has led to vain speculation, must be noticed here. The passage
in c. 21, alleging a visit of Patrick to Martin, can be shown to have
been intruded into the context (which otherwise depends on Muirchu) and
caused confusion in the sense. The interpolator states that an angel
told _Martin_ to go to the _insula Tamarensis_; modern biographers have
supposed that the command was given to Patrick, though it can hardly be
held that there is any ambiguity in the Latin, and have conjectured many
things about the mysterious island. The island is St. Nicholas at the
mouth of the Tamar in Plymouth Sound, as Mr. C. J. Bates discerned. St.
Martin was popular in south-west Britain; and this interpolation enables
us to connect the archetype specially with south-west Britain. From it
was derived a lost Glastonbury copy which is the parent of two of our
existing MSS., which contain an interpolation claiming Glastonbury as
Patrick’s burial-place.
The author of the _Life_ used the _Confession_, Muirchu, Tírechán; but he
also incorporated a number of stories and incidents not found in any of
the documents in the _Liber Armachanus_. Some of these stories are also
found in the _Vita Tripartita_ or the _Vita Quarta_, but others are not
found elsewhere (see my enumeration, _op. cit._ 221-2).
[The _Vita Patricii_, in the _Sanctilogium_ of John of Tinmouth (see Text
in Horstman’s _Nova Legenda Anglie_, vol. ii.) is an abridgment of the
_Vita Tertia_; cp. Bury, _op. cit._ 223-4.]
9. _Life by Probus_
A Life of St. Patrick, published in the Basel edition of Bede’s works
1563, and reprinted by Colgan as the _Vita Quinta_, has for author
a certain Probus, who compiled the work at the request of a certain
Paulinus (_Ecce habes, frater Pauline, a me humili Probo_, etc. ii. 41).
Of Probus we know nothing otherwise. Colgan (p. 219) conjectures that he
is to be identified with Cœnachair of Slane, whose death by the Northmen
is noticed in the _Annals_ of the Four Masters, _sub a._ 948. Paulinus,
he suggests (p. 64), may be the Mael Póil who is described in the same
chronicle as bishop, anchorite, scribe, and abbot of Indedhnen (near
Slane), _sub a._ 920, where his obit is noticed. If these conjectures
were right the date of the Life would be prior to 920. But the
conjectures have no basis, the identification of Probus resting merely
on the possibility that this name might have been chosen as a Latin
equivalent of Cœnachair. There is internal evidence that the author was
Irish (see Colgan’s note, p. 61), but the only indication of date is the
prophecy that Patrick should baptize _Scotiam atque Britaniam, Angliam et
Normanniam caeterasque gentes insulanorum_ (i. 10). Colgan supposes that
Gallic Normandy is meant, and if so the Life could hardly be much earlier
than the middle of the tenth century.
Probus made use of Muirchu’s Life, but reconstructed certain parts of it,
introducing matter from other sources. Thus he adopts the two captivities
in Ireland from Muirchu, but while he identifies the first with the
captivity of the _Confession_, he connects Miliucc with the second.
His story of the second captivity is that Patrick’s parents and family
were in Armorica when it was devastated by the sons of Rethmitus (read
_Sethmiti_) king of Britain. Patrick, his brother Ructi, and a sister
were carried captive to Ireland, where Patrick served Miliucc. [Ructi was
married by another chief to his sister. This incident is obviously the
same as Miliucc’s attempt to marry Patrick to his sister, as recounted
in the W document (V₂ and V₄); so it may be inferred that Ructi is an
error for Sucti, and that Sucat-Patrick has been split by Probus or his
source into two brothers.] But Miliucc’s abode is placed near Mount Egli
(instead of Mount Miss). On escaping Patrick is taken to Gaul by a man
who sells him there into slavery,[327] but at “Trajectus” he is redeemed
by Christians.
The story of the fictitious second captivity is thus composed of (1)
matter derived from the true story of the first captivity, as told in
Muirchu and the _Confession_; (2) the Armoric legend; (3) the story
of the marriage of the brother and sister; and (4) the escape to
_Gaul_, with the mention of two towns: _Venit cum Gallis ad Brotgalum,
inde Trajectum_. Brotgalum, Colgan suggests, is meant to represent
_Burdigalam_, Bordeaux (cp. Appendix C, 6).
After this Patrick goes through a number of experiences before he comes
to sit at the feet of Germanus; or, in other words, Probus, before he
resumes the narrative of Muirchu, interjects material derived from other
sources. Patrick goes
(1) to St. Martin of Tours, who tonsures him;
(2) to the _plebs Dei_, who are barefooted hermits;
(3) to an “island between mountains and sea” where a great beast infested
a fountain;
(4) to St. Senior, bishop, _in monte Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani
et vallata est civitas eius septem muris_; this bishop ordained Patrick
_in sacerdotem_, and he read with him for a long time; here Patrick heard
in a vision the voice of children summoning him to Ireland; then he
went with nine men, and held converse with the Lord, who made him three
promises;
(5) to Ireland, where he is unsuccessful;
(6) to Rome; whence having received the apostolic blessing _reversus est
itinere quo venerat illuc_ (c. 20).
At this point the narrative of Muirchu is resumed most awkwardly. The
author might have made Patrick visit Germanus on his way back through
Gaul, but, instead, he proceeds: _transnavigato vero mari Britannico_,
following Muirchu literally, without any attempt to make the extraneous
matter fit in speciously to Muirchu’s story.
Some of these incidents are also found in the _Vita Tertia_, namely,
the visit to Martin, the visit to Rome, and the visit to _Mons Arnon_;
besides which the visit to a hermit who gives Patrick the staff of Jesus
is recorded.
Now the author of the _Vita Tertia_ and Probus undertook the same problem
of working these incidents into the main thread of the Muirchu story,
and they solved it in different ways. Probus solved it by a single
interpolation, grouping all the new matter together and finding a place
for it before the sojourn with Germanus. In the _Vita Tertia_ there are
three distinct interpolations arranged as follows:—
(Muirchu) Reads with Germanus.
(Interp.) Sojourns with Martin.
(Muirchu) Germanus sends Segitius with him to Rome.
(Interp.) Visits a hermit in _quodam loco_ and receives staff of Jesus.
(Muirchu) Is ordained bishop by Amator.
(Interp.) Visits Rome, and goes thence _ad montem Arnon_ when he salutes
the Lord.
It is difficult to say which of the arrangements is the more unskilful.
The same matter is found in a more expanded and “advanced” form in the
_Tripartite Life_, where the arrangement is as follows (Rolls ed. p. 25
_sqq._):—
(1) Patrick reads with Germanus; (2) is tonsured by Martin; (3) visits a
cave, in the Tyrrhenian sea, “between mountain and sea,” where there were
three other Patricks, and a beast infested a fountain; (4) Victor bids
him go to Ireland, and Germanus sends Segitius with him; (5) Patrick goes
to sea, with nine, and visits an island, where he found a young married
couple who had lived there since the time of Christ; and (6) goes thence
to Mount Hermon, near the island, where the Lord gives him the staff of
Jesus and grants him three requests; (7) goes to Rome.
In these three documents we have the same matter differently combined,
variously modified and augmented. Probus presents it in a more advanced
stage than the _Vita Tertia_, the _Tripartite_ in a more advanced stage
than Probus. The matter, however, is not homogeneous. The visit to Pope
Celestine at Rome has no legendary superstructure, and is found in the W
document (V₂ and V₄) which does not contain any of the other incidents.
The rest of the common material depends on three motives: (1) the
association of Patrick with Martin; (2) the staff of Jesus; (3) converse
with the Lord. The _Vita Tertia_ presents these motives in their simplest
form: (1) it is not stated that Patrick was tonsured by Martin; (2) the
staff of Jesus is received from a hermit, not from the Lord; (3) there is
no account of the conversation, we are simply told _salutavit Dominum ut
Moyses_. The _Tripartite Life_ brings the second and third motives into
the same setting.
In this legendary material the only thing which, for our purpose,
requires investigation is the description of the place in or near which
Patrick saluted the Lord. In the _Vita Tertia_ it is designated: _montem
Amon ar mair Lethe supra petram maris Tyrreni in civitate quae vocatur
Capua_, where the Irish words, _ar mair Lethe_ are equivalent to _super
mare Latinum_, that is, _super mare Tyrrhenum_. Probus has _in monte
Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani et vallata est civitas septem
muris_. The _Tripartite_ has _hisliab Hermóin_, “to mount Hermon.”
What was the name of the mountain? The MSS. of the _Vita Tertia_ give
_Arnon_, Probus and _Trip. Hermon_. As the form Hermon may well have had
a scriptural motive, we might suppose that the original name was Arnon.
But the description in the _Vita Tertia_ points in another direction.
_Supra petram maris Tyrrheni_ is clearly intended to represent the Irish
words preceding. But why _petram_? It points to _montem ar maen ar mair
Lethe_. And so, in view of _Hermon_, _Hermóin_ in the other sources, it
looks as if _Arnon_ is a corruption of _Armóin_ or _Armain_, which the
writer took to mean the Irish _ar maen_ = _supra petram_.[328]
The account in Probus of Patrick’s visit to this place deserves
attention. The city on the mountain is the seat of a bishop, who ordains
Patrick priest. While he is there he hears the voices of children in a
vision, and the angel bids him go to Ireland. Now here we have happening
in the city of the bishop on Mount Hermon exactly what, according to the
narrative of Muirchu (271-2), happened at Auxerre, the city of Germanus.
The conclusion is strongly suggested that the _sanctus senior episcopus_
of Mount Hermon is simply a double of Germanus. In the transference of
Germanus from Auxerre to the shores of the Mediterranean we have a step
in the _Tripartite Life_ where he instructs Patrick in the _Aralanensis
insula_ (p. 26 Rolls ed.). That, however, is a conscious combination of
known sources; but, if the bishop of Mount Hermon masks Germanus, we have
the Germanus episode coming down to us through a different channel of
tradition.
Is it possible that this channel was British? There is a place, Llanarman
in Wales, which means the church of Germanus. “Pen-arman” would mean the
mountain of Germanus; and it is worth considering whether the presumable
_mons Armain_ of _Vita Tertia_, and _mons Hermon_ of Probus, may not be
explained as the “mountain of Germanus,” being derived from a British
source.
The rest of the work of Probus is based, entirely or almost entirely, on
Muirchu and Tírechán.
10. _Notice of Patrick in the Historia Brittonum_
It is unnecessary to discuss here the complicated question of the gradual
evolution of the _Historia Brittonum_ through successive recensions. In
its oldest form it seems to have been mainly founded on a lost legendary
Life of Germanus of Auxerre, in which the British chief Vortigern played
a prominent part. This, the oldest form to which we can get back, though
there may have been a still older text behind it, can be fixed to the
year 679, and there can be no doubt that it contained the Arthurian
chapter (c. 56).[329] In the course of the following century a recension
of this, with some additions, was executed, and we possess it in an
incomplete form in a MS. preserved at Chartres. Then towards the year
800 the work was rehandled and considerable additions were made to it
by Nennius, a native of Wales. All our MSS., except that of Chartres,
are derived from the compilation of Nennius, but represent different
recensions.
Among the other additions which Nennius, pupil of Elbodug, Bishop of
Bangor,[330] made to the _Historia Brittonum_, was a sketch of the life
of St. Patrick (caps. 50-55). It is to be observed that in another
interpolation concerning the migrations of the Scotti (c. 15) Nennius
refers to oral information which he received from Irish scholars (_sic
mihi peritissimi Scottorum nuntiauerunt_), and it is possible that for
the Patrician section also he may have received help from the same
source. (1) The account of the mission of Palladius, the ordination of
Patrick, and his departure for Ireland, is derived directly from Muirchu,
but with some additions.[331] (2) The description of Patrick’s experience
on “Cruachan Eile” seems not to be derived directly from Tírechán, but
to depend on another source, in which the words _ut uideret fructum sui
laboris_ occurred (_Hist. Britt._ 197₁₈, Tírechán, 323₅), and some other
expressions common to both. The date of the fifth year of Loigaire
(196₆) might have been, but need not have been, taken from Tírechán. (3)
The three petitions of Patrick (197) are identical with and correspond
verbally to those which are added in the _Liber Armachanus_ to the
incomplete text of Tírechán (331); and the four points of comparison with
Moses (198) are also found in the same order among these _Additions_ to
Tírechán (332).
The dates in c. 55 do not correspond to the dates in the _Additions_ to
Tírechán. The statement that he was ordained in his twenty-fifth year
seems to stand alone. But the period of eighty-five years assigned to
his preaching in Ireland has arisen, we may surmise, from a confusion of
numerals (lxxii. and lxxxu.).
* * * * *
It is unnecessary to deal here with the notices of Patrick in the
Chronicles of Marianus Scotus (_ob._ A.D. 1083: text in Pertz, M.G.H.,
V., and Migne, P. L. 107, but these are superseded by MacCarthy’s _Codex
Palatino-Vaticanus_, No. 830, 1892 [Todd Lecture Series III.], to which I
may refer for a discussion of the dates). Nor need I speak of Jocelin’s
biography (twelfth cent.) since it is founded on sources which we
possess, and the only value which it may have for Patrician researches
is that a minute examination might conceivably show that Jocelin used
different recensions of some of our documents. For the purpose of the
present biography, such pieces as the Homily on St. Patrick in the Lebar
Brecc (printed by Stokes in _Vit. Trip._ vol. ii.), or the prefaces to
the Hymns of Sechnall and Fíacc, do not demand particular notice.
III
1. _The Irish Annals_
The extant chronicles which supply material for the history in the fifth
century are: (1) Annales Ultonienses, or Annals of Ulster, compiled
by Cathal MacManus of the island of Shanad (Bellisle) in Lough Erne,
who died 1498. The chronicle begins at A.D. 431, and comes down to the
compiler’s own time (continued to 1504). For the early Middle Age, at
least, it is the most valuable of the extant Irish Annals. Its greatest
merit consists in the fact that the compiler did not attempt to solve
chronological difficulties, but copied the data which he found. In his
introduction to the Rolls series ed. of the work (vol. iv. p. ix.) Dr.
MacCarthy says: “The sustained similarity between these and the other
native Annals proves that the work of MacManus consisted in selection,
mainly with reference to Ulster events, from the chronicles he had
collected.... Unlike O’Clery and his associates [the ‘Four Masters’],
he neither tampered with the text, vitiated the dating, nor omitted the
solar and lunar notation, but, side by side with the chronological errors
he was unable to correct, preserved the criteria whereby they can with
certainty be rectified.”
