is the authentic reading) does not help us. But we can hardly doubt
that he means by Nentria the same place which the Hymn of Fíacc means
by _Nemthur_: l. 1, “Patrick was born in Nemthur.” This name might
correspond to an old Celtic _Nemetoduron_ (a name preserved in _Nanterre_
near Paris).[363] This British Nemetodurum was, we may presume, in the
same region as Bannaventa.
The glossator in the oldest (eleventh century) MS. of the Hymn of Fíacc
identified Nemthur with Ail Clúade, the Rock of Clyde, at Dumbarton. We
are ignorant of his authority for this statement, which does not appear
in any earlier source. The fact, however, that it is not inconsistent
with the direct statements of earlier sources has procured credence for
it. But it is inconsistent with the probabilities of the case. Patrick’s
father was a decurion, and he must have lived in civilised Britain. We
have no evidence that there were Roman towns with municipal constitutions
in Strathclyde. The truth is that north Britain was little more than
a large military frontier. It is generally supposed that Theodosius
in A.D. 369 restored Roman rule, which had fallen back in the north as
far as the Wall of Antoninus, and that the district which he recovered
(recuperata provincia, Ammianus, 28, 3, 7), and which was renamed
Valentia (by Valentinian, in compliment to his brother Valens), included
the country between the Walls of Hadrian and Antonine. There is, strictly
speaking, no direct authority for this conclusion; Ammianus does not
indicate the position of Valentia. The supposition that it was in the
north, and that Theodosius restored fortresses as far as the line of the
northern wall, is, however, not improbable. But there is no probability
that it was colonised[364] or became in the last half century of Roman
rule anything more than a military district. The Rock of Clyde, at the
extreme end of the Northern Wall, is the last place we should expect
to find the _uillula_ of a Roman decurion; and the opinion that the
home of Calpurnius was in that remote spot cannot be accepted without
better evidence than an anonymous statement which we cannot trace to any
trustworthy source.
But it is not likely that the identification offered by the glossator
was his own invention; it is much more probable that it was an idea of
considerably older date, and we cannot avoid asking the question how it
could have arisen. It might be conjectured that the idea of connecting
Patrick personally with north Britain arose there, naturally enough, as
a consequence of the influence of the Irish Church on north Britain. But
whether the idea first arose there or in Ireland, a delusive support
for it might have been found in _Corot._ 375₂₃. Patrick’s expression
there, _civibus meis_, in speaking of the soldiers of Coroticus, might
have suggested that he belonged to the same place as Coroticus, and
it was known that Coroticus was King of Ail (Clúade). Hence a narrow
interpretation of Patrick’s expression _civibus meis_ was sufficient
to generate the theory that Patrick’s British home was there, and that
Nemthur was identical with Ail Clúade.
This is the case against the vulgar view. On the other hand it
might be argued that some things in the _Letter_ of Patrick against
Coroticus—especially his quotation “a prophet has no honour in his own
country”—have more point if he was a native of that part of Britain which
the letter concerns, namely, Strathclyde. It might be said that the
existence of some small towns, _fora_ or _conciliabula_, with municipal
councils, in the province assumed to be Valentia, is not impossible,
and that the existence of “Roman citizens” and Christian communities
in Strathclyde is proved by Patrick’s _Letter_ for the middle of the
fifth century. And it might be suggested that _bernie_ could be readily
explained as a corruption of _Berni<ci>e_ (remembering Bede’s description
of Whitern in Galloway as _ad provinciam Berniciam pertinens_, iii. 4,
which, though referring to the political geography of his own time, may
correspond to the original extension of this obscure name).
Nevertheless, in the absence of any trace of a Bannaventa (or a Nemthur)
in north British regions, we must, I think, give decisive weight to the
general probabilities of the case and suppose that Bannaventa was south
of the Wall of Hadrian, somewhere in western Britain, not very far from
the coast. See further, Preface.
2. _Irish Invasions of Britain_
(1) Pacification and fortification of Britain by Theodosius, A.D. 368,
369. Chief source: Ammianus, 27, 8, and 28, 3, who mentions five enemies;
Picti and Attacotti; Scotti; Franci and Saxones (27, 8, 5). Two passages
in Claudian illustrate the campaigns of Theodosius. In the _Panegyric_ on
the Third Consulship of Honorius (A.D. 395) we read, vv. 54-6:—
Ille leues Mauros nec falso nomine Pictos
Edomuit Scottumque uago mucrone secutus
Fregit Hyperboreas remis audacibus undas,
and in the _Panegyric_ on the Fourth Consulship (A.D. 397), vv. 28
_sqq._:—
debellatorque Britanni
Litoris ac pariter Boreae uastator et Austri.
Quid rigor aeternus, caeli quid frigora prosunt
Ignotumque fretum? maduerunt Saxone fuso
Orcades; incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thyle;
Scottorum cumulos fleuit glacialis Hiuerne.
The first of these passages suggests that Theodosius pursued the Scots
across the sea, or at least made a naval demonstration in the Irish
Channel, and this is perhaps supported by the passage in Pacatus,
_Panegyric_, c. 5: attritam pedestribus praeliis Britanniam referam? Saxo
consumptus bellis naualibus offeretur. redactum ad paludes suas Scotum
loquar?
(2) Troubles brought on Britain through the revolt of Maximus, and
pacification by Stilicho. Zosimus (source: doubtless Eunapius), 4,
35: the soldiers, having crowned Maximus, παραχρῆμα τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ναυσὶ
διαβάντες landed at the mouth of the Rhine. Cp. Orosius 7, 34, 9. (While
Zosimus imputes the blame of the insurrection to Maximus, Orosius says
that he was created Emperor _inuitus propemodum_.) The rebellion was
brought to an end by the death of Maximus in A.D. 388 (Idatius and
Prosper Tiro, _ad ann._), so that it cannot have been before that year
that the Britannic legions returned to Britain.
Now the only contemporary evidence as to the fortunes of Britain during
the fifteen years which followed the revolt of Maximus consists of two
passages of Claudian: (1) _In Eutropium_, i. 393 (composed A.D. 399, June
to Sept.)—
fracto secura Britannia Picto,
where the context implies that this was accomplished during the reign of
Honorius (_te principe_, 391); (2) _De Consulatu Stilichonis_, ii. 247
_sqq._ (composed end of A.D. 399):—
Inde Caledonio uelata Britannia monstro,
Ferro picta genas, cuius uestigia uerrit
Caerulus Oceanique aestum mentitur amictus:
“Me quoque uicinis pereuntem gentibus” inquit
“Muniuit Stilicho, totam cum Scottus Hiuernen
Mouit et infesto spumauit remige Tethys.
Illius effectum curis ne tela timerem
Scottica, ne Pictum tremerem, ne litore toto
Prospicerem dubiis uenturum Saxona uentis.”
The second passage evidently suits the situation in which Britain would
have almost inevitably found herself on the departure of Maximus with the
legions. Two questions arise. In what year did Stilicho take measures
for the defence of Britain? and did he visit the island in person?
Keller supposes that the date was A.D. 385 and denies that he went to
Britain (_Stilicho_, p. 17). As to the latter point it is possible that
Keller may be right. The phrase _illius effectum curis_ suggests this
conclusion; if Stilicho had visited Britain and provided for its security
on the spot, Claudian would perhaps have used some more vivid and graphic
phrase, leaving the reader in no doubt that his hero had appeared on the
scene of danger.
Before criticising Keller’s date, A.D. 385, it will be well to define the
reference in the other passage, which distinctly states that the defeat
of the Picts which is mentioned, was accomplished while Honorius was
Emperor. This might mean one of two things. It might mean: since Honorius
succeeded his father as sole Augustus in the west (Jan. A.D. 395); or it
might mean: since Honorius was created Augustus (Jan. A.D. 393). The
words cannot assuredly be interpreted of the Caesarship of Honorius (he
appears with the title Caesar in his first consulship, A.D. 386). In the
absence of any other counter-indication, we are, I think, fully entitled
to assume that _te principe_ bears its most obvious and natural meaning,
and that the defeat of the Picts occurred while Honorius (and not his
father Theodosius) was solely responsible for the government of the
west. We may therefore assign as limits to the date of this event, Jan.
395-June 399 A.D..
Now Keller has made the mistake of associating these two passages of
Claudian closely together. While the first emphasises a defeat of the
Picts and does not refer to the other foes of Britain, the second
describes the serious dangers which beset the island on three sides,
and states that measures of defence were taken by Stilicho, but makes
no mention of an actual defeat of the Picts, or indeed of any other
enemy. There is therefore no reason for supposing that both passages
refer precisely to the same events; and it may be argued with some force
that if Claudian was thinking of the same achievements he would not have
omitted, in rehearsing the military successes in the reign of Honorius,
to mention the Scot and the Saxon as well as the Pict, especially as his
description in the second passage conveys the idea that the Scot and the
Saxon were the most formidable.
We may therefore refer the events mentioned in the poem “On Stilicho’s
Second Consulship” to a date prior to A.D. 395, and may return to
consider and reject Keller’s suggestion of A.D. 385. It does not need
much consideration, for it is wholly inconsistent with the political
situation. After Gratian’s death in A.D. 383 Maximus was recognised
as Augustus by Theodosius (A.D. 384 or 385, cp. Schiller, _Gesch. der
röm. Kaiserzeit_, ii. 405), who was not then in a position to advance
against the usurper (Zosimus, 4, 37). From that time until he marched
upon Italy in A.D. 387, there were no hostile dealings between Maximus
and Theodosius. Maximus ruled over Britain, Gaul, and Spain from his
headquarters at Trier, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that
Theodosius or any general of his interfered in the administration of
those provinces. Stilicho was a general of Theodosius,[365] and he cannot
possibly have had to do with Britain till after Theodosius came to the
rescue of the young Valentinian in A.D. 388. Thus Keller’s date is
excluded.
The true date can easily be surmised. After the execution of Maximus in
summer A.D. 388 Theodosius remained in Italy, ordering the affairs of
the west for the young Valentinian, and did not return to Constantinople
till summer A.D. 391. No part of the Gallic Prefecture probably demanded
his attention more than Britain, and we cannot be far wrong in supposing
that the measures of Stilicho, recorded by Claudian, belong to these
three years. As was observed, the words of Claudian rather suggest that
Stilicho did not himself pass into Britain. But we may assume that
Theodosius sent him into Gaul, and that from there he ordered what was
necessary to be done.
It seems probable that Maximus retained in Gaul a considerable part of
the Britannic army; and if so, it was doubtless one of the cares of
Stilicho to restore to Britain these contingents. We may assume that
from A.D. 390 two legions (IInd and VIth), if not the XXth also, were in
Britain.
(3) At the end of 401 Alaric entered Italy (for the chronology see
Appendix 17 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.), and a legion was
summoned for the defence of Italy. Claudian is again our source, _De
Bello Gothico_, 416-8:—
Venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis
Quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas
Perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras.
This description of a legion which might be called upon to act against
both Irish and Pict certainly suggests the legion which was stationed in
the northern military district, of which the headquarters was York.[366]
Now in the _Notitia Dignitatum_, which represents the state of the
civil and military service in the Empire in the first years of the
fifth century, we find two legions in Britain, the VIth in the northern
districts under the _dux Britanniarum_, the IInd in the south-eastern
district under the _comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias_. No legion
appears in the western district under the _comes Britanniae_. It has
therefore been supposed that it was the XXth legion, stationed in the
west, which was summoned to Italy; and the fact that this legion does not
appear in the _Notitia_ at all has suggested that this document was drawn
up after it had left Britain, but before it had been permanently assigned
to any other station. Claudian’s words need not be fatal to this theory,
for the legion whose headquarters was at Chester would have to defend
Britain against the Scots, and might have to defend it against Picts if
they broke through the wall; and in any case the words of the poet in
such a matter could not be precisely pressed. But the argument cannot be
regarded as conclusive. It is perfectly possible that the XXth legion
had been broken up before this time, that there were only two legions in
Britain, and that it was the VIth which went to Italy. Its departure,
it should be remembered, did not leave north Britain defenceless; there
were large forces, cohorts, and alae, distinct from the legion. It is,
moreover, possible that the British section of the _Not._ is of much
older date.
(4) The elevation of the tyrant Constantine and his crossing into Gaul
would seem to have happened in the first half of A.D. 407. This seems
to follow from the account in Olympiodorus (fr. 12, ed. Müller). The
second half of A.D. 406 is filled by the episodes of Constantine’s
predecessors, Marcus and Gratian. Zosimus (who, in regard to the dating,
misunderstood Olympiodorus, as was pointed out by Freeman[367]) says
that the invasion of Gaul by the Vandals and their fellows was one of
the causes of the rebellion in Britain (vi. 3, 1). This cannot be true,
if the text is sound in the entry of Prosper Tiro, which states that the
Vandals and Alans crossed the Rhine at the end of December A.D. 406.[368]
On the other hand, two considerations might tempt us to suspect this
notice, namely, the unlikelihood of a migration in the middle of winter,
and the existence of two edicts for a levée of provincials _contra
hostiles impetus_ dated April 18 and 20 at Ravenna (cp. Hodgkin, i.
739). But neither of these considerations is weighty enough to justify
us in assuming without further evidence anything inconsistent with the
testimony of Prosper’s MSS. In any case, the crossing of Constantine
into Gaul will fall in the year A.D. 407.[369] We can have no doubt that
most of the soldiers in Britain accompanied Constantine when he departed
to secure Gaul. But he must have left garrisons; it was important for
him to retain his hold on the island if, as is probable, his corn
supply depended on it. Mr. Freeman has summed up the event thus in its
consequences for Britain: “Britain might be saved by a campaign in Gaul.
But if this was the motive, the thought of saving Britain must soon have
passed away from the minds of Constantine and his soldiers. Whether they
cared for such an object or not, the course of things on the mainland
soon made it hopeless for them to think of keeping up any relations with
the great island. The crossing of Constantine into Gaul thus became the
end of the Roman power in Britain” (p. 56).
It is possible that Constantine, before he departed, may have set up a
colleague, named Carausius, to safeguard his interests in Britain. This
at least is the inference drawn by Mr. A. J. Evans from a coin found at
Richborough (see _Numismatic Chronicle_, third series, vii. 191 _sqq._
1887, and App. 19 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.).
(5) We may now briefly consider the account of this last period of
Roman domination which is given in the Epistle of Gildas, _De excidio
et conquestu Britanniae_. Gildas, a native of west Britain, wrote in
the first half of the sixth century, and his description in cc. 13-20
represents the confused memories of that troubled time, surviving in his
own day. As Mommsen[370] says: “haec ut in universum rerum statum in
Britannia qui tum fuit recte repraesentare videntur, sic ut narrantur
magis famam incertam reddunt quam sinceram rerum gestarum narrationem.”
In this account three great devastations are distinguished, and each is
attributed to the withdrawal of the Roman garrison. The first was caused
by the revolt of Maximus (cc. 13, 14); the island was devastated by Scots
and Picts;[371] and it was not until the islanders sent an embassy with
letters to Rome that “a legion,” _praeteriti mali_ (the disloyalty of
Britain) _immemor_, was sent to Britain, defeated the enemy, and built
a wall across the island. The details are of course inaccurate, but the
general fact that the rebellion of Maximus brought invasion upon Britain,
and after his fall measures were taken (by Stilicho) for fortifying it,
is correct.
But Gildas conceived that the “legion” when it had done its work did not
remain in the island, but returned triumphantly to Rome; and then the
old foes began their ravages anew (c. 16). Again an embassy repairs to
Rome and begs aid; aid is again given, and the invaders are punished. The
soldiers, having given good advice to the timid natives and erected new
fortifications, _valedicunt tamquam ultra non reversuri_. Then follows
the third devastation, and the famous futile message of the “groans of
the Britons” is sent to Aetius.
Now this narrative does not correspond to the course of events as we
gather it from the scanty contemporary sources, but we can see how it is
based on actual occurrences. The third devastation, from A.D. 407, when
the army finally departed, to A.D. 446 (the third consulship of Aetius),
must represent truly enough the situation of Britain in those years. The
circumstance that one legion was withdrawn in A.D. 402, and that the rest
departed five years later, in A.D. 407, may have been the historical
motive for distinguishing a second period of devastation, which would
have to fall before A.D. 407.
But a further fact may underlie this tradition of a second devastation.
There is no reason to reject the statement in the Irish Annals that King
Niall was slain by the Ictian Sea (Sea of Wight), that is, the English
Channel, while he was invading Britain, nor is there any reason to
question the date assigned to his death, A.D. 405. And if the date is
right, even within a year or so, then his last incursion into Britain may
be regarded as the historical foundation of the “second devastation” of
Gildas.
For the legend of the Slaying of Niall of the Nine Hostages (_orcuin
Néill nóigíallaig_) see the version edited by Professor Kuno Meyer (in
_Otia Merseiana_, ii. 84 _sqq._).
The High Kings of Ireland who may have been concerned in the “Scotic”
invasions of Britain from the middle of the fourth century to the year
A.D. 427 were as follows, according to the Irish tradition:—
Eochaidh Muighmeadhoin, A.D. 358-366.