The years are distinguished by the ferial incidence, and the lunar epact,
of January 1, as well as by the A.D. and the Annus Mundi. Up to the
year 486 the A.D. corresponds correctly to the other criteria, but from
this point on up to A.D. 1014, it lags one year behind. Dr. MacCarthy
was the first to fix the precise point at which the error arises and to
explain its cause. It was due to the accidental omission of a blank year,
corresponding to A.D. 486, before the A.D. numeration was inserted. The
_Kal._ which represented 486 having fallen out, 486 was annexed to the
_Kal._ which really represented 487, (_Introduction_, pp. xcvi.-ix.).
Thus it is only the A.D. data that are wrong; the ferial, lunar, and
mundane data are right.
(2) Annals of Inisfallen (in Kerry). The entries in this chronicle are
much fewer than in the _Ann. Ult._, and the ferial and lunar data have
been very imperfectly preserved in the only extant copy. Dr. MacCarthy,
who has shown how the fifth-century portion can be reconstructed (_Cod.
Pal.-Vat._ 830, pp. 352-3), regards it as “the most ancient body of
chronicles we possess” (p. 369). He has shown that the early part was
based on the Victorian cycle.
(3) Tigernach (_ob._ 1088) composed a chronicle at Clonmacnois, beginning
in the remotest ages, of which only portions are preserved. They have
been published by Dr. W. Stokes in the _Revue celtique_ (vols. v. and
vi.). The second fragment ends at A.D. 361, and the third begins at A.D.
489, so that his record of the Patrician period is lost. His incompetence
in chronology has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy.[332] He drew mainly from
the same sources as the compiler of _Ann. Ult._, but as he was not
influenced in his selection by the same Ultonian interest, his work
contains many additional records.
(a) The _Chronicon Scotorum_ is an abridgment of Tigernach. This was
disputed by its editor (Hennessy, Rolls series), but has been established
by Dr. MacCarthy,[333] who has at the same time shown the incompetence of
the abbreviator (MacFirbis). For the fifth century its value consists in
showing what entries were to be found in Tigernach.
(4) The _Annals of the Four Masters_, a chronicle in Irish from the
earliest times, compiled in Donegal by O’Clery and three others in the
seventeenth century, has some value for the early Middle Ages, because
it preserves notices derived from older chronicles that are not extant.
But its dates are untrustworthy because the compilers had no skill in
chronological computation. This has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy (_op.
cit._ p. 370 _sqq._). One of their sources was the _Annals of Ulster_,
which supplies a means of correcting their mistakes. Among their other
authorities were the _Book of Clonmacnois_ (Tigernach?) and the _Book of
the Island of Saints_ (in Lake Ree).
From these compilations it might be possible to reconstruct the common
annalistic structure on which they are based; with the help of the
chronological tracts and poems which are contained in the _Book of
Leinster_, the _Book of Ballymote_, etc. It is clear that for such a
reconstruction the _Annals of Ulster_ would supply the clearest traces of
the plan.
The Irish seem to have had a special taste and faculty for chronological
computations,[334] and in the early part of the seventh century, if not
sooner, they were laying the foundations for national Annals on the model
of the Roman Annals. In the _Annals of Ulster_ a number of entries,
ranging from A.D. 467 to A.D. 628, are justified by references to the
_Liber Cuanach_. Zimmer, with great probability, identifies Cuana, the
author of this lost work, with Cuana mac Ailcene, a king of Fermoy, whose
death is noted in _Chron. Scot._ and in _Annals of F. M._ under A.D.
640.[335] The references under the year 482 show that the _Book of Cuana_
dealt with (the chronology at least of) the pre-Christian period. The
authorship of a south Irish prince is consistent with the circumstance
that many of the entries in question relate to the affairs of South
Ireland.[336] For chronological studies I may refer also to the evidence
of Tírechán, on which I have dwelt in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ April 1902,
244-5.
The _Annals of Ulster_ (and Tigernach) have some entries in Latin and
others in Irish. Of the Latin entries, some relate to Roman history,
others to native history. So far as the fifth and sixth centuries
are concerned, it is reasonable to conjecture that the Latin entries
represent an early and generally accepted synchronistic reconstruction,
which had been made with the help of Roman annals, and especially the
Chronicle of Marcellinus. It has been proved by Dr. MacCarthy, from the
synchronistic treatises which he has studied in connexion with Tigernach,
that the chronology of pre-Patrician history was based on Jerome’s
edition of the Chronicle of Eusebius. For the fifth and sixth centuries
Isidore and Bede are referred to, as well as Marcellinus; but most of the
foreign entries are taken verbally from Marcellinus. The difficulties
and uncertainties of the synchronisers seem to be reflected in the
alternative dates of the _Annals of Ulster_, where an event given under
one year often appears in another place, with the addition _hic alii
dicunt_, or something of the kind.
In regard to the few and brief entries relating to Patrick, the internal
evidence testifies to the antiquity of the tradition, and excludes
any suspicion of fabrication on the part of the annalistic compilers.
While the legendary date of Patrick’s death, which had become vulgar
in the seventh century, was admitted and emphasised, the true date,
notwithstanding the inconsistency, was allowed to remain; and in the
second place, not a single notice based on the assumption that Patrick
was still alive appears in the interval between the true date and the
false date. A fabricator who was concerned to invent notices about
Patrick would not have been likely to leave thirty years a complete
blank. Thus if the few Patrician entries prior to A.D. 461 were
fabrications, it would seem that they must have been invented before
the legendary date of his death in A.D. 493 had become current. This
consideration establishes a strong presumption of their antiquity; if
they are not genuine, they must have been very early inventions. But
intrinsically they offer nothing to arouse suspicion; on the contrary,
it is incredible that a fabricator, producing annalistic records in the
interest of a “Patrician legend,” would have confined himself to the
interpolation of just these slender notices. These entries will be found
under the years 432, 439, 441, 443, 444, 461; the notices of the deaths
of Secundinus, 447 (_Ann. Inisf._ 448), and Auxilius, 459, may perhaps
be added.
Dr. MacCarthy has made it highly probable that the Paschal Table formed
the nucleus or framework of the early (from A.D. 432) portion of the
original Annals (_loc. cit._ p. c. _sqq._). On this hypothesis he is able
to give so satisfactory an explanation of the notice of Patrick’s advent,
that the truth of the hypothesis may almost be said to be demonstrated.
The mission of Palladius is recorded, in the words of Prosper, under
A.D. 431, with which the Inisfallen and Ulster Annals begin. But it is
assigned to the wrong consuls in _Ann. Ult._; A.D. 431 was the year of
Bassus and Antiochus; but it is here described as the year of Aetius and
Valerius, who were consuls in A.D. 432. Obviously, therefore, the words
_Aetio et Valerio consulibus_ have been erroneously transferred from the
notice _s.a._ 432 to the preceding year; as is borne out by a passage
in a chronological tract in the _Book of Ballymote_, where we read:
“The year after that [the sending of Palladius], Patrick went to preach
the gospel to Ireland. Etius and Valerianus were the two consuls of
that year” (_loc. cit._ p. cix. _note_). Now, seeing that the advent of
Patrick is not recorded in any Roman chronicle, and that Irish events are
not dated in the Irish Annals by consular years, the question arises how
the advent of Patrick came to be associated with the consuls of the year.
Dr. MacCarthy solves the problem, simply and I think convincingly, by
pointing out that Patrick drew up (before he left Gaul) and took with him
to Ireland a prospective Paschal Table, which, like other western Paschal
tables, would have had its initial year distinguished by the consuls.
Even if we had no definite testimony that Patrick took with him a Paschal
Table, we could have no doubt that he must have done so;[337] it was an
inevitable precaution. But we have the definite testimony of Cummian,
who mentions the 84 Paschal cycle, “quem sanctus Patricius, papa noster,
_tulit_ et fecit.”[338] The initial year in this table would naturally
be the year in which Patrick started for Ireland, A.D. 432; and thus the
year of his advent was recorded with a consular date.
As for the other Patrician notices in the Annals enumerated above, the
most probable origin seems to be that they were derived from brief
entries made in the margin of this or another Paschal Table dating from
the fifth century.[339] This view best accords with the paucity and the
nature of the notices, which were certainly not composed by any one
wishing to work the incidents of St. Patrick’s life into existing Annals.
* * * * *
The old Welsh Annals (_Annales Cambriae_: the edition in the Rolls series
has been superseded by that of Mr. E. Phillimore in _Y Cymmrodor_, ix. p.
141 _sqq._ 1888) contain a few notices of Irish ecclesiastical history.
This chronicle extends from A.D. 444 to 977, but the first entry is under
453 and the last under 954, the preceding and the following years being
respectively blank. Mr. Phillimore gives reasons for supposing that the
Annals in their present form were finished in 954 or 955 (p. 144).
Now it is to be observed that before the year 516 (to which the battle of
Badon is falsely assigned) there is no entry bearing on British history.
Before this year there are only five entries, of which four relate to
Ireland, and the fifth to the celebration of Easter. They are as follows:—
an’ [A.D. 453] Pasca commutatur super diem dominicum cum[340]
papa leone episcopo rome.
an’ [A.D. 454] Brigida sancta nascitur.
an’ [A.D. 457] Sanctus Patricius ad dominum migratur.
an’ [A.D. 468] quies benigni episcopi.
an’ [A.D. 501] Episcopus ebur pausat in christo anno. cccl.
etatis suae.
The Irish dates do not coincide exactly with those of the Irish Annals.
In _Ann. Ult._ 452 and 456 are given as alternative dates for the birth
of Brigit; 467 for the death of Benignus; and the death of Ibar appears
under three years, 500, 501, and 504. Tigernach gives 502, and adds the
legendary age (cuius etas ccciii. annorum erat). The date of Patrick’s
death corresponds to the entry in _Ann. Ult._ A.D. 457. _Quies senis
Patricii ut alii libri dicunt._
In these (and one or two other Irish dates in the sixth century) there is
nothing to suggest a British chronological tradition independent of the
Irish Annals. The dates were clearly taken from Irish books, just like
the Irish dates in the _Historia Brittonum_; and throw no additional
light on the chronology.[341]
Leaving out the Irish dates, which were certainly inserted at a late
period in the growth of the chronicle,[342] we have a long and empty
enumeration of years, unrelieved except by the notice of Pope Leo’s
decision as to the celebration of Easter in 455. This notice, which
appears under 453, properly belongs either to 454 or 455. (It might
appear under 454, because in that year Leo notified his decision to the
bishops of the west).[343] This blank table of years, with one Paschal
notice, seems a confirmation of Dr. MacCarthy’s theory, and suggests that
the original basis of the Cambrian Annals was a Paschal Table.
If this be so, the circumstance that the initial year is A.D. 444
should have some significance. I hazard the guess that it may have some
connexion with the second visit of Germanus to Britain. In A.D. 444
Germanus was at Arles, where he took part in the deposition of Bishop
Celidonius.[344] The investigation of Levison shows that the second visit
probably occurred between this year and the death of Germanus, which
happened before A.D. 450.[345] If, as is possible, 445 is the date, a
Paschal Table with 444 as initial year might have been brought to Britain
by Germanus.
2. _The Catalogus Sanctorum_
The _Catalogus sanctorum Hiberniae secundum diversa tempora_ is a very
brief sketch of the ecclesiastical history of Ireland from the time
of St. Patrick to the year 665 A.D. Its composition may belong to the
first half of the eighth century, but is generally admitted not to be
later. The text has been printed by Ussher, _Brit. Eccl. Ant._, 913
_sqq._ ed. 1639 = Works, vi. 477 _sqq._ (from two MSS.), and by Fleming,
_Collectanea_, 430-1 (from a MS. which is supposed to be a Codex
Salmanticensis at Brussels). From these two texts it has been printed
by Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, ii. 292-4. There is a translation in
Todd’s _St. Patrick_, 88-9.
The framework of this sketch is patently artificial. Three definite
periods are distinguished, and to each is assigned a different category
of saints. The chronology is marked by the reigns of the kings of
Ireland, and the three periods are as follows:—(1) 432-544 A.D. _ordo
sanctissimus_; (2) 544-598 A.D. _ordo sanctior_ or _sanctus sanctorum_;
(3) 598-665 A.D. _ordo sanctus_. There is thus a decline in saintliness
in the second order of saints, and a further decline in the third.
The distinctive features of the first period, which includes the time of
St. Patrick, are noted as follows:—(1) All the saints were bishops; (2)
There was unity in the Church, one liturgy, one tonsure (the Celtic), one
mode of observing Easter, and all obeyed the guidance of Patrick; (3) The
saints did not disdain the ministration and society of women.
The second period differed in all three respects from the first: (1) This
order of saints consisted chiefly of presbyters, there were few bishops;
(2) The unity of the Church was not wholly maintained; it was maintained
in regard to the tonsure and the Paschal cycle, but different liturgies
were introduced, and different monastic rules; it could no longer be said
that _unum ducem Patricium habebant_; (3) Women were separated from the
monasteries.
The third order consisted of presbyters and only few bishops. The
conversion of the south of Ireland to Roman usages falls into this
period, so that it is marked by still more diversity than the second,
since two different modes of tonsure and of the determination of Easter
prevailed in Ireland. There was, moreover, a tendency among the saints to
betake themselves to the solitary life of hermits.
The artificiality of this arrangement is emphasised by the circumstance
that the author conceives each period to be coincident with exactly
four reigns. This is contrary to fact in the case of periods 1 and 3.
In period 1 the reign of Muirchertach, which lasted twenty years, is
omitted; in period 3, three reigns are omitted.
Thus historical accuracy has been sacrificed to symmetry. But there
is also a fundamental chronological error. The author’s date for the
beginning of his second period is too late, for the activity of some of
the leading saints whom he places in it, such as Ciarán of Clonmacnois
and Finian of Clonard, began earlier than A.D. 544.[346]
These examples of looseness do not predispose us to accept the author’s
particular statements without further evidence. But the most important
point in his conception of the development, namely, the decline from
uniformity and the rise of individualism after the Patrician period
(though he puts the beginning of this movement too late), is in
consonance with probability and with other evidence.
3. _Liber Angueli_
This document, contained in the _Liber Armachanus_ (printed in Rolls
ed., 352 _sqq._), is a clumsy invention, fabricated at Armagh, probably
early in the eighth century, in the interests of the Armagh jurisdiction.