Crimthann, A.D. 366-379.
Niall (son of Eochaidh), A.D. 379-405.
Dathi (nephew of Niall), A.D. 405-428.
3. _The Dates of Patrick’s Birth and Captivity_
The chronological framework of Patrick’s life is determined by two
certain dates: the year of his coming to Ireland, which rests upon clear
and unvarying tradition, A.D. 432, and the year of his death, A.D. 461.
This last date is supplied by the earliest source we have (excepting
Patrick’s own writings), Tírechán (302₂₉), and it is supported by the
independent evidence of the Annals. For although the false, vulgar date
(A.D. 493) established itself in the Annals, the true date remained
inconsistently side by side with it. I must refer the reader to my
discussion of the passage of Tírechán in the _English Historical Review_,
xvii. p. 239 _sqq._ (1902), where I have shown that the date there given,
A.D. 461, is supported by the Annals of Ulster,[372] the Annals of
Inisfallen,[373] and probably by a chronological notice in the _Historia
Brittonum_.[374]
But though these data are decisive, the vulgar date 493 has become so
generally current that it may not be amiss to point to one or two further
considerations which make against it; especially as it is possible to
dissociate it from the tradition that Patrick died at an age which is,
to use a moderate expression, unusual—120, by supposing that he was born
in the first years of the fifth century, was ordained bishop at the age
of 30, and lived to the age of 90. This view would involve a forced
explanation of the dates (see below) supplied by the _Confession_. It is
to be observed (1) that the Annals and older sources do not furnish a
single notice of any event in Patrick’s life between 461 and 493; these
thirty-two years are a blank. (2) Negative evidence is also furnished by
the oldest _Life of St. Brigit_ (by Cogitosus), which does not mention
Patrick, or make any attempt to bring Brigit into connexion with him (as
the latter Lives do, on the ground of the supposed date of his death
in 493). Further (3), Benignus, Patrick’s successor at Armagh, died in
467 (_Ann. Ult. sub a._; Annals in the _Book of Leinster_, f. 12, vᵒ A,
see my extract in _English Historical Review_, xvii. pp. 700-1, 1902);
and it will be allowed to be supremely improbable that Patrick should
have resigned his bishopric when he was 60 years old or thereabouts, and
survived his resignation 30 years. The question of the origin of the date
493, and of the two fabulous ages of Patrick (120 and 132) are treated in
a separate Excursus.
Our other data depend upon the _Confession_. He had committed some fault
when he was about 15 years old;[375] he had confessed it to a friend
before he was ordained deacon;[376] and through the treachery of his
friend[377] it was afterwards urged against him. These machinations
against him occurred _post annos triginta_,[378] which has been generally
interpreted to mean 30 years after the commission of the fault.[379] It
is also generally assumed that the hostile machinations of which Patrick
complains occurred in connexion with his consecration as bishop. I will
show that the first of these two assumptions is not certain, and that
the second is erroneous; but, as they are usually accepted, I may first
explain the chronological reconstruction which could be based on them. If
Patrick’s fault committed at the age of 15 was urged against him 30 years
later when he was consecrated bishop in A.D. 432, we at once get his age
in that year as 45, and the date of his birth as A.D. 387, and the date
of his captivity (= 387 + 16/17) as A.D. 403/4. This would follow, if we
took the two numbers mentioned by Patrick as strictly precise. But it
is to be observed that he gives the number 15 as approximate (_nescio,
Deus scit, si habebam tunc annos quindecim_), and that 30 may be a round
number. When he says that he does not think he was more than 15 when
the delinquency was committed, we may presume that he was at least 15;
on the other hand, we may take it that the number 30 is more likely to
be slightly an over-statement than an under-statement. We should have,
therefore, to consider it quite possible that the two numbers taken
together might represent a period of somewhat less than 45 years—43 or
44; and it would not be safe to draw a more precise inference than that
the birth date fell between 387 and 390, and the captivity between 403/4
and 406/7.
But the basis on which this reconstruction is built is unsound. (1) So
far from its being clear that the 30 years are reckoned from the date
of the fault, the words suggest a different view. _Occasionem post
annos triginta inuenerunt[380] et aduersus uerbum quod confessus fueram
antequam essem diaconus._ These words seem naturally to imply 30 years,
not after the fault (which has not been yet mentioned), but after the
confession of the fault.[381] (2) It is quite clear that the occasion on
which the fault was urged against him by _aliquanti seniores_ was not
the occasion of his consecration, but later, probably much later. The
writer’s language so obviously implies this that I find it difficult to
conceive how it could have been otherwise interpreted. He says:—
Et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui
uenerunt et peccata mea contra _laboriosum_ episcopatum meum,
etc. ... sed Dominus pepercit _proselito et peregrino_ (365₂₋₇).
The significant word _laboriosum_ shows conclusively that the
intervention of the seniores did not occur till Patrick had already been
working in Ireland long enough to describe his bishopric as “laborious”;
and the words _proselito et peregrino_, describing his position in
Ireland, manifestly confirm this interpretation. If the seniores
had intervened at the time of his consecration, it would be quite
inappropriate and pointless to describe their action as aimed _contra
laboriosum episcopatum meum_.
Hence the chronological reconstruction falls to the ground, being
based on an erroneous determination of the limits of the period of 30
years. The anterior limit most probably corresponds to the date of the
confession of the fault before ordination, while the posterior limit is
certainly subsequent to A.D. 432.
It follows that these data of the _Confession_ furnish us with no precise
dates, as we have no fixed year to reckon from. They may, however, give
an approximate indication. The words _quod confessus fueram antequam
essem diaconus_ strongly suggest that the confession was made not long
before Patrick’s ordination as deacon. In another Excursus (9) it is
shown that he was probably ordained before A.D. 418. Hence we should
infer that the intervention of the seniores occurred before the year A.D.
448. More than this we are not entitled to infer. We have no means of
determining precisely Patrick’s age at the date of his consecration.
There are nevertheless two indications which suggest that 389 may
have been the year of Patrick’s birth: (1) the conjecture that he was
taken captive on the occasion of King Niall’s invasion in A.D. 405 is
in harmony with our data; it is a value of _x_ which satisfies our
indeterminate equation, though it is not the only value. It implies A.D.
389 as the birth date. (2) I show in another Excursus (20) that one of
the traditions as to Patrick’s age at his death can be accounted for by
supposing that he died at the age of 72; but 461 - 72 = 389.
Speaking, then, with every reserve, I think we may say that 389 is the
only year which is particularly indicated by any data we possess, and
that if we assume it hypothetically as our starting-point we obtain a
framework into which our data fit consistently, and without constraint.
More than this cannot be said.
4. _The Place of Patrick’s Captivity_
_Confession_, 367₂₄, _in siluis et monte_; 362₃, _inter-missi_ hominem
cum quo fueram ui annis; 364₁₀₋₁₃, _putabam—audire uocem ipsorum qui
erant iuxta siluam Focluti quae est prope mare occidentals, et sic
exclamauerunt quasi ex uno ore Rogamus te, sancte puer, ut uenias et_
adhuc _ambulas inter nos_. The last passage shows indisputably that
Patrick, during his captivity, had “walked” near the wood of Fochlad; and
otherwise it would be difficult to understand why he should have been
so specially moved by thoughts of the people of Fochlad if he had known
nothing of them personally. The obvious conclusion from the _Confession_,
if we had no other data, would be that he spent six years of captivity
with the master to whom he refers in western Connaught.
The authorities for the association of Patrick’s captivity with north
Dalaradia and Mount Miss are Tírechán, 329₂₈-330₁₉, 311₁,₂, and Muirchu,
275₁₅₋₁₉, 276₆₋277₆, 300₁₀₋₁₃. I have pointed out that parts of these
passages of Tírechán and Muirchu depend on a common source (see above,
p. 258). It is to be observed that, in these our earliest sources (1),
the identification of Patrick’s master with Miliucc of Mount Miss is
introduced, not in connexion with the story of the captivity, but _à
propos_ of visits to that region after he had come as a missionary; and
(2) the notices in both writers are characterised by legends—Miliucc’s
self-immolation, the footsteps of the angel, the flames from Patrick’s
mouth.
The rejection of Mount Miss as the scene of Patrick’s servitude involves
the rejection of Miliucc as his master; for the passage in Tírechán
makes it clear that Miliucc was really connected with that region
(_ascendit autem ad montem Miss Boonrigi quia nutriuit ibi filium Milcon
Maccu-Buain_, 329₂₈; the region was called from the name of Búan,
Miliucc’s ancestor).
That the forest of Fochlad was not confined to north-western Mayo, the
barony of Tirawley, but extended southward to Murrisk, is, I think, a
probable conclusion from the passage in Tírechán, 310₃₋₁₂, where Crochan
Aigli (Croagh Patrick) is closely connected with the _Silua Fochlithi_.
It seems highly probable that Crochan Aigli, which has always been
associated with Patrick in living tradition, is the mountain of the
_Confession_. And in one document we have a distinct statement that this
was so. It is remarkable that Probus, though he follows the narrative
of Muirchu, nevertheless substitutes Crochan Aigli for Mount Miss (see
above, p. 274). He must have had some motive for doing so; he must have
had another tradition before him.
The question arises, what was the origin of the error (which evidently
prevailed before the seventh century) that Patrick spent his captivity
in north Dalaradia. Tírechán has a notice that a certain Gosactus
(Guasacht),[382] whom Patrick ordained near Granard, was son of Miliucc
(311), and his tomb was shown at Granard in later days, _Vita Secunda_,
c. 15. This seems to bring Miliucc into touch with reality. He further
states that Patrick, when a captive, had “nurtured Gosactus.” Our first
idea would be that this was an inference from the Miliucc legend; but it
seems just possible that it might account for the rise of the legend, in
the way explained above, p. 123 (cap. vi.).
There are two ways in which an attempt might be made to reconcile the
tradition of the captivity near Mount Miss with the passage in the
_Confession_. (1) It might be held that Patrick changed masters, and
served as a slave in both regions. But the passage in which he describes
his captivity seems incompatible with such a conjecture. He says that he
had been six years with the man from whom he escaped, and his narrative
distinctly conveys the impression that he had been in the same place
since his arrival in Ireland. (2) It might be suggested that he escaped
from Antrim to a port in Mayo, near the wood of Fochlad, and thus became
acquainted with that district, though he could not have been very long
there (cp. White, _Proc. of R.I.A._ 1905, p. 224). But the words of
the dream _et adhuc[383] ambulas inter nos_ are not satisfied by this
hypothesis. “We beg you to come and continue to walk amongst us”; this
implies a previous sojourning far more protracted than the day or two
spent at the port in waiting for the vessel to sail. It may be added that
a flight from the west to an eastern port is what we should rather expect
than a flight from the east coast to a western harbour.
5. _Tentative Chronology from the Escape to the Consecration as Bishop_
[The following discussion is founded on the working hypothesis (see
Excursus 3) that Patrick was born _c._ A.D. 389, and carried captive _c._
A.D. 405.]
In the twenty years intervening between Patrick’s escape, _c._ A.D.
411-412, and his consecration as bishop, A.D. 432, we know that he
visited Britain, that he was attached to the church of Auxerre and
studied there, and that he sojourned for some time in the monastery
of Lérins. But our data do not permit us to arrange this part of his
life with certainty, and various reconstructions are possible. The two
indications which we possess are:—
(1) His own statement that he was again in Britain, _post paucos annos_
(after his escape), _Confession_, 364₁.
(2) His association with Bishop Amator of Auxerre, who probably ordained
him deacon (the grounds of this probability will be shown in Excursus 9);
the death of Amator probably happened in A.D. 418.
Our view will partly depend on the latitude we may feel justified in
giving to the expression _post paucos annos_. It might be held that
his ordination by Amator preceded his return to Britain; or it might
be held that he was not ordained at Auxerre till after his visit to
Britain, so that he would have returned to Gaul before A.D. 418. The
second alternative seems the more probable,[384] and it agrees with the
tradition (Muirchu) that he went to Auxerre to study _after_ his visit to
Britain. His choice of Auxerre, combined with the circumstance that it
was a bishop of Auxerre who afterwards took a prominent part in helping
the orthodox British against Pelagianism, suggests that relations of
some intimacy were maintained between Auxerre and some of the British
sees. When Patrick, in Britain, made up his mind as to the destination
of his life, he would have gone to Auxerre with recommendations from his
friends. It seems most likely that his connexion with Auxerre should have
originated in this way.
The tradition as embodied in Muirchu represents him as remaining at
Auxerre till his departure for Ireland, and though it might easily be
erroneous, it is, so far as it goes, against the possible theory that
Patrick’s sojourn at Lérins is to be placed after his visit to Britain.
But we have another piece of evidence which seems to me decisive, namely,
one of the so-called _Dicta Patricii_. See Excursus 6, _ad fin._
The argument for placing the sojourn at Lérins before the return to
Britain may be summed up thus: (1) the reminiscence of Patrick’s
wanderings almost certainly refers to his wanderings after his escape,
and there can hardly be any doubt that the “islands in the Tyrrhenian
Sea” mean the islands of Lérins, in view of the definite tradition
(Tírechán, 302₂₄) that he stayed in the _insola Aralanensis_; (2) this
date for the retreat to Lérins supplies the much-needed explanation of
his delay in returning home.
The following chronology, then, may be a rough approximation:—
A.D. 411/2 escape from his ship-companions;
A.D. 411/2-414/5 at Lérins;
A.D. 414/5 returns to Britain;
A.D. 415/6 goes to Auxerre;
A.D. 416-8 is ordained by Amator;
A.D. 418 death of Amator, who is succeeded by Germanus;
A.D. 418-432 Patrick remains at Auxerre, as deacon;
A.D. 429 Germanus goes to Britain to suppress the Pelagian heresy;
A.D. 431 Palladius consecrated bishop for the Irish Church;
A.D. 432 Patrick consecrated bishop by Germanus.
6. _The Escape to Gaul. The State of Gaul, A.D. 409-416_
The Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, who entered Gaul at the end of A.D.
406, remained in the land, devastating, slaying, and burning until A.D.
409, in which year they crossed the Pyrenees, to find homes in Spain.
The extent of their ravages is indicated by Jerome, in a letter of A.D.
411, in which he mentions the devastation of Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and
Narbonensis, and the destruction of Mainz, Rheims, and Speyer.[385] It
is also described by Salvian, writing at a much later date,[386] in the
_De Gubernatione Dei_, who tells[387] how the Vandals, _gens ignavissima,
de loco ad locum pergens de urbe in urbem transiens_ laid all things
waste. _Arsit regio Belgarum deinde opes Aquitanorum luxuriantium et
posthaec corpus omnium Galliarum._ But more valuable as genuine pictures
by eye-witnesses, men who had themselves suffered with the sufferings
of Gaul, are the _Commonitorium_ of Orientius, and an anonymous poem
entitled _De Providentia Divina_. Both these poems can be approximately
dated to A.D. 415-416, and they describe the condition of the country at
the time, enabling us to realise the long misery and desolation produced
by the scourge of the years A.D. 407-409 Nor had Gaul, at least southern
Gaul, been allowed a respite of peace to recover from the effects of
that scourge, for the provincials had hardly become conscious that the
Vandals had passed into Spain when Athaulf and his Visigoths entered
Gaul. Moreover, a large body of Alans had remained behind, instead of
accompanying their fellows across the Pyrenees. We derive a vivid picture
of the unsettled state of Aquitaine from the _Eucharisticon_ of Paulinus
of Pella.[388]
Some passages in Orientius, the _De Providentia Divina_, and another
anonymous poem _Ad Uxorem_, of the same period, illustrate the condition
of the Gallic provinces.[389]
(1) Orientius (ed. Ellis, in the _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum_),
ii. 165 _sqq._:—
Non castella locis, non tutae moenibus urbes,
invia non pelago, tristia non heremo,
non cava, non etiam nudis[390] sub rupibus antra
ludere barbaricas praevaluere manus.
(2) _De Providentia Dei_, in Migne, _Patr. Gr._ lxi. c. 617:—
Si totus Gallos, etc.
(3) _Ad Uxorem_, in Migne, _ib._ c. 611.
Non idem status est agris, etc.
It is possible, but I can find no direct evidence to show that the
devastation had extended down the Loire. It might be considered whether
the words of Orientius _invia non pelago_, which imply that the invaders
attacked islands, allude to the islands of Noirmoutier, Rhé, etc.
Thus considerable regions of Gaul were a desolate wilderness, according
to contemporary, rhetorical and poetical, evidence, from A.D. 408-409 to
416; and therefore, it might be argued, Gaul suits the narrative of St.