It has importance for the ecclesiastical history of Ireland, but none
for the acts of Patrick. Its motive, however, illustrates the confessed
motive of Tírechán’s _Memoir_, the interest of the _Paruchia Patricii_.
It has been, for the first time, critically treated by Dr. Gwynn, who
makes it highly probable that it consists of two different compositions:
(1) the _Colloquy_ with the angel, and (2) _Decrees_ concerning the
rights of Armagh. These parts are separated by a space in the MS. at the
top of fol. 21 rᵒ a (Part ii. begins _de speciali reuerantia_), and Dr.
Gwynn shows by a careful comparison that they are probably of distinct
origin, the _Decrees_ being the older, and the _Colloquy_ being composed
as a sort of introduction to them with the view of supporting their
validity by divine authority (see Gwynn, _Introduction_ to the _Book of
Armagh_, chap. vi.).
For the mention of the appeal to the Roman see in last instance, see App.
C, 16.
APPENDIX B
NOTES
CHAPTER I
P. 12.—The intercourse of Ireland with the Roman provinces is illustrated
by coins found in the island. See _Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy_,
ii. 184-8 (1843), on a find of coins (early imperial, from Vespasian to
the Antonines) in Faugh Mountain, near Pleaskin, Giant’s Causeway, Co.
Antrim; cp. also _ib._ 186-7; _ib._ vi. 441 _sqq._ (1856), a paper by
Petrie on coins of the Republic found near Rathfarnham, Co. Dublin; _ib._
525, on eight coins (imperial, from Tiberius to Constantine) found near
Downpatrick; _Proc. of Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland_, xxx. p. 176
(1900), fifteen coins (Constantine) at Tara.
P. 14.—Gaelic settlements in S.-W. Britain. Sources: Cormac’s _Glossary_,
s.v. mogeime (ed. Stokes); the text (of which an extract was printed by
Zimmer in _Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 85) from Bodleian MSS. Rawlinson, B.
502 f. 72 c., and Laud 610 f. 100 a. 1, edited with translation by Kuno
Meyer (_Y Cymmrodor_, 14, 101, _sqq._). Cp. also _Historia Brittonum_,
§ 14, p. 156, ed. Mommsen. See Zimmer, _ib._ on these settlements. He
determines the date of the composition of the Rawlinson-Laud document as
about A.D. 750. The question as to the survival in West Britain of the
descendants of an ancient pre-British Goidelic population (maintained by
Professor Rhŷs, combated by Professor K. Meyer, see _Transactions of Hon.
Soc. of Cymmrodorion_, 1895-6, p. 55 _sqq._) does not affect the reality
of a later Goidelic settlement in historical times. On the Dessi cp.
Rhŷs, _Studies in Early Irish History_, p. 56; _Origin of Welsh Englyn_,
pp. 26, 73, 179 (in _Y Cymmrodor_ xviii. 1905); _Celtic Britain_ (ed. 3),
p. 247 _sqq._
P. 10.—The statement that Man was never conquered by Rome might have
to be modified if, as has occurred to me, the words of Tacitus at the
beginning of _Agricola_ 24, _naue prima transgressus ignotas ad id tempus
gentes crebris simul ac praeliis domuit_, record a descent of Agricola on
that island. In the context an expedition to Caledonia seems excluded.
[_Prima_ is unintelligible. It may be an instance of the common confusion
of _un_ with _im_, _ima_ (for _una_) having been taken as an abbreviation
of _prima_.]
P. 14.—“Perhaps were conditions of military service.” A stone of
Killorglin (now in the Dublin Museum) bears the ogam inscription
GALEATOS, which Professor Rhŷs explains as genitive of Latin _galeatus_,
a helmed soldier. He thinks that it was a name “first given to a Goidel
who had worn the Roman _galea_, that is one who had served in the Roman
army. For one cannot help comparing it with _Qoeddoran-i_ as connected
with _Petrianae_, and the name _Sagittarius_, of which the genitive
_Saggitari_ was found in ogam on a stone discovered at Burnfort, in the
neighbourhood of Mallow, in Co. Cork. All three names are presumably
to be explained on the supposition of Goidelic touch with Roman
institutions, especially the military system; not to mention such Latin
names as _Marianas_, _Latinus_, and _Columbanus_, or their significance,
so to say, in this context” (reprint from _Proceedings of Royal Society
of Antiquaries of Ireland_, Part i. vol. xxxii. 1902, p. 16).
CHAPTER II
P. 16.—Calpurnius: _Confession_, 357₄ (Armagh MS. has _Calpornum_; Cotton
MS. _Calpornium_; Brussels MS. of Muirchu, _Cualfarni_, 495₇). Properly
a _nomen_, but, like other _nomina_, adopted as a _cognomen_. As such,
however, it does not seem to occur often. Cp. _C.I.L._ xiv. 570; iii.
Suppl. Pars post. 14354²⁸; viii. 9157.
_Ib._—Potitus: _Confession_, 357₅ (Armagh MS. _Potiti presbyteri_, and in
the margin _filii Odissi_ added in the same hand. It is to be noted that
the copy of the _Confession_ used by Muirchu seems to have had simply
_Potiti presbyteri_, 494₇. Hence the inference is suggested that _filii
Odissi_ was not in the original text of St. Patrick’s work, but was added
in the margin from some other source, and inserted by the scribe of the
Cotton MS. in the wrong place—before, instead of after, _presbyteri_.
Potitus, not Odissus, was the presbyter. In the hymn _Genair Patraicc_,
l. 4, Odissus is described as a deacon). Potitus was a common cognomen
in the Roman empire; examples will be found in almost any volume of the
_C.I.L._ (_e.g._ v. 834, 970, 6125, 7436; ii. 1172, 3799, 4006; xiv.
1332₁₁,₇, 3964, etc.).
P. 16.—Calpurnius a decurion: _Corot._ 377₂₀ decorione patre nascor. That
Patrick’s family were British provincials and lived in Britain there
can be no question: _Confession_, 370₁₀,₁₂, and 364₁,₂ (cp. _Corot._
375₂₃), passages which prove that Patrick regarded Britain as his native
land, and that his family lived there continuously from the time of his
captivity till his old age. There is no evidence whatever that they had
come and settled in Britain during his boyhood, and his biographer in
the seventh century writes unhesitatingly that he was _Brito natione, in
Britannis natus_ (Muirchu, 494, 6). Patrick does not say himself that he
was of British descent, but the presumption that his family was British
is confirmed by his Celtic name Sucat (see below, 291).
P. 17.—Decurions in smaller towns. The evidence is collected in Kübler’s
article _Decurio_ in Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft_. The _canabae_ which grew up at military stations
sometimes received self-governing privileges and had decurions (the
evidence is for Apulum in Dacia, Moguntiacum, and Brigetio). There is
also evidence for decurions in _pagi_, but only for Africa. _Vici_ and
_castella_ were attributed to the larger towns near which they were
situated, and had no _ordo decurionum_ (see _Cod. Just._ 5. 27. 3. 1;
10. 19. 8). We can therefore infer that Calpurnius was a member of
the municipal senate of some town in the neighbourhood of the _vicus_
Bannaventa.
_Ib._—The condition of decurions or _curiales_ in the fourth and fifth
centuries. Chief source: _Codex Theodosianus_, esp. xii. 1. The subject
is well treated and elucidated in Professor Dill’s _Roman Society in the
Last Century of the Western Empire_, Bk. iii. chap. 2 (On the Decay of
the Middle Class).
P. 18.—“Sixteen acres or upwards”: _ultra uiginti quinque iugera priuato
dominio possidens_, _Cod. Th._ xii. 1, 33.
_Ib._—“Sinews of the republic”: _nerui reipublicae_, _Novell. Maioriani_,
vii. 1.
P. 19.—Curials who took orders. Julian’s rescript: _Cod. Th._ xii. i, 50.
Enactments of Theodosius I., _ib._ 121 (A.D. 390); 123 (A.D. 391; cp.
esp. § 5).
P. 20.—Married clergy. Calpurnius and his father are instances of married
clergy, belonging to the period of transition, before the principle of
celibacy had been generally recognised. Enjoined by the Spanish Council
of Elvira in A.D. 305, this principle had not been universally accepted
even in Spain, for it was in answer to an appeal from a Spanish bishop
that Pope Siricius wrote his Decretal of A.D. 385, laying down the
necessity of celibacy. This ruling expressed the rapidly growing tendency
in the western churches, yet at a much later time Gallic councils found
it necessary to legislate against married clergy. There is therefore
nothing surprising in finding married deacons and presbyters in Britain
in the fourth century. It is open to any one who chooses to _believe_
that Calpurnius and Potitus gave up family ties before they took
orders; but such a belief would be a pure act of faith, superfluous and
ungrounded.
P. 23.—The names _Patricius_ and _Sucat_. The statement of medieval
biographers that the name _Patricius_ was first assumed on the occasion
of ordination must be regarded as a conjecture to explain the tradition
that he had four names. The earliest mention of the four names (Sucat,
Magonus, Cothrige, and Patricius) is in Tírechán (p. 302), who found
them in a written source. There is no difficulty about Cothrige; it has
been recognised (by Todd, Rhŷs, Thurneysen, Zimmer) that it is simply
an Irish equivalent for Patricius, with the regular mutation of _p_ to
_c_, which we find in early loan words from the British language (_e.g._
_casc_ = _pascha_, _cruimthir_ = _premter_ for _presbyter_, cp. Zimmer,
_Early Celtic Church_, p. 25). I have pointed out traces of an older
(labio-velar) form: _Qatrige_ (“Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 200).
I have also shown (_ib._ p. 201) that, in early tradition, this name
was specially connected with Patrick’s captivity, and this supports the
view that he was named Patricius as a child (his Irish captors rendered
it _Qatrige_ or _Qotrige_). The genuineness of the name Sucatus (also
recorded by Muirchu, _Sochet_, p. 494), which corresponds to the modern
Welsh _hygad_, “warlike” (cp. Stokes, _Trip._ p. 616, and the explanation
in the scholia on the hymn _Genair Patraicc_, l. 3), is generally
admitted and derives some support from a similar consideration (Bury,
_ib._ p. 201). It is probable that when Patricius went to Ireland as
a bishop his name was generally rendered Patraicc (with _p_), because
it now came in its Latin form, and not as a Brythonic word (Patric?).
But we have traces of the use of the other form in _petra Coithrigi_ at
Uisnech (Tír. 310₂₅) and _petra Coithirgi_ at Cashel (_ib._ 331). Before
the seventh century, the _Sprachgefühl_ for the mutation of foreign _p_
to _c_ had so completely disappeared that the equation _Cothrige_ =
_Patricius_ was not recognised, and an absurd derivation for _Cothrige_
was invented (Tír. 302); but it is significant that this etymology was
connected with the captivity.
The fourth name _Magonus_ (Tír.: _Magonius_ in later documents) appears
in the _Historia Brittonum_ as _Maun_. It seems to me to be simply the
Roman cognomen Magonus (see _C.I.L._ v. 4609; viii. 9515).[347]
P. 23.—Concessa. There is no reason to doubt the tradition (Muirchu,
p. 494) that this was the name of Patrick’s mother. No credit can be
attached to the names or existence of numerous sisters (Lupita, etc.)
mentioned in later documents. The tradition that Secundinus (Sechnall)
was his sister’s son might be regarded as a ground for assuming that he
had at least one sister. But it is to be observed that the tradition
appears in an extremely suspicious form. In the preface to the _Hymn_
which is called by his name (_Lib. Hymnorum_, i. p. 3), Secundinus
is described as “son of Restitutus of the Lombards of Letha and of
Darerca, Patrick’s sister.” But a woman named Dar-erca must have been
an Irishwoman, not a Briton; and the expression “Lombards of Letha”
for Italy suggests that the statement was not derived from a very
ancient source. Secundinus does not appear in Muirchu; in Tírechán he
is only mentioned in a list of bishops ordained by Patrick; and in the
_Additional Notices_ (p. 346), where he occurs once, nothing is said of
kinship. But he is mentioned twice in the Annals.[348] In A.D. 439 (_Ann.
Ult._) he arrives in Ireland, already a bishop, to help Patrick; and this
record must be preferred to Tírechán’s statement that Patrick ordained
him. Under A.D. 447 his death is recorded (_Ann. Ult._ A.D. 448, _Ann.
Inisf._), in the seventy-fifth year of his age. At that time Patrick
cannot have been much more than fifty-eight (see Appendix C, 3), so that
he would have been about seventeen years younger than his nephew. This is
impossible, except on the supposition that the mother of Secundinus was
half-sister of Patrick, daughter of a former wife of Calpurnius.
In _Add. Notices_ Lomman (p. 335) is described as his sister’s son, and
four brothers of Lomman are named as bishops in Ireland; and (p. 340) a
brother of Patrick is mentioned as father of Náo and Naí. It is to be
observed that none of the names are Latin. Does Patrick’s statement in
the _Letter against Corot._ 377₁₅ (quis me compulit—alligatus spiritu—ut
non uideam aliquem de cognatione mea?) justify the inference that none
of his _cognati_ were in Ireland?
[The story which places Patrick’s capture in Armorica (_Vit. Trip._ p.
16; _Probus_, i. 12; Schol. on hymn _Gen. P._, etc.) has obviously no
historical value, being clearly prompted by the motive of connecting
Patrick with Brittany. It has an interest, however, in preserving the
name “Sechtmaide, king of the Britons”—a reminiscence apparently of the
Emperor Septimius Severus.]
P. 26.—Men-servants and maid-servants. This addition to the data of the
_Confession_ comes from the _Letter against Coroticus_, 377₁₉.
P. 31.—Port to which Patrick escaped. He mentions the distance himself:
_ducenta milia passus_ (_Conf._ 361₃₃). Wicklow would suit either theory
of the place of captivity. Of course the distance must not be pressed
too closely, but it is to be remembered that Patrick wrote when he had
fuller knowledge of the geography than he can have had at the time of
his escape. The reason for conjecturing Wicklow is that it seems to have
been a port where foreign ships might be looked for; both Palladius and
Patrick landed there. Muirchu calls it _portum apud nos clarum_ (275₁₂).
P. 32.—Suck their breasts: _sugere mammellas eorum_, _Conf._ 362₁₈. I
conjecture that the origin of this remarkable phrase, which clearly means
to enter into a close intimacy, was a primitive ceremony of adoption.