Patrick in his _Confession_ (362₂₂₋363₃₄). He and his companions reached
land three days (_post triduum_) after they left the coast of Ireland,
so that our choice lies between Britain and Gaul. The data do not suit
Britain. We cannot imagine what inland part of Britain they could have
wished to reach, which would have necessitated a journey of twenty-eight
days _per disertum_. Suppose that the crew disembarked on the south
coast of Britain, and that the southern regions had been recently ravaged
by the Saxons, yet a journey of a few days would have brought them to
_Londinium_ or any other place they could have desired to reach from a
south-coast port. Moreover, if they had landed in Britain, Patrick, when
he once escaped from their company, could have reached the home of his
parents in a few days; whereas he did not return home for a few years
(_ib._ 364). His own words exclude Britain. Having mentioned his final
escape from the traders, he proceeds: _Et iterum post paucos annos in
Britannis eram cum parentibus meis._ I believe that _post paucos annos_
has been interpreted by some in the sense “a few years after my capture.”
But this is an unnatural explanation. The words naturally refer to what
immediately precedes, viz. his escape. The only thing which can be
alleged in favour of Britain is the intimation in the dream that he would
“quickly come to his native land” (_cito iturus ad patriam tuam_). This
of course represents his expectation at the time of his escape. But the
very fact that he fails to say that the promise was literally fulfilled,
and glides over intervening years in silence, strongly suggests that his
expectation was not realised.
I observe that Mr. T. Olden, in his short history of _The Church of
Ireland_, arrived at the conclusion that Patrick’s _disertum_ must be
placed in Gaul. His subject, as a whole, lies outside my knowledge,
but his chapters on Patrick would not lead one to form a favourable
opinion of his work. His whole argument and narrative are vitiated by
his astonishing ignorance of Imperial history. He quotes[391] a passage
of Jerome to prove barbarian devastations in Gaul. He quotes it not
from the original text, but at second hand from Montalembert’s _Les
moines d’occident_, a book which should be used with extreme caution.
The passage cited by Mr. Olden has no bearing on Gaul at the time at
which Mr. Olden sets St. Patrick’s escape from his captivity, A.D. 395.
The devastations did not begin till A.D. 407. This gross ignorance of
the superficial facts of the general history of the period damages Mr.
Olden’s credit.
Mr. Olden, however, has made one useful contribution to the question—the
only good thing in his account of St. Patrick.[392] He has brought
out the significance of the dogs, which are mentioned incidentally
in Patrick’s narrative. He has pointed out that the dogs—which, it
is implied, were numerous and valuable—must have been part of the
merchandise which the traders shipped in Ireland. Celtic hounds were
highly valued in the south,[393] and it would be probable _a priori_ that
they were exported from Ireland as well as from Britain. The route of
this trade would have been overland through Gaul, from the north of the
Loire or Garonne to a port on the coast of Provence, or to Italy.[394]
Mr. Olden acutely suggests that Patrick, so long the servant of an Irish
chieftain, had become skilled in the management of wolf-hounds, and that
this consideration may have determined the traders to take him on board.
Thus the cargo of dogs seems to support the conclusion that it was to
Gaul, not to Britain, that the traders sailed. They might have landed
at either Nantes or Bordeaux. Now the only positive statement that we
find anywhere as to the landing-place is in the _Life_ by Probus (see
above, Appendix A, ii. 9), where it is said to be Brotgalum. Bordeaux
is obviously meant, and the form should probably be Bortgalum, as the
Irish was Bordgal. See the instructive passage in _Vit. Trip._ p. 238,
where Patrick, intending to visit Rome, is said to have waited for a ship
_o Bordgail Letha_ (from Bordeaux in Gaul). Probus did not invent the
statement; the form of the name shows that he got it from a source of
Irish origin. He adds, evidently from the same source, that the company
then went to Trajectus, but we cannot identify the Gallic “Utrecht” which
is intended. It is of course impossible to say whether there was any
positive tradition at the back of this statement, or if it was only a
deduction from the fact that Bordeaux was a regular port for travellers
from Ireland to south Gaul.
Admitting, then, as a conclusion from which we can hardly escape that
the landing-place was on the west coast of Gaul, it follows that if the
traders marched for four weeks _per disertum_, they must have designedly
avoided the beaten routes and the habitations of men. Aquitaine was
at the time in an unsettled condition, on account of the barbarian
invasion; but no devastations would account for a month’s wandering in a
wilderness, unless such wandering was deliberate.
The corroboration of our general conclusion is supplied by Patrick
himself. It was inferred above from his _Confession_ that Britain was
excluded; one of his Sayings, which we saw reason to believe genuine,
points distinctly to Gaul (_Dicta_, i., see above, Appendix A, i. 3). It
is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy” must have been one
beset by particular dangers and hardships; and a little reflexion will
show that we are justified in identifying it with the journey described
in the _Confession_. It is a case where the argument from silence is
valid. The motive of the _Confession_ is to set forth the crises in his
life at which the writer conceived that he was conspicuously guided by
Heaven. It is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy,” in which
he used to tell his companions that he had “the fear of God as a guide,”
was one of those crises which had made a deep impression upon his mind,
and which we should expect to find mentioned in the _Confession_. It is
therefore fair to identify it with his perilous journey in the company
of the traders, especially as it is not easy to imagine that at a later
period, when he was at Auxerre, a journey which he might have made
through Gaul would have been so memorable or exceptional. The _Dictum_,
in conjunction with the other considerations which point to Gaul,
justifies the conclusion that, having travelled with the traders through
Gaul into Italy, he escaped from them in Italy.
The last words of the _Dictum_, “in islands in the Mediterranean,” taken
in conjunction with Tírechán, 302₂₄, point to his having gone to Lérins
after his escape, and a protracted stay at Lérins[395] would account for
the few years which elapsed before his return to Britain.
7. _Palladius_
There were two readings in the MSS. of Muirchu as to the place of the
death of Palladius: _in Britonum finibus_ and _in Pictorum finibus_. It
seems probable (see my “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 205) that the
author wrote _Britonum_ (so _Lib. Arm._), but that in one copy this was
corrected to _Pictorum_ from another source, presumably the same source
which supplied W and _Vit. Trip._ with the details about Palladius. We
may conclude, I think, that _Pictorum_ represents the genuine tradition,
and that Muirchu, taking it to refer to the Picts of north Britain—as
was natural—substituted _Britonum_. But it seems most extraordinary that
Palladius should have sailed off to the Picts of north Britain, seeing
that he was ordained bishop for Ireland. I think we should interpret
the land of the Picts or Cruithne (_V. Trip._ loc. cit., _hitírib
Cruithnech_) to mean Dalaradia, the land of the Picts in Ireland. As I
have pointed out in cap. iv., the assumption that there were Christian
communities in this part of the island makes Patrick’s work there at the
beginning of his bishopric more intelligible.[396]
Professor Zimmer’s theory that Palladius and Patrick were one and the
same person (a theory which had been already maintained by Schoell and
Loofs[397]) is at variance with the distinct tradition, and does not
account for the change of name.[398] It is based upon a paragraph which
was added, probably by the Armagh scribe Ferdomnach, to his copy of
Tírechán (Rolls ed. p. 333), where it is stated that Palladius was also
called Patricius. It is also stated that Palladius suffered martyrdom
among the Scots, _ut tradunt sancti antiqui_. This is at variance with W
and _V. Trip._ which state that he died of disease. Muirchu says simply
“died.” The same notice says that Patrick was sent by Celestine. This
paragraph cannot carry any weight; it is not supported by the earlier
sources.
But why, we must ask, should any one have invented the assertion that
Palladius was also called Patricius? The answer seems to be that the two
dates for Patrick’s death, the true 461 and the false 493, led, in the
eighth century, to the belief in a second Patricius. This phantom is
called “the other Patrick” in one of the interpolated stanzas in the hymn
_Genair Patraicc_; and he came to be distinguished as _senex Patricius_
(_Ann. Ult._ and _Chron. Scot._ 457) or _Sen Patraicc_ (_Calendar of
Oengus_, August 24).[399] One attempt to give this fictitious personage a
reality may have been to identify him with Palladius.[400] Many wild and
worthless speculations have been founded on this duplication of Patrick
(see, for instance, Shearman’s chapter on the “History of the Three
Patricks” in _Loc. Patr._ pp. 395 _sqq._; Olden, _Church of Ireland_,
Appendix A, and the article on Patrick in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_, which is vitiated by the Sen Patraicc delusion). Another
attempt to place the second Patrick was to connect him with Glastonbury,
and thus account for the mediaeval Glastonbury tradition that the true
Patrick was an abbot of that monastery (so Ussher, followed by Petrie,
_Tara Hill_, p. 73).[401] But there is no evidence that the Glastonbury
story has any foundation or is older than the tenth century. It is to be
observed that the date August 24, given in martyrologies as the day of
Old Patrick, cannot be alleged as an argument for his existence. In the
_Mart. of Tallaght_ (ed. Kelly), p. xxxii, we find two Patricks under
this date:
Patricii Abb. ocus Ep. Ruisdela.