Among some peoples, when a child is adopted, a rite of mock-birth is
performed; for instance, the child is placed under the dress of the
adoptive mother, and creeps out. For the custom of mock-suckling see
Frazer’s _Golden Bough_,² vol. iii. p. 380, _note_. The make-believe
suckling is analogous to, and has the same emblematic meaning as, a
make-believe parturition; and it will be admitted that this explanation
satisfies perfectly the present context: “I declined to let myself be
adopted by them.” It is not necessary to infer that a literal adoption
was proposed to Patrick by any of the crew; the expression is merely
figurative for a close and abiding intimacy (just as we use colloquially
the phrase “to be adopted”).
It has been thought that the expression is taken from the Vulgate
rendering of Isaiah lx. 16: _suges lac gentium et mamilla regum
lactaberis_. Even if it were so, the point of the phrase would not be
explained, but Mr. White has shown on other grounds the improbability of
such a reference. There are no other vestiges of the use of the Vulgate
in Patrick’s citations from the O.T., whereas there is unmistakable
evidence of his use of an Old-Latin version (see White, _Proc. of R.I.A._
1905, p. 231, and the note on the passage).
P. 34.—They came to the habitations of men: _Conf._ 363₃₁,₃₄ _ad
homines_. This is certainly the right reading, and stood in the MS. used
by Muirchu (495₃₂). The _Cod. Arm._ gives _omnes_, which is unsuitable in
the context.
_Ib._—“Thou shalt remain with them two months.” Patrick refers here to a
second captivity (363₂₅), and his words (which are not lucid) misled his
biographers (beginning with Muirchu) into supposing that he was captured
on some later occasion. But I cannot think that his words: _et iterum
post annos multos adhuc capturam dedi_, refer to the two months which
he spent with the traders. They come in curiously after the incident
of the dream, and before the mention of the two months. _Post annos
multos_ cannot naturally be taken of the six years of his captivity in
Ireland, but must mean a term of years after his escape. I believe that
the sentence is a parenthetical reference to his life-work in Ireland,
conceived as a second captivity. “And again, after many years, my
captivity was continued.” The motive of this abrupt observation was the
preceding dream, to which he attributes great significance; it furnishes,
in fact, the interpretation of the dream. The second banishment to
Ireland is prefigured by the great stone which lay upon his body, and
which he could not resist; the sun which lightened its weight is the
divine guiding which made that banishment endurable.
CHAPTER III
P. 37.—Patrick at Lérins. _Dictum Patricii_, see above, App. A, i. 3;
Tírechán, 302₂₃ _erat hautem in una ex insolis quae dicitur Aralanensis
annis xxx, mihi testante Ultano episcopo_. It seems obvious that the
Bollandists and Todd were right in supposing that _Aralanensis_ arose
from _Lerinensis_. The more recent view that Arelate is meant seems very
improbable; though the name Arelate may conceivably have influenced the
corruption (cp. App. C, 6, _ad fin._).
P. 38.—Island monasteries: Gallinaria, Gorgon, Capraria, Palmaria. See
Ambrose, _Hexaem._ 3, c. 5, _insulas uelut monilia_; Jerome, _Epist._
73 § 6 (Migne, 22, 694) [c. 400 A.D.]; Sulp. Severus, _V. Mart._ 6, 5
(_Gallinaria_). For Capraria, see Rutilius Namatianus, _De reditu suo_
[c. A.D. 417], i., 439 _sqq._—
squalet lucifugis insula plena uiris,
and for Gorgon _ib._ 517 _sqq._ For cloisters in the Dalmatian Islands
see Jerome, _Epist._ 92. For the Stoechades: Cassian, _Coll._ 18, Praef.
(Migne, 49, p. 1089); Ennodius, v. _Epiphanii_, 93, _medianas insulas
Stoechadas_ (so Sirmond and Vogel; _cycladas_, MSS.) _Lerum ipsamque
nutricem summorum montium planam Lerinum_, described as _sanctarum
habitationum loca_.
P. 38.—Monastery of Lérins. For the names Lero, Lerina (Lirinus is the
form in the best MSS. of Sidonius), see Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ 3, 5. Strabo,
4, 1, 10 gives the names Planasia and Leron.
The exact date of the foundation of the monastery by Honoratus is
unknown, but it cannot have been later than the first years of the fifth
century. The earliest reference seems to be in a letter of Paulinus of
Nola in A.D. 410, or a few years later (_Ep._ 51 to Eucherius and Galla
in island of Lero; this letter seems to show that the foundation was
recent). Tillemont in his note on the question (_Mém. ecc._ xii. p. 675)
quotes and contests the statement of Baronius and Barralis, that the
monastery was founded in A.D. 375 (so Alliez), but he does not give the
source for this statement. So far as I can discover, the only foundation
for it is indicated by Barralis (_Chronologia sanctorum ... monasterii
sacrae insulae Lerinensis_, 1613), p. 190, where he says he found it
_in quodam membr. codice perantiquo Lerin. MS._ We cannot attach any
importance to this. Tillemont points out the objections to this date, and
founds one of his arguments on the age of Saint Caprasius.
The chief sources for the history of the monastery during the first
forty years of its existence are: Hilary, _Sermo de vita s. Honorati_;
Eucherius, _De laude eremi_, cp. also his other writings; Vincentius,
_Commonitorium primum et secundum_; Honoratus, _Vita s. Hilarii_. All
these works will be found in Migne, _P.L._ vol. l. Further information
is to be gathered in Paulinus, _Ep._ 51; Faustus, _Epp._ ed. Krusch
(M.G.H.), and ed. Engelbrecht (_Vienna Corp. Scr. Ecc._); _Homilia de
S. Maximo_ in _Eusebii Emiseni ep. homeliae_, p. 84, vᵒ _sqq._ (ed.
Gagneius, 1589); Sidonius Apollinaris, _Carmen_, 16.
Consult Barralis, _op. cit._; Silfverberg, _Hist. Mon. Lerinensis usque
ad ann._ 731 (Copenhagen, 1834); Tillemont, _Mém. eccl._ (xii. art.
on Saint Honoratus, with notes; _ib._ xv. arts. on Hilary, Eucherius,
Vincentius, Maximus of Riez; _ib._ xvi. art. on Faustus); Alliez, _Les
îles de Lérins, Cannes, et rivages_ (1860), and _Histoire du monastère
de Lérins_, vol. i. 1862; the articles on Honoratus, Hilary, etc. in the
_Dict. of Christian Biography_; Krusch’s and Engelbrecht’s prefaces to
their editions of Faustus.
Pp. 38-9.—Snakes at Lerinus: Hilary, _Sermo_, c. 3 (1257, ed.
Migne).—Fresh water flows _in media maris amaritudine_, _ib._ 1258.—_In
mare magnum recedentia_: Eucherius, _De laude eremi_, c. 1 (701 ed.
Migne).—Vines, etc., _ib._ c. 42.—Anecdote of the tablet of Honoratus:
Hilary, _Sermo_, c. 4, 1261 (_mel suum ceris reddidisti_).—“Break through
the wall of the passions.” etc.: Eucherius, _Hom._ ii. 836.—_Venire
ad eremum_, etc., _Id._, _Hom._ iv. 842.—Manual work was practised at
Lérins, Gennadius, _de scr. ecc._ lxix.
P. 40.—Faustus. Engelbrecht (preface to his ed.) gives reasons for
placing the birth of Faustus _not long_ before 410; but they are not
absolutely decisive.
P. 47.—Semi-Pelagianism at Lerinus.—Vincentius, author of the
_Commonitorium_ (which Neander justly describes as “ein für die
Geschichte des Begriffs von der Tradition epochemachendes Buch,”
_Kirchengeschichte_, iii. 262), held semi-Pelagian views (cp. _ib._ iv.
405). Faustus was also a strong exponent of modified Pelagianism, though
severe in condemnation of Pelagianism; his work, _De gratia dei et libero
arbitrio_, is extant (_Opp._ ed Engelbrecht; Migne, 58, 783 _sqq._). On
the other hand, Hilary of Arles was a follower of Augustine, and Lupus
a decided anti-Pelagian. Cp. Duchesne, _Fastes épiscopaux de l’ancienne
Gaule_, pp. 129-30.
P. 42.—Victoricus: appears transformed into an angel in Muirchu; and in
later biographers the name is changed to Victor. In Tírechán (330₂₂) we
meet a Victoricus whom Patrick ordained bishop for Domnach Maigen.
P. 43.—Pelagius, a Scot, but probably born in Britain. See Bury, “The
Origin of Pelagius,” in _Hermathena_, xxx. p. 26 _sqq._, where the
evidence is set out. Zimmer holds that he was born in Ireland (_Pelagius
in Ireland_, pp. 18-20). For a general account of the Pelagian theory and
the course of the controversy, see Harnack, _History of Dogma_, vol. x.
P. 47.—Patrick’s reluctance to go to Ireland: cp. esp. _Conf._ 365₁₉,
_contra_, _Hiberione non sponte pergebam donec prope deficiebam_ (cp.
_Ps._ 18.37, White).
P. 49.—Autissiodorum.—For the connexion of Patrick with Auxerre see
Muirchu, pp. 496, 272; cp. Hymn _Gen. Patr._ 19, 20 (p. 98, _Lib. Hymn._
vol. i.). The authenticity of the record that Patrick received his
theological training in Gaul is borne out by the desire to visit the
brethren in Gaul which he expresses in the _Confession_, 370₁₂.—For
Amator, see Appendix C, 9. For Iserninus and Auxilius: Muirchu, p. 273;
_Add. Notices_, p. 342 (_Patricius et Isserninus_, 1. _epscop Fith, cum
Germano fuerunt in Olsiodra ciuitate_, etc., a passage which shows that
Iserninus was an Irishman); and Appendix C, 9. The notice in _Ann. Ult.
s.a._ 439 might seem to imply that Iserninus was already a bishop when
he went to Ireland in that year; but Tírechán says that Patrick ordained
Eserninus at Killcullen. See below, p. 310.
Pp. 49-50.—Patrick ordained _deacon_: _Confession_, 365₁₂ (see Appendix
C, 9). Patrick discouraged in his enterprise: _Conf._ 371₁₁, _multi hanc
legationem prohibebant_, etc.
P. 50.—Germanus: see Appendix A, i. 7, on the _Vita Germani_ of
Constantius, and W. Levison’s monograph there cited. On the apparent
inconsistency of the statement that he held a military command with the
fact of his civil career (see Levison, _op. cit._ p. 117).
P. 51.—Germanus in Britain: Prosper, _Chron._ _s.a._ 429—the source for
the fact that Germanus was sent by Celestine as his representative _ad
insinuationem Palladii diaconi_. We are not told whether Palladius was a
deacon of Rome or of Auxerre. It is to be observed that this notice is
strictly contemporary; the first edition of the Chronicle was published
only four years later. Constantius, in the _V. Germani_, does not mention
the part played by Celestine. He represents the mission of Germanus, with
whom Lupus of Troyes was associated, as decided by a synod of Gallic
bishops which assembled in response to an appeal from Britain (c. 12).
It is difficult to say how far we should be justified in accepting the
statement of Constantius and reconciling it with Prosper’s, in the sense
that a Gallic synod decreed the mission and Celestine sanctioned and
approved it (so Tillemont, _Mém. ecc._ xv. 15, and others). But it may be
so far correct, that an appeal was made from Britain to Gaul, probably to
Auxerre, and that Auxerre enlisted the intervention of Rome. The question
is discussed in Levison, _op. cit._ pp. 120-2.
_Ib._—British Pelagians: Agricola was prominent. Writings of a British
Pelagian are edited by Caspari, _Briefe, Abhandlungen und Predigten aus
den zwei letzten Jahrhunderten des kirchlichen Alterthums_ (1890), who
ascribes them to Agricola. For Fastidius cp. Tillemont, xv. 16, 17;
but Mr. H. Williams seeks to defend him against the charge of heresy
(_Transactions of Society of Cymmrodorion_, 1893-4, p. 71 _sqq._).
P. 52.—Pelagianism in Ireland: see Zimmer, _Pelagius in Ireland_, 22-24.
_Ib._—Patrick’s false friend: _Confession_, p. 365, 366: esp. 366₁₃,
et comperi ab aliquantis fratribus ante defensionem illam [see below,
note on p. 202], quod ego non interfui nec in Brittanniis eram, nec a me
orietur [I would read _oriebatur_: “without any prompting from me”], ut
et ille in mea absentia pro me pulsaret.
P. 54.—Mission of Palladius: Prosper, _Epit. s.a._ 431, _ad Scottos in
Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Celestino Palladius primus episcopus
mittitur_. It has been pointed out by Zimmer that this notice probably
owes its insertion in the Chronicle to the circumstance that Prosper was
at Rome in this year (_Celtic Church_, p. 32). The mission of Palladius
is also referred to rhetorically by Prosper in his _Contra Coll._ c.
xxi.; Migne, _P.L._ li. p. 271: _ordinato Scotis episcopo dum Romanam
insulam studet seruare catholicam, fecit etiam barbaram Christianam_ (sc.
_Caelestinus_).
P. 56.—Churches said to have been founded by Palladius: See V₂24 = V₄28
(= W source) = _V. Trip._ p. 30. In Cell Fine “he left his books and
the casket with relics of Paul and Peter, and the board on which he
used to write” (_V. Trip._ trans. Stokes). In Donard were preserved the
relics of “Sylvester and Solinus” (V₄; Solonius, _V. Trip._). Acc. to
V₄ the Tech na Romhan was founded by the disciples of Palladius. For
the identification of this name with _Tigroney_, see Shearman, _Loca
Patriciana_, p. 27. Shearman has attempted to identify the site of Cell
Fine with the ancient cemetery of Killeen Cormac (near Colbinstown in
Kildare on the borders of Wicklow). He supposed that Killeen has not here
its usual sense of “little church,” but stands for “Kill Fhine,” so that
the name would mean “the church of the clan of Cormac”; and he supposes
that the saint Abbán maccu Cormaic was buried here. It cannot be said
that he has made out his case. His argument largely depends on his view
that the remarkable bilingual inscription preserved in the graveyard
is connected with the poet Dubthach maccu Lugair—a view which must be
rejected (see below, p. 305). The same sources mention the landing-place
of Palladius. Muirchu (p. 272) has no local details, and only notes his
failure in general terms. The _feri et inmites homines_, who would not
receive his doctrine, evidently mean especially Nathi son of Garrchu, who
is mentioned in other sources as opposing Palladius.