Patricii hostiarii ocus Abb. Airdmacha.
It is clear that there was an obscure but historical Patrick, abbot
of Rosdela (near Durrow), whose day was August 24; and that his name
was the motive for placing “Old Patrick” here. Compare the glosses in
the _Calendar of Oengus_.[402] Armagh also wanted to appropriate “Old
Patrick,” and so he appears in some of the lists of its abbots.
8. _Patrick’s Alleged Visit (or Interrupted Journey) to Rome in A.D. 432_
Muirchu’s account of the events preceding Patrick’s ordination as bishop
has certain difficulties which involve an important question. Patrick,
we are told, had left his home in Britain for the purpose of visiting
Rome (_ad sedem apostolicam uisitandam_, etc.), to receive instruction
there for his life-work in Ireland. But he halted on his way at Auxerre,
and remained there “at the feet” of Germanus. Then when the right time
came and new visions warned him: _coeptum ingreditur iter ad opus in quod
ollim praeparatus fuerat utique aeuangelii_ (272₁₀). What is the meaning
of _coeptum iter_? The journey which Patrick had begun was the journey to
Rome, which had been interrupted at Auxerre.
Germanus sends with him a presbyter, Segitius, as a companion and
“witness.” Then comes a notice of the unsuccessful mission of Palladius
by Pope Celestine; but the transition to this is curious. _Certe enim
erat quod Palladius_, etc., is the text of the Armagh MS., while it seems
probable that other MSS. had _certi enim errant_[403] which gives sense.
Having heard of the death of Palladius, Patrick and those who were with
him _declinauerunt iter_ to be ordained by “Amatorex.” Assuming that they
were on their way to Rome, it is clear that Muirchu did not suppose that
they ever reached Rome; for, if he did, he could not have failed to say
so. Accordingly, on this view, we have to suppose that the decisive news
overtook Patrick somewhere between Auxerre and Rome, and that Patrick
turned about and retraced his steps, making a divagation for the purpose
of being ordained by “Amatorex.” But if we read the whole narrative
carefully up to the embarkation, we can hardly fail to see that in the
writer’s conception of what happened there was no reversal of direction.
The only natural interpretation of Muirchu’s meaning is that, met by the
news about Palladius, Patrick turned from his direct route for the sake
of ordination, and then resumed it. In other words, he was on his way to
Ireland.
But it can be proved definitely that this was Muirchu’s conception. In
his table of contents to bk. i. we find a statement which throws light on
_coeptum iter_. We find the items:
De inuentione sancti Germani in Galliis et _ideo non exiuit
ultra_:
De _reuersione eius de Galliis_ et ordinatione Palladii et mox
morte eius.
Here it is (1) expressly stated that Patrick did not proceed beyond Gaul
(as he had intended), and (2) implied that the journey which he undertook
in the company of Segitius was a _reuersio_ to Britain or Ireland.
In the light of these headings, we are compelled to interpret the words
_coeptum ingreditur iter ... aeuangelii_ as meaning not the interrupted
journey to Rome but the missionary journey to Ireland, which had been
begun, in a sense, by the coming to Auxerre and the religious preparation
there. With this interpretation, the words _certi enim erant_ (which
seems the probable reading: “for they knew,” or “were informed”) are
intelligible. This explains the preceding statement that Patrick,
_although setting forth for Ireland_, had not yet received episcopal
ordination. They knew at Auxerre that Palladius had been ordained bishop
and sent to Ireland by Celestine, and therefore Patrick was not ordained
bishop. It was therefore on his way to the _mare Britannicum_ that he
received news of the death of Palladius. “Ebmoria,” or whatever may be
concealed under this form, must be sought north of Auxerre.
I have elsewhere (in the next Excursus) pointed out that Patrick was
consecrated bishop by Germanus, and that Muirchu used inconsistent
sources. This note aims only at showing what _Muirchu intended to
convey_. [It may indeed be held that the ambiguity is due to his own
misinterpretation of an older document. _Coeptum iter_ may have occurred
in his source, and there meant a journey to Rome; and he may have
misunderstood the meaning. If it were possible to locate Ebmoria with
certainty anywhere between Auxerre and Rome, this, I believe, would be
the solution.]
It is, then, quite clear that, according to Muirchu’s information,
Patrick intended to visit Rome and study there, but that instead of
doing so he was induced to study at Auxerre, and consequently did not go
to Rome. It is obvious that such a statement about Patrick’s purposes
cannot be accepted without every reserve. Statements about a man’s
unfulfilled intentions, unless they can be traced clearly to himself or
to an intimate friend, are in quite a different position, as historical
evidence, from statements about his acts and deeds. It is equally obvious
that if Muirchu had known of any evidence, oral or written, of an actual
visit to Rome in A.D. 432, he would not have suppressed it. He would have
had every reason to emphasise anything like a mission from the Roman see;
for in the Roman controversy of his day he was on the Roman side. The
stress he lays upon the unfulfilled intention only sets his silence in a
stronger light.
Tírechán records a visit to Rome in later years (see below, Excursus
15), but he knows nothing of a visit in A.D. 432, and evidently did
not find any notice of such a visit in the _Liber apud Ultanum_, from
which he drew information about Patrick’s early life. The earliest
text which can be quoted for the alleged visit is the note of the
ninth-century scribe of the _Liber Armachanus_ (332₁₉), and even that
note (_a Celestino—mittitur_), which, in view of the silence of the
seventh-century documents, has no value, does not strictly involve the
idea of a journey to Rome.
9. _Patrick’s Consecration_
There is a difficulty as to the circumstances of Patrick’s ordination as
bishop which has a direct bearing on the determination of the chronology
of his life. The oldest evidence—and we have no independent source to
supplement it—is the account in Muirchu’s _Life_ (pp. 272-3). It is there
stated that Patrick, learning at Ebmoria[404] of the death of Palladius,
interrupted his journey (northwards) and went to a certain bishop, who
conferred upon him episcopal ordination. This bishop is designated
_aepiscopum Amatho rege_, and is described in terms which imply that
he was eminent and well known. Now we know of no Gallic bishop called
Amathorex, and we know of no Gallic bishop alive in the year 432 whose
name at all resembles _Amatho regem_. But we do know of an eminent Gallic
bishop named Amator, whose episcopal seat was at Auxerre, where Patrick
received part at least of his ecclesiastical training. Only Amator died
in 418,[405] and therefore could not have ordained Patrick bishop in 432.
Nevertheless there can hardly be a doubt that Amator is meant, for he is
the only Gallic bishop, of similar name, in Patrick’s time. He could be
described as _mirabilis homo summus aepiscopus_; and he was bishop of
Auxerre, with which, under his successor Germanus, we know that Patrick
was connected. This high probability was raised into certainty when
Zimmer showed that _Amatho rege_ is perfectly intelligible as an Irish
form.[406] The Latin colloquial casus communis _Amatore_ was treated in
Irish on the analogy of a name like _Ainmire_, Dat. Acc. _Ainmirig_; so
that _Amatorege_ represents _Amatorig_, re-Latinised (see above, Appendix
A, ii. 3).
Amator, then, is meant. The inconsistency in the chronology can be
explained as due to a perfectly intelligible confusion of two different
occasions. For when we come to examine closely the narrative of Muirchu
we find a statement which is inconsistent with the assertion that Patrick
was ordained bishop _ab Amatho rege_. We are told that when he started
from Auxerre for Ireland in the company of Segitius the presbyter, he had
“not yet been ordained bishop by Germanus.” This clearly implies that
the prelate who ordained him bishop was no other than Germanus.[407]
And this is just what we should expect. If Patrick heard of the death
of Palladius at some place on the road from Auxerre to the Channel, his
natural course was to return to Auxerre and receive ordination from his
master Germanus. How came it, then, to be stated categorically that he
was ordained _ab Amatho rege_? This admits of a very simple explanation.
We have only to suppose that Muirchu confounded his ordination as bishop
with his ordination as deacon. This solution fits in perfectly with
the interpretation of _Amatho rege_ as equivalent to _Amatore_. Amator
ordained Patrick deacon before (or in) A.D. 418.
A further criticism of Muirchu’s text supplies a remarkable confirmation
of this solution of the inconsistency of his statements. He tells us
that not only was Patrick consecrated bishop, but that others, including
Auxilius and Iserninus, received lesser orders _ab Amatho rege_. It
is necessarily implied that Auxilius and Iserninus were of Patrick’s
company, and were on their way with him to Ireland. But we may ask in
the first place why their ordination, whether as deacons or priests,
should have been deferred till this occasion—should have depended (like
Patrick’s ordination as bishop) on the death of Palladius? In the second
place, we have the distinct record in the Irish Annals that Auxilius and
Iserninus arrived in Ireland seven years after Patrick’s coming.[408]
There is no reason to question that record, and the inference is that
they did not accompany Patrick.
This error confirms the truth of the hypothesis that under Muirchu’s
account there lies a confusion between Patrick’s ordination to the
diaconate and his elevation to the episcopate. The authentic record was
that Amator ordained Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus (Patrick as deacon,
the others perhaps as deacons also). When this was taken to refer to
Patrick’s episcopal ordination, the association of Auxilius and Iserninus
was still retained, and they were represented as accompanying Patrick.
The result of this criticism is in accordance with the general
probability that Patrick had a continued connexion with one
church—namely, the church of Auxerre, a connexion begun in the time of
Amator and protracted in the time of Amator’s successor Germanus. And
it suits the chronological data derived from the _Confession_ (as shown
above).
10. _Evidence for Christianity in Ireland before St. Patrick_
The circumstances which render it antecedently probable that Christianity
should have penetrated to Ireland before A.D. 430 have been set forth in
the introductory chapter. The positive evidence which shows that this
occurred is Prosper’s notice of the mission of Palladius. It is supported
by other evidence, but is in itself fully sufficient to establish the
fact.
1. Prosper, _Chron. s.a._, 431:—
Ad Scottos in Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Caelestino
Palladius primus episcopus mittitur.
It is important to observe that, if the express words _in Christum
credentes_ were absent, this record would establish the existence of
Christian communities in Ireland. For neither Rome nor any other church
would have ordained a bishop for Ireland unless there had been Christian
communities there to be submitted to his authority. If all parts of
Ireland had been still as entirely heathen as Scandinavia, a missionary
might have been sent, but he would not have been a bishop.
Nothing can shake the inference from this record of Prosper, but some
have attempted to weaken it by a statement in a later work of Prosper
concerning Christianity in Ireland. In the _contra Collatorem_,
written _c._ A.D. 437, Prosper, praising Celestine, says, _et ordinato
Scottis episcopo dum Romanam insulam studet servare catholicam fecit
etiam barbaram Christianam_ (Migne, 51, 274). The expression is
obviously rhetorical, and is not inconsistent with the statement in the
_Chronicle_. It is quite possible that it is based on information which
had reached Prosper of the progress of Christianity in the years 433-436;
and, in a eulogy of Celestine, it was plausible to ascribe this success
to his initiative in ordaining the first bishop. To infer that Prosper
did not know of the death of Palladius would be unwarranted. Prosper was
evidently interested in the mission of Palladius; he probably knew him
personally, as there is reason to think that he was at Rome, engaged
on ecclesiastical business with the Roman see, in the year 431; and
these considerations render it highly improbable that he would not have
been aware of his death. But it was not Prosper’s purpose to record the
details of missionary work; he was merely concerned to notice, and not to
minimise, what Celestine had done. The passage, therefore, must not be
used to support the theory that Palladius and Patricius were one and the
same person (Zimmer, _Early Celtic Church_, p. 33). On the other hand,
it may be added to the other evidence which shows that Patrick was not
ordained by Celestine; for in that case Prosper would not have omitted to
notice that the Pope had ordained two bishops.
2. It has been generally overlooked that Patrick’s expression _ad plebem_
nuper _uenientem ad credulitatem_ (_Conf._ 368₉) suggests, in its most
natural interpretation, a spreading of Christianity before his arrival.
Otherwise we should expect _primum_ rather than _nuper_.
3. If Pelagius, as Zimmer holds, was born in Ireland, we might consider
it probable, almost certain, that he belonged to a Christian community,
and thus we should have a confirmation of the existence of such
communities before the end of the fourth century. But the evidence
rather points, as I have shown (see note in App. B, p. 296), to Pelagius
belonging to one of the Scottic settlements in western Britain. There is,
however, another piece of evidence of the same kind. An Irishman, named
Fith, better known under his ecclesiastical name of Iserninus, was with
Patrick at Auxerre, and was ordained by Amator (see the evidence in App.
B, p. 297).
4. Certain linguistic facts are best explained, as Zimmer has ably
pointed out, by the unofficial introduction of Christianity from Britain.
A number of Irish ecclesiastical loan-words have forms which are “not
such as we should expect if they had been borrowed straight from Latin,”
but can only be explained by intermediate Brythonic forms.[409] Zimmer
says: “It is altogether incredible that the Latin loan-words in Old
Irish should have been introduced by Patrick and his Romance-speaking
companions from the Continent after A.D. 432. On the other hand, their
linguistic form is easily explained if Christianity was gradually spread
throughout Ireland in the fourth century by Irish-speaking Britons.” The
words, “gradually spread throughout Ireland,” are far too strong, and are
not required for the argument; but it is clear that the linguistic facts
in question harmonise with the testimony of Prosper, and enable us to
draw the further inference that the introduction of Christianity was due
to intercourse with Britain. We may go further and conjecture that the
transformation of the Brythonic Latin loan-words into Irish equivalents
was made in the Irish settlements in western Britain, which must have
been the most effective channel for the transmission of the Christian
faith to Ireland.
5. The attitude of king Loigaire (see below, Appendix C, 11) to
Christianity shows that it had become a force with which he had to come
to terms. If it had been first brought by Patrick, he could easily have
stopped its spreading in his own kingdom, and would doubtless have done
so, since personally he was not well disposed to it, and the Druids were
strongly against it. His policy implies that it had already taken root.
6. The circumstance that Patrick’s missionary work was in the north and
west of Ireland suggests that Christianity had made considerable progress
in the south, and an apostle was not needed there in the same way. As
Zimmer says (_ib._ 18), south-eastern Ireland in the kingdom of Laigin
was “the district whence, thanks to the intercourse with the south-west
of Britain, the first diffusion of Christianity in Ireland must naturally
have taken place.” As for the Lives of alleged pre-Patrician saints
(Ailbe, Ibar, Declan, Ciarán), they are so full of contradictions
and inconsistencies, as Todd demonstrated, that they are useless for
historical purposes. The only hypothesis on which any significance could
be ascribed to them is that there was a confusion between earlier and
later men of the same name. This hypothesis is too uncertain to build on;
but we should have to entertain it if we accepted Zimmer’s remark that
the contradictions in the Lives “are the natural result of attempting
to varnish facts derived from _genuine local tradition_ with the views
universally accepted at the time when the Lives were compiled.”
7. Patrick’s particular interest in west Connaught is probably to be
explained by his captivity there; but the appeal which this region made
to him suggests that it was a specially benighted part (in a Christian’s
view), in contrast with other parts of the island where Christianity was
known.
8. I cannot ascribe much weight to particular passages in Tírechán
which Petrie (_History of Tara Hill_, p. 23) and others have cited as
evidence for pre-Patrician Christianity. (1) Tír. 321₂, _et fuit quidam
spiritu sancto plenus_, etc.; (2) 329₆, _et in quo loco quidam episcopus
venit_, etc. We do not know enough of the circumstances to draw any
conclusion; we do not know (assuming the records to be correct) that
Patrick’s acquaintance with these men began on these occasions. (3) The
_altare mirabile lapideum in monte nepotum Ailello_, 313₅; supposed to
be the altar of a pre-Patrician community. To these may be added (4)
the _signaculum crucis Christi_, said to have been found by Patrick in
a graveyard in Roscommon (325₃), a story told also by Muirchu (294);
and (5) the implied existence of pre-Patrician Irish Christians in the
expression, _Hiberniae sanctis omnibus praeteritis praesentatis futuris_,
323₂. There is also (6) a passage in the _Additions to Tírechán_, 337,
cited by Petrie to prove pre-Patrician bishops (Colman, Bishop of
Clonkeen). The story of the cross, common to Tírechán and Muirchu, and
evidently a pretty early legend, has, I think, some significance, in so
far as it implies that, at the time when it was invented, the existence
of Christian crosses and Christian sepultures in Ireland before Patrick’s
preaching was taken for granted.
9. If the view put forward below in Excursus 17 as to the Paschal
cycles in Ireland is correct, it is further evidence for pre-Patrician
Christianity.
10. The prophecy of the Druids, which was probably not _post eventum_
(see above, Chap. iv. _ad fin._), suggests the existence of Christian
worship in Ireland. If it stood alone, it would not be of much
significance; but it fits in with the other evidence.