P. 59.—Patrick’s preparations. Cp. Muirchu, 275₁₀.
P. 59.—Companions of Palladius: _Augustinus et Benedictus_, Muirchu,
272₃₁. The thought strikes one that they might have brought some
intimation from Ireland that Patrick would be acceptable as successor to
Palladius. If Palladius died in Dalaradia, and these companions came with
a message from Dalaradian Christians, this might have been a motive for
Patrick’s special connexion with that region of Ireland.
Pp. 61 _sqq._—Position of the Roman see. For what I have said on this
subject I must acknowledge my particular obligations to the important
study of M. E.-Ch. Babut, _Le Concile de Turin_, 1904. His chief object
is to determine the date and circumstances of the Council of Turin (Sept.
417), but the book is of much wider scope. For the position of the
apostolic see in the latter half of the fourth century, Rade’s _Damasus,
Bischof von Rom_, 1882, is important.
CHAPTER IV
P. 70.—Kingdom of Cashel. Cp. the remarks of Rhŷs, _Studies in Early
Irish History_, p. 31.
P. 74.—Solar worship. Patrick, _Confession_, p. 374. Cormac’s _Glossary_,
_s.v._ indelba. It has been suggested that a circle on an inscribed
(ogam) stone, which seems to be oriented, at Drumlusk, near Kenmare, is
connected with solar worship (Macalister, _Studies in Irish Epigraphy_,
ii. 116-7). Cp. H. Gaidoz, “Le dieu gaulois du soleil et le symbolisme de
la roue,” _Rev. arch._ 1884 and 1885.
_Ib._—Pillar worship. Patrick, _ib._ p. 369. For the idol Cromm Cruach,
see p. 306. Cp. the stone of worship (_ail adrada_) in _Ancient laws_,
iv. 142.
P. 76.—For white dress of Druids, see Tírechán, p. 325-6. For their
tonsure see Appendix A, i. 4.
P. 79.—Muirchu, 273-4. “Adzehead” was evidently meant as a nickname for
the tonsured monk. I have given the oracle as it is found in Muirchu’s
Latin rendering. He must have known the prophecy in a different form from
the Irish version which is preserved in the glosses on the Hymn _Genair
Patraicc_ (_Liber Hymnorum_, i. p. 100): “Adzehead will come, over the
mad-crested sea, his cloak hole-head, his staff crook-head, his table in
the west of his house; all his household will answer Amen, Amen.” See
Atkinson, _ib._ ii. 181-2, and my article on the “Tradition of Muirchu’s
Text,” p. 203 (in _Hermathena_, 28, 1902).
CHAPTER V
P. 81.—Patrick’s landing-place in Ireland. Muirchu, p. 275. Palladius had
landed at the same place (_Vit. Trip._ p. 30; V₂, 24 and 25). Todd (_St.
Patrick_, 338 _sqq._) thought that the circumstances of the landing of
Palladius were transferred to Patrick, it being unreasonable to suppose
that both missionaries should have landed at the same place. This is a
bad argument. For, in the first place, Inber Dee may have been the usual
port for ships from South Britain; and, in the second place, nothing was
more natural than that Patrick should first go to the region in which his
predecessor had been active. And if this is admitted there is nothing
unreasonable (Todd’s second objection) in supposing that the chieftain
Nathi MacGarrchon, who (according to _Vit. Trip._ p. 30, V₂, 24) opposed
Palladius, should also have opposed Patrick (V₂, 25). It is more to the
purpose that Muirchu says nothing of Nathi, but it may be observed that
his opposition might help to explain why both bishops remained such a
short time in Wicklow.
P. 83.—Sea-journey from Wicklow to Ulidia. Dr. Gwynn suggests that
Muirchu (who seems to have visited Ulidia, see Appendix A, ii. 3)
made this journey himself. Patrick’s visit to Inis Patrick is also
mentioned by Tírechán (p. 303), who seems almost to imply that it was
the first place he visited in Ireland. According to Tírechán’s account
he proceeded from the islands off Skerries directly to the plain of Breg
(the visit to Ulidia is not mentioned). Here we have a Meath tradition,
at variance with the Ulidian tradition reproduced by Muirchu. It is
perhaps impossible to decide between them. There can be no doubt that
Patrick was active both in Down and in Meath; the question at issue is
only one of chronological order. Muirchu worked the Ulidian episode into
a narrative which originated in Meath, but this proves nothing for the
superior authenticity of either. And on the other hand, the motive which
probably influenced Muirchu in accepting the Down tradition that Mag Inis
in Ulidia was the first field of Patrick’s labours—namely the bishop’s
desire to visit and convert his old master, and pay him the price of his
freedom—cannot have very much weight, even if we accept the tradition
that Patrick was a captive in north Dalaradia. In my narrative I have
adopted Muirchu’s order, but without any decided opinion that it is
right. If, as I think, Dalaradia was the destination of Palladius when he
left Wicklow, there may have been a good reason for Patrick’s proceeding
thither first. If the tradition that his first Easter in Ireland A.D. 433
was celebrated at Slane is accepted, very little time is left for his
labours in Ulidia.
P. 84.—Patrick’s landing-place in Dalaradia. Muirchu, p. 275. The _ostium
Slain_ was identified by J.W. Hanna in a rare tract, _An Enquiry into
the True Landing-place of St. Patrick in Ulster_, printed at Downpatrick
in 1858. The river flows into the lake at Ringban, about two miles from
Saul, dividing the townlands of Ringban and Ballintogher (see Ordnance
Map). Mr. Hanna discovered that the name Slaney was still in use for
the river, and this furnished him with the identification. Since he
wrote, the name has been forgotten. The church of Ballintogher is called
the church of Bally-_bren_ in the Taxation of Pope Nicholas; offering
the same word by which the mouth of Strangford Lough, _fretum quod est
Brene_, was known to Muirchu (see further on the locality, O’Laverty,
_Diocese of Down and Connor_, i. 216 _sqq._).
_Ib._—Dún Lethglasse. For the striking remains of the fort, also called
Rathceltchair, see Mr. Westropp’s valuable study on the forts of Ireland
in _Transactions of R.I.A._ vol. xxxi. p. 586, where it is cited as an
instance of the mote type of fort. It has a platform separate from the
central mound, and the mound is surrounded by three ramparts thirty feet
wide.
_Ib._—Dichu. The proof of Dichu’s reality[349] is supplied by the
petition (Muirchu 296₁₀) _ut nepotes Dichon qui te benigne susceperunt
misericordiam mereantur et non pereant_. _Nepotes Dichon_ means the Hy
Dichon, Dichu’s tribe; and, though _susceperunt_ may be an error for
_suscepit_, the text is not inconsistent with the story. There is further
confirmation in the independent testimony to the existence of Rus or
Ros, son of Trechim, said to have been Dichu’s brother. (See Appendix,
C, 12; on the _Senchus Mór_.) Rus is said to have lived at Derlus (V₂ c.
31 = V₄ c. 37, _Vit. Trip._ p. 38, cp. V₃ c. 33), which was at Mrechtan,
now Bright. It has been conjectured that the Castle of Bright stands on
the site of Derlus (O’Laverty, _op. cit._ i. p. 148), and the Protestant
church is supposed to be on the site of the ancient church (_ib._ 147).
P. 86.—For Skerry, cp. Reeves, _Eccl. Ant._ pp. 83-4.
P. 87.—Sabul, Saul (see Reeves, _op. cit._ pp. 220 _sqq._).
P. 90.—Tassach at Raholp. That he was stationed in the neighbourhood
of Saul is implied in Muirchu 297₁₀. For his connexion with Rathcolpa
see _Mart. Dung._ April 14; schol. on _Genair Patraicc_ hymn, l. 53
(_Lib. Hymn._ i. p. 102). There are ruins of an ancient church, known as
Church-Moyley, described in Reeves, _Eccl. Antiq._ p. 39.
P. 90.—Loarn at Bright. _V. Trip._ p. 38, V₄ c. 37, V₂ c. 31. It was
recorded in a common source of _V. Trip._ (p. 40) and V₂ (c. 32) that
near Bright Patrick converted Mochae, who afterwards founded a church at
Noendrum, now Mahee island in L. Strangford (_ob._ 497, _Ann. Ult._ and
Tigernach). O’Laverty has much to say on this, _op. cit._ i. 143-4. For
Bright, cp. Reeves, _op. cit._ p. 35; for Noendrum, _ib._ pp. 10, 148
_sqq._, 187 _sqq._ It is a legitimate inference from the silence of our
authorities, that no church at Dún Lethglasse was founded by Patrick.
For its history see Reeves, _op. cit._ 141 _sqq._, 220 _sqq._ The first
bishop recorded is Fergus, whose death is placed in _Ann. Ult._ at A.D.
584 or 590.
P. 91.—_Mudebroth._ Dr. W. Stokes interprets _Dei mei indicium_ (_Trip._
p. 289), but cp. Atkinson, _Lib. Hymn._ ii. p. 179.
_Ib._—Druimbo, _Collum bouis_. Cp. O’Laverty, _op. cit._ p. 228 _note_.
CHAPTER VI
P. 102.—Foundation of Trim. _Additional Notes_, 334-6 (translation with
notes in Todd’s _St. Patrick_, 257 _sqq._). The name of the wife of
Fedilmid is given as Scoth Noe (= _flos recens_). Lomman is said to have
been a son of a sister of Patrick (335₁₃). The legendary character of the
story is obvious; but there seems no reason to doubt the Trim traditions
which it involves—the co-operation of the Briton Lomman with Fedilmid and
his British wife and their son Fortchernn. Lomman’s name appears in the
_Martyrologies_ (Tallaght and Donegal) under October 11.
P. 104.—The legend of the Easter fire at Slane and Patrick’s visit to
Tara is told in the text after Muirchu, who used an older (probably
Irish) source. It is very briefly summarised in Tírechán (p. 306); he
differs from Muirchu as to the number and names of the Druids. Todd has
the merit of having seen that the whole story is unhistorical and that
it is absurd to draw any chronological inferences or treat seriously
its chronological implications. On the other hand, historical motives
clearly underlie the story, as I have sought to show in the text. It may
be said that the celebration of Patrick’s first Easter at Slane _may be_
a historical fact. It is evident that this was a tradition at Slane;
and it is quite possible that Patrick may have spent his first Easter
there for the purpose of baptizing converts, as Easter was at that time
one of the chief occasions for that ceremony. We may regard this as a
possibility; but we are only entitled to say that there must have been
some motive for the location of the fire at Slane. It is a nice problem
whether the scriptural parallels (the contest between Moses and the
magicians, and the Book of Daniel), which pervade Muirchu’s account,
were first introduced by Muirchu himself, or presided at the original
composition of the legend. I am inclined to adopt the second alternative;
and to hold, with Todd (though he does not clearly distinguish Muirchu
from Muirchu’s source), that Patrick’s contest with the Druids took
place “at the first Christian passover or Easter celebrated by him in
Ireland,” because the similar contest of Moses occurred shortly before
the first passover of the children of Israel, in the land of Goshen
(as Muirchu—following his source?—points out). Zimmer’s view, that the
motive of Muirchu in giving prominence to the story of Patrick’s first
Easter was connected with the Easter controversy in the seventh century
(_Celtic Church_, p. 81), has been noticed above, Appendix A, ii. 3; but
if Muirchu was specially interested in it on that account, the Easter
question had certainly nothing to do with the origin of the legend, which
must be far older than the seventh century. For Beltane fires cp. Frazer,
_Golden Bough_, iii. 259 _sqq._; for fires on Easter Eve, _ib._ 247 _sqq._
[There is a remarkable notice in the _Calendar_ of Oengus that on April 5
“on the great feast of Beccan MacCula, with a victory of piety excellent
Patrick’s baptism was kindled in Ireland” (transl. Stokes, p. lxvii.).
This obviously refers to the Slane legend, but the date April 5 must have
a different origin, as Easter did not fall on that day in 433. During
Patrick’s episcopate it fell only once on April 5, viz., in A.D. 459,
whether on the 84 or 84 (12) cycle. The notice therefore suggests that
in that year there was a baptismal ceremony which was remembered; and it
might be conjectured that it was the occasion of the raid of Coroticus,
which probably occurred towards the end of Patrick’s life. See cap. ix.
and notes.]
P. 104.—High festival at Tara (_Feis Temrach_). The holding of such an
assemblage by Loigaire is recorded in _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 454 (cp. _s.a._
461), and by his successor Ailill Molt, _s.a._ 467 (alternative dates
469, 470). According to the _Book of Rights_ (p. 7), such conventions
were held every seventh year; other traditions represent them as
triennial (cp. Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 416). But these notices in the
_Annals_ suggest that they were not held at stated periods in the fifth
century, but were summoned at the pleasure of the High King for special
purposes. This is especially suggested by the notice (_Ann. Ult. s.a._
461) that Loigaire lived seven years and seven months after the Feast
of Tara, as if it were a unique, not a recurring, event in his reign;
and the statement is inconsistent with a septennial as well as with a
triennial period. The periodic convention contemplated by the _Book of
Rights_ was held at Samhain (Nov. 1).
P. 105.—The company driving over the plain of Breg might possibly
contain a reminiscence of the custom of a _Flurumritt_, as described
by Mannhardt, _Der Baumkultus der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarstämme_,
397 _sqq._ In the Archduchy of Austria it was the custom for the sons
and servants of the house to ride round the fields at Easter, _vor
Sonnenaufgang im schnellsten Laufe_. Other instances of such early
processions are cited. The custom of proceeding _ad laevam_ against
the sun with malicious intent, seems still to exist near Lough Case in
Mayo. There is a pile of stones near the lake “round which stations are
made _desiul_ [rightward], except in the case of maliciously disposed
persons, who occasionally come on the sly in the dead of night, and go
round widdershins in order to raise storms to destroy crops and kill
cattle” (Professor Rhŷs, _Proceedings of Royal Society of Antiquaries of
Ireland_, Part iii. vol. viii. 5th series, 1898, p. 233).
P. 110.—The _Burg_ in Eiffel district (on first Sunday in Lent):
Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_, p. 501. Compare also the practice of the Gallic
Druids described by Caesar, _B.G._ vi. 16, and the material collected by
Mr. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 319 _sqq._
P. 111.—Burning of Sandan. Cp. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, iii. 168 _sqq._
P. 112.—Mode of burial of Loigaire. Tírechán, 308₄: the text should be
read as follows:—
“Nam Neel pater meus non siniuit mihi credere sed ut sepeliar
in cacuminibus Temro” (quasi uiris consistentibus in bello,
quia utuntur gentiles, etc.), “ego filius Neill, et filius
Dunlinge [_sc._ sepeliatur] im Maistin in campo Liphi pro
duritate odi(u)i.”
Dr. Gwynn saw that _ego_ is to be construed with _sepeliar_. It seems
best to suppose that _quasi—bello_ is not part of Loigaire’s declaration.
As Mr. Stokes points out, _odiui_ can be translated as a perfect (the
relative being omitted), but _odii_ proposed by Todd furnishes better
sense. The two foes were still to face each other in their tombs,
standing in their armour, Loigaire looking southward and the King of
Laigin northward.
P. 115.—Dubthach. Muirchu 283₂ _Dubthoch maccu-Lugil poetam optimum_;
_Add. Notices_ 344, _Dubthach maccu-Lugair_. Material about the Hy Lugair
of Leinster is collected in Shearman’s _Loca Patriciana_. Shearman’s
theory that the Killeen Cormac bilingual stone commemorates Dubthach
and three of his sons cannot be maintained. The ogam inscription
means “(monument) of Ovanus, descendant of Ivacattus,” and the Latin
inscription reads IVVERE DRVVIDES, which Professor Rhŷs interprets “of
the Druid of Ivvera (= Ireland).” Thus the stone would commemorate one
Ovanus, a Druid. It certainly belongs to the Christian period, and may
probably be dated to the sixth century. Professor Rhŷs thinks it is by no
means impossible that this Druid was of the race of Dubthach maccu-Lugair
(_Studies in Early Irish History_, p. 7). But there can hardly be much
ground for such a supposition, especially as Dubthach was a poet, not a
Druid. The inscription illustrates the survival of Druidism.
The presence of Dubthach, a Leinster poet, at Tara, in the legend, is
remarkable. Was the incident inserted by Muirchu himself, from Slébte
tradition, or is Muirchu only responsible for the reference to Fíacc,
Dubthach’s pupil? It seems probable that Dubthach’s presence appeared
in the legend in its original form, and was a genuine reminiscence (cp.
Appendix A, ii. 5), and if so, it betrays that Patrick’s legendary
appearance at Tara was suggested by an actual visit, in very different
circumstances, for the purpose of consulting with Loigaire and
representatives from various parts of Ireland, one of whom would have
been Dubthach, about the status, etc., of Christian communities. For the
_file_, poet and lawyer, cp. D’Arbois de Jubainville, _Droit celtique_,
i. 321 _sqq._
P. 117.—For the foundations in Meath, see Tírechán, 307 _sqq._
P. 118.—Donaghpatrick. The place is marked by a fine earth-fort of the
mote type, with a crescent platform, separated from the mound by a ditch.
See Westropp, _Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 714.
P. 119.—Taillte: burning of the first-born offspring. Cp. _Book of
Leinster_, 201 a. 15, and O’Curry, _Manners and Customs_, vol. i. p. dcxl.
P. 120.—Uisnech. For the plan of this hill-town, see Westropp, _ib._ p.
688.
P. 123.—The account of Patrick’s visit to Mag Slecht (which was near
Ballymagauran in Co. Cavan) is found in later lives (_Vita Tertia_, c.
46, and _Tripartite_, p. 90). But there is reason to suppose that an
account of the visit has fallen out of Tírechán’s text (p. 311): see
Bury, _Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught_, pp. 154-6.
P. 123.—Cend Cruaich, _Tripart._; ceneroth or cencroth (corruption of
cencroch?), _Vit. Tert._; Cromm Cruach, _Book of Leinster_, 16 b. 30, and
cp. 213 b. 38 _sqq._; Crom Cróich, _Rennes Dindsenchas_ (ed. Stokes), in
_Rev. Celt._ 16, 35-6. See Rhŷs, _Celtic Religion_, pp. 200 _sqq._ In
the _Vita Tertia_, c. 46, it is said that Loigaire used to adore in Mag
Slecht; but we cannot attribute much importance to this statement.
CHAPTER VII
P. 127.—Amolngaid. The name occurs on a gravestone at Breastagh,
north of Killala, in King Amolngaid’s country: maq(i) Corrbri maq(i)
Ammllongatt—“(monument of ...) of the son of Corpri, son of Amolngaid”
(Rhŷs, _Proceedings of R.S.A.I._ Part iii. vol. vii. 5th series, p. 235,
1898). The _Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach_ (ed. O’Donovan, p. 11) gives
Coirpre as the name of a son of King Amolngaid; likewise a notice in the
_Book of Lecan_ (fol. 46, see O’Donovan, _ib._ p. 12, _note_ a). There is
thus ground for supposing that the person commemorated was a descendant
of the king.
P. 129.—Mathona was connected with Tamnach. Tírechán calls her sister of
Benignus, Patrick’s successor. He probably confounded the famous Benignus
with an obscure namesake whom he mentions in another place (319₁₅):
_Benignus frater Cethiaci de genere Ailello_. We should expect Mathona,
in Tirerrill, to be _de genere Ailello_.
P. 134.—For the place of crossing the Shannon (Sinona) indicated by
Tírechán, see my _Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught_, where it is shown
that the view which placed it near Clonmacnois is untenable.
P. 136.—On Rathcrochan and the various mounds around it, see O’Donovan’s
long note, _Annals of Four Masters, s.a._ 1223, vol. iii. pp. 204-6;
and cp. Westropp, _Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 687. On the red stone:
O’Donovan, _Hy Fiachrach_, pp. 24-5, _note_ (no mention of this stone is
found before the seventeenth century).
P. 139.—Baptismal queries. Three questions were put in the Roman usage:—
Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem?
Credis et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, dominum
nostrum, natum et passum?
Credis et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam, remissionem
peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem?
(Duchesne, _Origines du culte chrétien_, p. 313.)
P. 140.—Death of Ethne and Fedelm after their baptism. The same thing is
told in Muirchu’s story _de Morte Moneisen Saxonissae_ (p. 496). Monesan,
daughter of a king in Britain, cannot be induced by her parents to marry,
but persists in asking her mother and her nurse cosmic questions. Her
parents, hearing that Patrick received weekly visits from God, took her
to Ireland, and besought the saint to allow their daughter to see God. He
baptized her, and she immediately committed her spirit to the hands of
the angels: _moritur ibi et adunatur_. She was buried at a church which
Muirchu does not name, but her relics were venerated there in his time.
Compare also the story of Ros, brother of Dichu, and the instance in the
life of St. Brendan, cited by Todd (_St. Patrick_, p. 459 and note).
The other cases which he quotes (p. 125 and note 2) are not so closely
parallel.
P. 145.—Inscription at Selce. Tírechán, p. 319; Bury, “Supplementary
Notes” in _Eng. Hist. Review_, October 1902. Bishop Brón MacIcni was
consecrated by Patrick (Tír. 305₁₀), and his name appeared as bishop
on the Selce inscription (319₇). The inference is that Patrick’s visit
to Killespugbrone (327₁₉) was on the first journey; but of course he
may have been there twice. Brón is commemorated in the Martyrologies of
Tallaght and Donegal at June 8, and in the latter his death is assigned
to A.D. 511.
P. 148.—Patrick’s foundations in Tirawley. I may refer to two papers
by Bishop Healy in the _Irish Eccl. Record_, 1889 (673 _sqq._ and 906
_sqq._), giving an account of an antiquarian visit which he made to the
neighbourhood of Killala.
CHAPTER VIII
P. 151.—Relics. For the notices in Tírechán see App. C, 16. The relics
at Armagh are also mentioned in _Liber Angueli_, 354. A ridiculous story
was afterwards invented that Patrick threw all the inhabitants of Rome
into a miraculous sleep, and then plundered the city of its most precious
relics (_Vit. Trip._ p. 238). It illustrates the moral ideals of medieval
Irish ecclesiastics, but hardly proves, as Todd suggests (p. 481), “the
unscrupulous manner in which the lives were interpolated to prop up later
superstitions.” For the extension of the cult of relics from the seventh
century forward see Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, pp. 119 _sqq._; but his
thesis that relics were unknown before in Ireland is highly improbable.
P. 155.—Emain, Navan. For a description and plan of the remains see M.
d’Arbois de Jubainville, _Rev. Celt._ xvi. p. 1 _sqq._; and cp. Westropp,
_Trans. of R.I.A._ xxxi. p. 684.
_Ib._—House of entertainment at Navan: _Ann. of Four Masters, s.a._ 1387.
_Ib._—If Daire was King of Oriel, one is surprised at the way he is
introduced by Muirchu (290) as _quidam homo dives et honorabilis in
regionibus Orientalium_ (_i.e._ in Orior = Airthir, the eastern part
of Oriel = Oirgialla. This passage proves that Orior extended further
westward than the regions comprised in the two modern baronies of
Orior). This looks as if he were only an under-king, perhaps King of
the Hy-Nialláin (O’Neill-land) cp. _Book of Rights_, p. 146, for he was
a descendant of Niallán, cp. _Trip._ p. 228, and Todd, p. 481. On the
other hand, if the tradition that Daire co-operated with Loigaire and
Corc in initiating the Senchus Mór is correct, it looks as if he may
have been King of Oriel. In a tract in the _Lebor na hUidre_ (edited by
Stokes in his _Tripartite Life_, pp. 562 _sqq._) he is called _rí Ulad_
(p. 564) by an anachronism. It seems that he was in any case chief of the
Hy-Nialláin, and probable that he was also King of Oriel. The mere fact
that Armagh was chosen by Patrick as his chief seat seems to me (as I
have indicated in the text) an argument in favour of this conclusion.
P. 156.—Date of foundation of Armagh, A.D. 444. We must here follow
the Annals (see Appendix A, iii. 1). In the story of the foundation of
Trim in the _Additional Notices_, it is stated that Trim was founded
immediately on Patrick’s arrival in Ireland, _i.e._ A.D. 432, “in the
twenty-fifth year before the foundation of Armagh.” This would place the
foundation of Armagh in 457—a date which is obviously too late, and has
been rightly rejected by Todd (_St. P._ p. 470). Is it possible that
there had been a pre-Patrician foundation at Trim, twenty-four years
older than Armagh, and that the statement is due to a confusion between
this and Patrick’s second founding?
P. 159.—Northern Church at Armagh. The church which Patrick founded on
the hill is called by Muirchu “northern church,” _sinistralis aeclessia_;
hence Reeves supposes it “to have stood somewhere near the extremity
of the north transept of the present cathedral” (p. 15). On the other
hand, it has been suggested that the adjective means that the church was
built _north and south_ (cp. Todd, _St. P._ p. 412, and Stokes, note on
Muirchu, p. 292). The argument for this interpretation is that the church
was called the _sabhall_, and that the other church which bore the same
name (at Saul) lay north and south (_transverse_) according to the _Vita
Tertia_, c. 31; hence it is suggested that churches with this peculiarity
were called _sabhalls_. Reeves had taken this view in an earlier work,
_Antiquities of Down and Connor_, pp. 220-1.
P. 159.—Graveyard. _Vit. Trip._ 228, “the place where is the _ferta_
to-day” (Stokes), _not_ as Colgan (so Reeves and Todd), “the place where
are the two graves, _da ferta_.”
P. 162.—Clogher (in Tyrone). No connexion of Patrick with Clochar is
mentioned in the _Lib. Arm._, but there is a good deal about it in
the _Vit. Trip._ 174 _sqq._ The Bishop of Clochar, macc Cairthinn, is
described as Patrick’s champion. (It is not clear that he is the same
as _filius Cairthin_ in _Add. Notices_, 338₃). The _Domnach Airgit_ was
preserved at Clochar, at the time when the Part III. of the _Vit. Trip._
was compiled (p. 176), and afterwards transferred to Clones. It is now
in the Dublin Museum, and its history will be found in the papers of Dr.
Petrie (_Trans. of R.I.A._ vol. xviii. 1838), and Dr. Bernard (_ib._ vol.
xxx. Pt. vii., 1893). An inner box of yew is protected by a silver-plated
copper cover, which is enclosed in an outer case of gold-plated silver,
richly ornamented. It contained, but not originally, a copy of the
Latin gospels, of which mutilated fragments are preserved. It used to
be thought that this MS. dated from the fifth century, and belonged to
Patrick, but Dr. Bernard’s careful examination proves that it can hardly
be earlier than the eighth century. As for the box, which was probably
meant for relics, not for a MS., it may be identified with the _Domnach
Airgit_ of the _Vita Trip._, and is therefore at least as old as the
tenth century; but more cannot be said.
It may be observed that Clochar is called _Clochar macc nDoimni_ (_Vit.
Trip._ p. 178), and one of the bishops whose consecration Tírechán
notices (304) is Iustianus mac hu Daiméne.
_Ib._—Ardpatrick. The tradition that Patrick founded Ard Patric east of
Louth, though not in the _Lib. Arm._, deserves mention, because Mochtae,
whom Patrick established there according to _Vit. Trip._ 226-8, is
mentioned in Adamnan’s _Vita Columbae_ in the only passage where Adamnan
refers to Patrick (_Preface_):—
quidam proselytus Brito, homo sanctus, sancti Patricii episcopi
discipulus, Maucteus nomine.
According to _Ann. Ult._ Maucteus died in A.D. 535 or 537. If he was a
pupil of Patrick, he must have been very old when he died. A work by
Mochtae was quoted in the _Liber Cuanach: Ann. Ult., s.a._ 471; and the
opening words of a letter of his are given _s.a._ 535: _Maucteus peccator
prespiter sancti Patricii discipulus in Domino salutem_.
P. 163.—Patrick in Leinster. Sources: Tírechán 330-1; _Add. Notices_,
342-6 and 349-50 (with corresponding passages in _Vit. Trip._). For
Munster and Ossory, see Tír. 331. The Muskerry of Co. Cork is indicated
in _Add. Notices_, p. 351₂ = _Vit. Trip._ 220. For North Munster
(Thomond) see 350₃₁ = _Vit. Trip._ 200. Tírechán notices the foundation
of Domus Martyrum (Martortech) at Druimm Urchaille (in Co. Kildare). For
its site compare Shearman’s conjectures, _Loc. Patr._ p. 112.
_Ib._—Consecration of Auxilius and Iserninus.—The evidence for their
consecration by Patrick is Tírechán, 331₃: _et ordinarit Auxilium puerum
Patricii exorcistam et Eserninum et Mactaleum in Cellola Cuilinn_. It may
be questioned whether the text is sound; there is certainly some mistake
about Auxilius, who could not be described as _puer Patricii exorcista_,
and it is not stated to what order they were ordained. In Tírechán’s list
of bishops ordained by Patrick (304), Auxilius and Mactaleus appear,
but not Iserninus. In the corresponding passage in the _Vit. Trip._
(186) nothing is said of ordaining (“he _left_ Auxilius in Killossy, and
Iserninus and MaccTail in Kilcullen”). In the Add. Notices in _Lib. Arm._
(p. 342) it seems to be implied that Iserninus was already a bishop. See
above, p. 310.
P. 164.—Birth of Iserninus in Cliu (_Add. Notices_, p. 342). For the
locality see Shearman, _Loca Patriciana_, p. 141 _note_.
P. 165.—Fíacc. Memoranda in _Lib. Arm._ (_Trip._ 344); cp. Muirchu, 283.
The story represents Fíacc as consecrated bishop _per saltum_. This may
be an error. It is possible that he did not become a bishop till he went
to Slébte, and that at Domnach Féicc he was in inferior orders.
_Ib._—Domnach Féicc. Shearman, 186-8; the argument is at least plausible,
that it lay in the region between Clonmore and Aghowle. He would fix it
more precisely in the townland of Kilabeg.
P. 170.—The liturgy used by Patrick. Compare Duchesne, _Origines du culte
chrétien_, 3rd ed. (1903), chap. iii. p. 88 _sqq._ The _Antiphonary_ of
Bangor is an example of a Gallican liturgy unmodified by Roman influence,
and according to Dr. MacCarthy we have another in the oldest part of
the Stowe missal (see above Appendix A, i. 3, _ad fin._). For Celtic
liturgies see Warren, _Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church_ (1881),
the chief book on the subject. A _missa Patricii_ (mass of Patrick) is
mentioned in Tírechán (322₁₉). I cannot say what attention should be
paid to the statements about the Scottic liturgy in the _Cursus Romanus_
printed in Warren 77 _sqq._ (Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, i. 138). Cp.
Ussher, _Brit. eccl. ant._ (_Works_, vi. p. 480).
P. 176.—It is worth while to collect the notices of grants to Patrick
and _free_ churches mentioned in the _Liber Armachanus_. Muirchu, 291₃₁,
(Armagh) partem illam agri—do tibi nunc quantum habeo.
Tírechán, 320₂₁ (Drummut Cerrigi) immolauerunt agrum et bona patris eorum
Patricio. _Ib._ 309₃₀ (Endeus).
_Ib._ 321₇, aeclessiam liberam; 330₂₉, sed libere semper.
_Add. Notices_ 338 (offering of Caichán’s fifth: note _liberauit_ Deo et
Patricio).
_Ib._ 337, (sons of Conlaid offered) octo campi pondera id est uaccas
campi octo (8 ballyboes) in hereditate sua ... Deo et Patricio in
sempiterna saecula.
_Ib._ 340₃₋₁₀;344₁.
_Ib._ 335₂₋₆ (Trim.).
P. 184.—Alphabets (_abgitoria_ or _elementa_): Tír. 308₁₃, 320₂₈, 322₁₅,
326₃₀, 327₂₀, 328₂₈. The suggestion that these were figurative alphabets,
“the A B C of the Christian doctrine” (tentatively put forward by
Stokes, _Vit. Trip._ p. cliii.), can hardly be entertained, unless it
is shown that _abgitir_ was used in this sense without the addition of
_crabaith_ (= _fidei_). Tírechán saw a psalter written by Patrick for
Sachall—doubtless at Baslick (301₈). Justus, a deacon of Patrick, is said
to have possessed a baptismal liturgy which Patrick gave him, _libros
baptismatis_ (_ib._ 318). He gave Mucneus _libros legis septem_, which
seems to mean the Heptateuch? _ib._ 326₁₇.
Tírechán has a story that in a district of Connaught Patrick and his
companions had tablets, written _more Mosaico_, in their hands, and that
pagans took them for swords, saying that they seemed to be wooden in the
day-time, but were really of iron for shedding blood. It is inferred that
these tablets were wooden staves, roughly resembling in shape the short
swords of the ancient Irish: compare Graves, _Hermathena_, iii. 237 and
228 _sqq._, and Todd, _St. Patrick_, 509. [It may be noted that in this
passage of Tírechán _cum uiii aut uiiii uiris_ points to the use of a
written source; the numeral was not clear in the MS.]
P. 185.—The ogam alphabet. A word must be said on its structure, as
it bears upon my contention that Latin letters must have been used in
Ireland before the fifth century. The twenty-one ogam scores form four
groups of five, with one letter (p) as a supernumerary. The vowels form
one group; the other groups are (2) h d t c q; (3) b l v s n; (4) m g ng
f r. It has been suggested with great probability that the elements of
the second group were selected as being the initials of the first five
Irish numerals; but the principle of arrangement in groups 3 and 4 has
not been discovered. The choice of _p_ as the letter to be excluded from
the groups and treated separately must have depended on that principle.
The supposition that the inventor of the cipher contemplated only twenty
symbols, and that the symbol for _p_ was subsequently added when found
indispensable, is in itself unlikely (for why should he have fixed the
number twenty?), and breaks down on the fact that, while _ng_ might have
been treated by a shift, _p_ was required for the archaic word _poi_,
which occurs on several of the extant sepulchral inscriptions.[350]
Including _p_, and excluding _ng_, which was clearly a native invention,
we have simply a cipher of the Latin alphabet up to _u_, with a single
modification. The symbol _u_, which did double duty in Latin as both
consonant and vowel, is represented by two symbols, one for each
function. The fact that only the last three letters (x y z) of the Latin
alphabet are discarded, and that all the others are represented, renders
this explanation of the ogam cipher very much simpler than a derivation
from Greek or Iberian (or Runic, which has been suggested).
That the cipher implies that the alphabet for which its symbols are
substituted was in use can hardly be questioned. As the date of the
oldest ogam stones cannot be determined, we cannot fix a date for the
introduction of Roman writing. But there can be no question that the
older stones are pagan, and the inference is clear that this writing was
introduced independently of Christianity.
CHAPTER IX
P. 187.—Bishop Nynias, generally called Ninian, see Bede, _H. E._ iii.
4. This passage in Bede furnishes the only trustworthy tradition about
Nynias. His expression _ut perhibent_ shows that his information was
oral. Bede does not fix the date of Nynias further than by the vague
_multo tempore_ before St. Columba, and by the statement that the church
which Nynias built was dedicated to St. Martin. The usually accepted
date, _c._ 400 A.D., depends on the statement in Ailred’s _Vita Niniani_,
c. 2, that Nynias visited St. Martin (and obtained at Tours masons to
build his stone church). There is no evidence that the _Life_ composed
by Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx in the twelfth century, was based on any
ancient documents unknown to Bede; Ailred seems to have drawn his
material, mainly legendary, from traditions in Galloway, and, with the
exception of the visit to Martin, he adds nothing that can pretend to be
a historical fact to the brief notice of Bede. The personal contact of
Nynias with Martin, however, may be a genuine tradition; and it furnishes
the most probable explanation of the connexion of Martin’s name with
Candida Casa. But we have an independent testimony that the conversion
of the Picts of Galloway must have been at least early in the fifth
century—namely, their description as _apostatae_ in Patrick’s _Letter
against Coroticus_, which shows that they had been converted and fallen
away before the middle of the fifth century. [The fullest collection of
everything bearing on Nynias is Forbes’s _Lives of St. Ninian and St.
Kentigern_, 1874. A more recent edition of Ailred’s _Vita_ will be found
in Pinkerton’s _Lives of the Scottish Saints_, revised by W. M. Metcalfe,
vol. i. 1889. For a criticism on Ailred, see J. Mackinnon, _Ninian und
sein Einfluss auf die Ausbreitung der Christenthums in Nord-Britannien_,
1891. See also Plummer’s note on Bede, _H.E._ iii. 4.]
_Ib._—Candida Casa, Whitern, was known in Ireland in the sixth century
as Magnum Monasterium or Rosnat, and had a high reputation as a monastic
school: see passages in Colgan, _Acta Sanctorum Hib._ i. p. 438. This
reputation led to the rise of a legend that Nynias founded a church in
Ireland and died there. A lost Irish life, known to Ussher (_Brit. Eccl._
vi. 209) contained this story, and Nynias appears in Irish Martyrologies
under the name of Moinenn “my Nynias” (_Mart. of Tallaght_, ed. Kelly, p.
xxxiv.; _Mart. Dung._ ed. Todd, p. 249).
P. 190.—Ceretic or Coroticus. The only source for the following events
is Patrick’s _Letter_ (see below); but the identification of Coroticus,
who is the subject of the _Letter_, depends on other considerations which
seem quite conclusive. The Table of Contents to Muirchu’s Life describes
the section which Muirchu devoted to him as _de conflictu sancti Patricii
adversum Coirthech regem Aloo_[351] (p. 271; in Muirchu’s text he is
simply described as _cuiusdam regis Britannici_, p. 498). _Aloo_ at
once suggests the Rock (_Ail_) of Clyde, Bede’s _Alcluith_ (ciuitas
Brettonum munitissima usque hodie quae uocatur Alcluith, _H.E._ i. 1),
Adamnan’s _Petra Cloithe_; and this identification agrees with the close
association of Patrick’s Coroticus with the Picts and Scots, which shows
that he must have ruled in Northern Britain. But the determination of
Coroticus as ruling at Alcluith is demonstrated (as has been most clearly
shown by Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, p. 54, cp. Skene, _Celtic Scotland_,
i. 158, note) by a genealogy of the kings of that place, preserved in
a Welsh source. In the last quarter of the sixth century, in the time
of Columba, Rodercus, or Rhydderch, reigned at Alcluith (Adamnan, _V.
Col._ i. 15: Rodercus filius Tothail qui in petra Cloithe regnavit), and
we find him also as Riderch hen (Rhydderch the Old) in the _Historia
Brittonum_ (ed. Mommsen, p. 206). Now the pedigree of this Rhydderch is
found in a Welsh genealogy (ed. Phillimore, in _Y Cymmrodor_, 9, 173):
he was son of Tutagual (cp. Adamnan, _filius Tothail_), who was son of
Clinoch, who was son of Dumngnal, who was son of Cinuit, who was son
of Ceretic _guletic_. It is evident that Ceretic, from whom Rhydderch
was sixth, corresponds chronologically to Coroticus, the contemporary
of St. Patrick, reckoning a generation—thirty years—to each king. The
identification so completely fits with all the data that we can have no
doubt of its truth. Thus Zimmer fixes the date of Ceretic or Coroticus as
420-450 A.D. But it is better to say that the reigns of Ceretic and his
son Cinuit probably fell more or less between 420 and 480.
Zimmer thinks that the description of Ceretic as _guletic_ in the Welsh
source points to his position as claiming to be a successor of the Roman
_dux Britanniarum_. I do not feel certain that we can go so far, but
I have no doubt that Ceretic and his _milites_ represented the Roman
defence of North Britain. That these _milites_ were Roman citizens
is clear from Patrick’s words (_Letter_, p. 375₂₃, _militibus—non
dico ciuibus meis atque ciuibus sanctorum Romanorum sed ciuibus
demoniorum_—the sting of this reproach is that they professed to
be Roman). Coroticus was a _tyrannus_ for Patrick (_per tirannidem
Corotici_, p. 376₁₉). It is not clear whether the _reges_ and _tyranni_
who arose in various parts of Britain in the fifth century (for example,
Vortigern) bore Roman official titles: the fact that there were also
generals who were not _reges_ and who seem to correspond to the Roman
commanders (Ambrosius Aurelianus; Arthurius) cannot be considered
decisive. For the continuance of Roman civilisation in Britain after the
rescript of Honorius (A.D. 410), see Mr. Haverfield’s observations in
“Early British Christianity” in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, July 1896, pp. 428-30;
and on the other hand for a Celtic revival, his paper on “The Last Days
of Silchester,” _ib._ Oct. 1904, pp. 628-9.
[It is hardly necessary to mention the old view in Rees, _Welsh Saints_,
p. 135, followed by Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 352, that Coroticus was
Caredig, of Cardigan, son of the Welsh chief Cynedda.]
P. 192.—That the scene of the outrage was in North Ireland, in Down
or Antrim, is only a probable conjecture: (1) these coasts were the
most likely destination of an expedition from Strathclyde; and (2) the
circumstance that Patrick _happened_ at the time to be close to the place
suggests Ulster. Zimmer says nothing as to this; but his theory would
evidently compel him to assume that the outrage was committed in South
Ireland, for otherwise the _Letter_ of St. Patrick would imply that his
activity was not confined, as Zimmer contends that it was, to North
Leinster. For a conjecture that the date may have been A.D. 459, see
above, App. B, p. 303.
_Ib._—Heathen Scots. _Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum_ (Patrick,
_Letter_, p. 375₂₆). The Picts, not the Scots, are apostates (cp. p.
379₇); the natural inference is that the Scots (of Britain) were still
heathen. Zimmer’s inference that they were Christians (p. 55) seems
extraordinarily perverse. He asks us to observe that the Scots “are
not reproached with paganism.” The implication is inadmissible. Their
paganism is taken for granted; in fact, it is their excuse. If they had
been professing Christians their guilt would have been greater even than
that of the Picts, who had fallen away from Christianity. The fact that
it is on the Picts, not on the Scots, that Patrick’s reproaches fell,
proves that the Scots were heathen and therefore might not be expected to
know better.
The mention of the Scots in this document is important, because it proves
that Scottish settlements in North-Western Britain had begun before
the middle of the fifth century. This must be taken into account in
criticising the notice in Bede, _H.E._ i. 1, of the origin of the British
Dalriada.
P. 193.—The outrage on the neophytes: _Letter against Coroticus_,
375₂₂₋₃₂. The language of Patrick implies that it was the Scots and
Picts, not the _milites Corotici_, who slaughtered some of the Christians:
socii Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum quasi sanguine
uolentes saginari [see White’s ed.] sanguine innocentium
Christianorum quos ego innumerum [? _leg._ innumerum numerum;
_Boll._ innumeros] Deo genui atque in Christo confirmaui.
The text of the _Letter_ is full of corruptions, some of which may be
easily corrected. In the following sentence we should perhaps read:
Postera die <quam> qua crismati neophiti in ueste candida, dum
flagrabat in fronte ipsorum <crux>, crudeliter trucidati atque
mactati gladio <a> supradictis, <..> et misi epistolam, etc.
_Crux_ or _crucis signum_ may have fallen out before _crudeliter_. For
the sign of the cross and white chrism at baptism, see Warren, _Liturgy
and Ritual of the Celtic Church_, p. 65; cp. p. 217. It was laid down by
Innocent I. (_Ep._ xxv., Migne, _P.L._ xx. 555) that chrism _in pectore_
might be performed by presbyters, chrism _in fronte_ only by bishops. For
the Roman and Gallican baptismal ceremonies see Duchesne, _Origines du
culte chrétien_, cap. ix.
P. 194.—There is a difficulty, perhaps only superficial, in Patrick’s
narrative in his _Letter_. He makes Coroticus fully responsible for the
outrage, but his language suggests that the message which he had sent to
demand the captives before the plunderers left Ireland was not addressed
to Coroticus personally; the ruler’s name is not mentioned, and the
plural is used (_cachinnos fecerunt de illis_, 376₄). It is possible,
however, that something has fallen out (see last note) before the words
_et misi epistolam_.
_Ib._—The persons in Strathclyde to whom the _Letter against Coroticus_
was transmitted and who were asked to excommunicate the tyrant are not
designated by a more precise expression than _sancti et humiles corde_
(376₂₃). They were, no doubt, the whole Christian community; but there
is no indication who was to receive the letter in the first instance.
There is apparently a reference to the contemplated transmission of the
letter from one place to another in Britain (certainly from Ireland to
Britain) by the hands of some _famulus Dei_ in 380₁₉, and the writer is
afraid that it might possibly be abstracted. The inference seems to be
that it was not to go direct to Alcluith, but to some other place (could
it possibly have been Whitern?).
P. 194.—The reference to the redemption of captives from the Franks is
an illustration from Patrick’s own writings of his knowledge of Gaul.
An untenable inference has been drawn from this passage by Sir S.
Ferguson and Dr. Stokes, namely, that it must have been written before
the Franks “crossed the Rhine and settled in Gaul, _i.e._ before A.D.
428” (Introduction to _Tripartite Life_, p. ci). The argument is based
on ignorance of Frank history. The Salian Franks in question had been
settled west of the Rhine since the time of Julian. Consequently if there
was any validity in the argument it would prove that the _Letter_ must
have been written before 358 A.D. But the reasoning is invalid. It is not
clear whether the Salians are meant; but if they are meant, as they well
may be, there is no reason in the world why they should not have carried
off captives to their territory in Lower Germany, on the Gallic side of
the Rhine, early in the fifth century, whether in the days of Chlojo or
before; in fact it is what we should expect in those troubled years from
407 to the campaigns of Aetius in the late twenties. The argument that
the Franks must have carried their captives _beyond the Rhine_ is to me
unintelligible.
_Ib._—Legend of the transformation of Ceretic into a fox: Muirchu, p.
498: _ilico uulpeculi_ (sic legendum) _miserabiliter arrepta forma_. The
curious expression (_ib._₁₉), _ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus
aquae transiens nusquam comparuit_, may possibly have been suggested by
the words in the _Letter_ 380₇ referring to Coroticus: _miserum regnum
temporale quod utique in momento transeat sicut nubes uel fumus qui
utique uento dispergitur: ita peccatores et fraudulenti a facie Domini
peribunt_. Muirchu found that story in an Irish written source (see
above, App. A, ii. 3).
P. 195.—Bitter phrases and self-justification in the _Letter_: see
375₂₀₋₂₁; 376₁₆ (_non usurpo aliena_); 377₁₄₋378₂; 379₁₂₋₁₈. For similar
phrases in the _Confession_ and the _Letter_, cp. Mr. White’s list of
recurrent phrases (_Proc. of R.I.A._ 1905, p. 299), to which may be added
the use of _utique_.
P. 197.—“Confession.” What Patrick meant by _confessio_ is made clear
by the last sentences of the work (374₂₈₋375₅), and borne out by the
general tenor. Compare esp. 358₄₋₁₀ (_confiteremur_), 361₁₇, 366₂₀, 370₃₄.
P. 202.—The attack on Patrick, on account of the youthful fault (_Conf._
365₂, etc.):
et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui
uenerunt et peccata mea contra laboriosum episcopatum meum
<..>, utique in illo die fortiter impulsus sum ut caderem [cp.
Ps. 118, 38] hic et in aeternum, sed Dominus pepercit proselito
et peregrino, etc.
It is clear that the attack was made in Ireland (cp. App. C, 5). It seems
probable that the persons described as _seniores mei_ were ecclesiastics
in Ireland, and this view has been adopted in the text. But in another
passage we read that _aliquanti de senioribus meis_ were offended by
his persistence in the determination to go to Ireland (367₂₉), and this
might suggest the view that they came from Britain (_uenerunt_) for the
purpose of attacking him. It seems impossible to decide. The vision which
Patrick saw the night after an interview with the _seniores_ has caused
some difficulty; he tells it so badly. “That night I saw in a vision of
the night a writing which had been written against me,[352] dishonouring
me.[353] And at the same time I heard the answer of God saying to me,
‘We have seen with displeasure the face of’ the person aforesaid [viz.
the friend], revealing his name.”[354] The passage immediately following
deserves attention. The writer gives thanks for two things:
[1] ut non me (sc. Deus) inpediret a profectione quam
statueram, et [2] de mea quoque opera quod a Christo Domino meo
dediceram, sed magis ex eo sensi in me uirtutem non paruam.
Here he designates as two great crises the attempts to dissuade him from
his missionary purpose, and the attack afterwards made upon him, to which
_ex eo_ refers.
P. 206.—Patrick regrets his want of education (_Conf._ 359₂₆):
quatinus modo ipse adpeto in senectute mea quod in iuuentute
non conparaui; quod obstiterunt peccata mea ut confirmarem quod
antea perlegeram (_sc._ the rudiments he had learned before his
captivity).
P. 206.—Scriptural quotations in the _Confession_ and _Letter_. A full
conspectus of these has been furnished by Rev. N. J. D. White in his
edition. His results as to the text used by Patrick may be summed up as
follows. For the Old Testament there is no evidence that he used the
Vulgate (cp. above, p. 293 _ad fin._), while there are distinctively
Old Latin citations. The New Testament citations are not so clear: some
passages seem certainly to imply the Vulgate; others have Old Latin
support. As there can be little doubt that Patrick quoted largely from
memory, I am inclined to conjecture that he had been trained on an Old
Latin version in Gaul, but that he possessed in Ireland a copy of the New
Testament Vulgate, in which he looked up some of his references. This
would explain the twofold character of the New Testament quotations, but
I put forward the conjecture with great diffidence.
_Ib._—Succession of Armagh bishops. See the four lists in Todd, _St.
Patrick_, p. 174 _sqq._ All these lists interpolate Sechnall, and three
of them the fictitious Sen Patraic, between Patrick and Benignus. But
the breviarium in the Book of Leinster (f. 12, vᵒ A; see my paper in
_E.H.R._, October 1902) recognises that Iarlathus (the successor of
Benignus) was the third bishop. I cannot, however, consider it certain
that Benignus succeeded Patrick before his death in 461, because the ten
years which the lists assign to Benignus may have been based on the Sen
Patraic interpolation, “Sen Patraic” being supposed to have died in 457,
and ten years (467-457) being thus obtained for Benignus.
P. 207.—Day of St. Patrick’s death. It is recorded in the Calendar of
Luxeuil (Martene et Durand, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, iii. c. 1592
(1717); Stokes, _Tripartite Life_, ii. 493).
_Ib._—Two distinct sets of _petitiones_ granted to Patrick are recorded,
one in Muirchu, the other in the _Lib. Arm._ at the end of Tírechán’s
Memoir. (1) Of the four petitions mentioned by Muirchu as granted by the
angel before Patrick’s death, two have obvious motives: one (_a_) is of
Ulidian origin, and the other (_b_) is in the interest of Armagh (see
above, p. 207). The other two are: (_c_) that whoever sings the hymn
concerning St. Patrick (Sechnall’s hymn) on the day of his death shall
be saved; and (_d_) that Patrick shall himself judge all the Irish on
the day of judgment. One wonders what Patrick would have thought of such
petitions, especially of the latter. It seems clear that (_c_) and (_d_)
were first invented, and had become current before (_a_) and (_b_) were
added.[355] (2) The other set consists of three (_tres petitiones ut
nobis traditae sunt Hibernensibus_, p. 331, Rolls ed.), and the _Vita
Tertia_ (c. 85) connects them with the sojourn for prayer on Mount
Crochan. They are (_a_) that none of the Irish who repents, even on his
death-bed, shall be shut up in hell; (_b_) that barbarous peoples shall
not rule the Irish for ever; (_c_) that seven years before the last day
Ireland shall be overwhelmed by the sea, and none of the Irish survive.
These petitions are given in the _Historia Brittonum_, and must have been
current in the eighth century.[356] The point of the second petition is
not clear. Possibly it refers to invasions from Britain.
We may conjecture that the stories of the petitions grew out of an early
legend that, through their saint’s intercession, the men of Ireland were
to have a privileged position at the Last Judgment.
P. 211.—St. Patrick’s crozier. The history of the crozier known as
_baculus Iesu_, which existed in Armagh in the eleventh century (see the
obscure notices in Tighernach, _s.a._ 1027 and 1030), was transferred in
the latter half of the twelfth century to the Cathedral Church of Dublin,
and was publicly burnt as an object of superstition in 1538, will be
found set out in Todd’s _Introduction_ (pp. viii. _sqq._) to the _Book
of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity,
Dublin_, ed. by J. C. Crosthwaite, 1844. The veneration with which it
was regarded in the eleventh century shows that it was an ancient relic,
and it can hardly be doubted that it was the existence of this relic at
Armagh which occasioned the story that Jesus gave a staff to Patrick.
This story occurs in the _Vita Tertia_, c. 23, which probably goes back
to the ninth century; and even if the story was not invented till that
period, the object which suggested it must have been older. It seems very
probable that the staff was one of the _insignia consecrata_ mentioned
in the _Liber Angueli_ (355₂₉, 356₄), and this would take us back to the
eighth century. There is therefore reason for thinking that the crozier
which perished in 1538 may have been extremely ancient, but there is
no positive proof that the tradition which assigned it to Patrick is
correct, or that it was as old as the fifth century.
_Ib._—St. Patrick’s bell. In _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 553, there is a notice,
derived from the Book of Cuana, to the effect that in that year St.
Columba placed the relics of Patrick in a shrine. Three relics had been
found in Patrick’s tomb, “the cup, the gospel of the angel, and the bell
of the will,” and an angel instructed Columba how to distribute them:
the cup was to go to Down, the bell to Armagh, and he was to keep the
gospel himself.[357] If this notice stood in the Book of Cuana, it would
show that early in the seventh century the “bell of the will” existed
at Armagh, and was believed to belong to Patrick. The bell has been
described, and its history traced, by Bishop Reeves in _Transactions of
the R.I.A._ xxvii. pp. 1 _sqq._ (1877). It is a four-sided bell, weighing
3 lbs. 8 oz., made “of two plates of sheet-iron, which are bent over so
as to meet, and are fastened by large-headed iron rivets.” The handle is
of iron. A shrine, which is also preserved in the Dublin Museum, was made
for it, _c._ A.D. 1100. Bishop Reeves believed that the tradition which
ascribed the bell to Patrick is sound. He seems to have thought that
there is no room for reasonable doubt. But it is to be observed that the
statement cited from the _Liber Cuana_ opens the door to possibilities
of fraud. We may infer from it with certainty that for nearly a century
after Patrick’s death this bell was not at Armagh. Its genuineness
therefore depends on the truth of the story of the opening of Patrick’s
tomb (at Saul), and the discovery of the bell in the tomb. But if the
relic was a forgery, just such a story might have been invented.
CHAPTER X
P. 218.—Latin the ecclesiastical language in the west. Since these
remarks were written, I came across two short but valuable papers on the
subject: P. Frédéricq, “Les conséquences de l’évangélisation par Rome
et par Byzance sur le développement de la langue maternelle des peuples
convertis” in the _Bull. de l’Académie royale de Belgique_, Classe des
lettres, 1903, n. 11, 738-751; F. Cumont, “Pourquoi le latin fut la seule
langue liturgique de l’occident?” in _Mélanges Paul Frédéricq_, 1904,
63-66.
APPENDIX C
EXCURSUS
1. _The Home of St. Patrick (Bannauenta)_
_CONFESSION_, 357₅: _qui_ (may refer either to Calpurnius or to
Potitus) _fuit [in] uico Bannauem taberniae. uillulam enim prope
habuit, ubi ego capturam dedi_. We are justified in inferring that
the _uillula_ or farmhouse was on the estate of Calpurnius, and that
he resided permanently here or in the neighbourhood. The analysis and
identification of _Bannauemtaberniae_ (or _Bannauemtaberniae_[358])
have caused great difficulty. In the first place, the question arises
whether it represents the name of the _vicus_, or is the name of the
_vicus_ (in the ablative) followed by a genitive representing the
region or district. Now it has been observed (by Mr. Haverfield, _Eng.
Historical Review_, v. 711, and Mr. Nicholson, _Academy_, May 11, 1895)
that in the _Itinerarium Antonini_ Bannaventa appears as the name of a
station on Watling Street, probably three or four miles from Daventry.
The idea that this Bannaventa is the place designated by Patrick has
one considerable difficulty. For the only early evidence we have as to
the situation of _Bannauemtaberniae_ is inconsistent with it. Muirchu
states that _Bannauemtaberniae_ was _haut[359] procul a mari nostro_
(495₉), and his next words show that in his time a distinct view was
current as to its identification: _quem uicum constanter indubitanterque
comperimus esse uentre_.[360] Muirchu’s indication that the place was
near the Irish Channel is the less lightly to be neglected, since it
would best accord with the circumstances of the capture of Patrick,
though of course it is not impossible that the Irish invaders might have
penetrated to Northamptonshire. I therefore think that probabilities are
distinctly against the Daventry theory unless it can be shown to involve
a satisfactory explanation of the mysterious _bernie_ or _burnie_.[361]
But that Bannaventa is the name there can, I think, be no doubt,[362]
and there is no objection to supposing that there was another Bannaventa
near the sea-coast. The recurrence of place-names needs no illustration.
Of the two parts of this compound name, we have more than one Venta
in Britain; and Mr. Haverfield has drawn attention to Banna (_loc.
cit._), “an unidentified spot in the north, probably a dozen miles east
of Carlisle, near the Wall.” _berniae_, however, remains unexplained.
It must represent the name of a district (or perhaps river), added to
distinguish Bannaventa from other places of the same name.