11. _King Loigaire and King Dathi_
The view which I have put forward of the significance of king Loigaire’s
reign in Irish history, and his claims to the title of statesman, is
based on inferences. That his policy was pacific is an inference which
may be fairly drawn from the rare mentions, in the Annals, of wars and
battles during his reign of thirty-six years. The Ulster Annals record
only three battles with Leinster (a victory in 453; the battle of Áth
Dara, in which he was captured, in 458; and the engagement in which he
met his death, _s.a._ 462). No expeditions beyond the sea are attributed
to him, though the condition of Britain might have been tempting to a
monarch ambitious of conquest. The great achievement of his reign was
the codification of the laws of Ireland (see Excursus 12 on Senchus
Mór), and the other feature for which his reign was remarkable was the
spread of Christianity favoured by his attitude towards it. The record
of Tírechán (308₃), that he did not personally adopt the new faith (_non
potuit credere_), is obviously true, for it explains the coolness of
ecclesiastical tradition in regard to him; and the conflicting statement
of Muirchu (285₂₇, _credidit_, etc.), which is in a legendary context,
must be rejected. It bears indeed a mark of internal inconsistency; for
if the High King had been converted, it is hardly credible that Patrick
would have dwelt only on his previous opposition, and prophesied that
no kings of his seed would inherit the kingdom—a prophecy which was not
verified. These words ascribed to Patrick in the legend (_quia resististi
doctrinae meae_, etc., 285₂₉) seem to reflect the true tradition that
Loigaire remained a pagan. If he had become a Christian, the Irish
Church would have been as loud in his praises as the Roman Church in the
praises of Constantine. The legend told by Muirchu represents him finally
converted through fear (_melius est me credere quam mort_), as the crown
and culmination of Patrick’s triumphs at Slane and Tara; but at the
same time it refutes itself by the cold indifference which it manifests
towards the converted king.
The statesmanlike policy of Loigaire in coming to terms with Christianity
is proved by the official recognition of it in the Senchus Mór (see
Excursus 12), and by the toleration of it in his kingdom: see the record
in Tírechán, which seems trustworthy (308₂), _apud illum_ [Loigairium]
_foedus pepigit_ [Patricius] _ut non occideretur in regno illius_. (We
can hardly attach much credit to the story that Patrick acted along
with Loigaire in adjudicating on the inheritance of Amolngaid; Tír.
309₂₈. This might have been an invention for the purpose of magnifying
Patrick’s importance.) The circumstance that members of Loigaire’s family
were baptized (see the conversion of Fedilmid and Fortchernn, _Add.
Notices_, 334-5) was an element in the situation.
In connexion with the conclusion that Loigaire was influenced by the
prestige of the Empire, I referred to his predecessor Dathi’s expedition
to Gaul. Dathi, son of Fiachra, and nephew of king Niall, succeeded Niall
as king of Ireland in 405, and was killed by lightning near the Alps,
according to the Irish Annals, in 428 (see _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 445: through
some error the entry has been inserted under a wrong year). There is a
notice of his death in the _Lebor na hUidre_, p. 38, where he is said to
have been killed in Gaul, while besieging a town of king Fermenus (_rí
Tracia_), whose name suggests (as others have pointed out) the Faramund
of the Merovingian genealogy.[410] Zimmer (_Nennius Vindicatus_, p. 85)
dismisses the story as a reminiscence of the death of an Attacottic
chief in Roman service. But this does not account for the data, and for
the consistent tradition that Dathi met his death on the continent; I
can see no reason to doubt the tradition, there was no motive for its
invention. Accepting it, we are obliged to infer that Dathi went, with
Irish troops, by the invitation of the Romans. The date of the Annals
for Dathi’s death and Loigaire’s succession, A.D. 428, harmonises
with the inference; for just in this year the General Aetius, on whom
the defence of Gaul at this time rested, was engaged in war with the
Franks. Prosper, _s.a._ 428, _pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno quam Franci
possidendam occupaverant Aetii armis recepta_. The name Fermenus supplies
a remarkable confirmation. As has been said, it seems to represent
Faramund, the father and predecessor of Chlojo, according to Merovingian
tradition. Chlojo, who appears a year or two later on the scene, is the
first Merovingian monarch who has a clear place in history. Faramund has
always been regarded as shadowy. The independent survival of his name in
Irish tradition in connection with an event of 428, shortly before the
first appearance of his son Chlojo, may be fairly brought forward as a
piece of evidence for his historical reality. The transference of the
scene from the lower Rhine to the regions of the Alps (due originally to
vague knowledge of Gallic geography) makes the evidence more valuable, as
it shows that the name Fermenus was not introduced into the story from
Merovingian sources; the Alps would not have suggested to any antiquarian
a connexion with a war against the Franks in north-eastern Gaul.
It is said that the corpse of Dathi was brought back by his companions
to Ireland and buried in the cemetery of Rathcrochan. See the poem of
Torna-Éices on the famous men and women who lay there, published by M.
d’Arbois de Jubainville in _Revue Celtique_, 17, 280 _sqq._
Under thee is the king of the men of Fail [Ireland], Dathi son of
Fiachra, the good;
Croghan, you have hidden him from the Galls, from the Goidels.
Under thee is Dungalach the swift who led the king [Dathi] beyond
the sea of seas.
12. _The Senchus Mór_
The Irish code of law, entitled the _Senchus Mór_, preserved only in late
MSS., is a work which contains a very ancient code embedded in glosses,
commentaries, and accretions. Passages are quoted from it in Cormac’s
glossary, a work of the tenth century, and these quotations appear to be
the earliest testimonia.
In the tenth century it was believed that the original code was drawn up
in the reign of king Loigaire in the fifth century. Here is the note in
Cormac’s glossary, in Dr. W. Stokes’s translation (_Trip._ p. 570).
_Nós_ (customary law), the knowledge of nine [_nofis_], to wit
three kings and three bishops and three sages, namely, a sage
of poetry and a sage of literature and a sage of the language
of the Féni. All these were composing the _Senchus Mór_. Thence
it is said:—
Loiguire, Corc, dour Daire,
Patrick, Benén, just Cairnech,
Ross, Dubthach, Fergus with goodness,
Nine props, those of the _Senchus Mór_.
The same account is found in the Introduction which was prefixed in late
times to the Senchus, and professes to record the circumstances of its
compilation.
Was this tradition, which was current in the tenth century, genuine,
or was it an invention made for the purpose of enhancing the prestige
of Patrick? In deciding this question, there are two considerations
which seem to me important. (1) If the code, which evidently held such
a high place in public esteem in the tenth century, had been drawn up
in the seventh or eighth centuries, it is inconceivable that an event
of such interest and importance as its publication should not have been
recorded in the _Annals_. In my opinion this argument applies also to
the sixth century. But in any case, if it be admitted that the silence
of the _Annals_ forbids a date later than A.D. 600 at the latest, all
the probabilities are in favour of the correctness of the tradition.
The entries in the _Annals_ for the fifth century are extremely meagre,
so that the omission of a notice of the _Senchus Mór_ would not be
surprising.
It may be said, however, that as a matter of fact, the _Annals_ do notice
the composition of the _Senchus Mór_. Under A.D. 438 we find: _Senchus
mor do scribunn_, “the Senchus Mór was written.” But in the first
place, this entry is in Irish; if it had been a contemporary record,
it would have been preserved in Latin; it is clearly an addition, and
perhaps a comparatively late addition. In the second place, the date is
suspicious. The year A.D. 438 is the very year in which the Theodosian
Code was issued; and therefore we can hardly doubt that the motive of the
insertion of the Irish entry under this year was a desire to synchronise
the issue of the native with that of the great Roman Code. These
considerations force us to reject the entry in the _Annals_ as evidence
of independent value.
(2) If the story of the compilation of the Senchus in the reign of
Loigaire had been a deliberate invention, say of the ninth century,
it could hardly have assumed its actual shape. The persons alleged to
have taken part in the compilation would naturally be those who play a
prominent or well-marked part in the Patrician story. Now, leaving out
Patrick and Loigaire, of the other seven only three, Daire, Benignus, and
Dubthach, are conspicuous in the lives and legends of Patrick. Of the
other four, Ros appears indeed, but not so conspicuously as his brother
Dichu, while Corc, Cairnech, and Fergus are not mentioned at all. The
case of Corc, king of Munster, is particularly to be noted, because
Oengus (Corc’s second successor) comes into the Patrician story, and
would naturally have been selected as Patrick’s colleague if the record
were a pure invention.
The record, I therefore conclude, has a genuine and ancient basis. It
would be rash to be confident that the number nine, and the arrangement
in three classes, may not be an improvement upon the original record;
in other words, some names (_e.g._ Benignus and Daire) may conceivably
be additions. The number nine was considered a number of virtue by the
Gaels; and it is conceivable that a savant of a later age might have
added to the tradition in order to make up that number. But the argument
is double-edged. For it is equally likely that, for just the same reason,
the number of the real commission should have been fixed at nine.
The story that the occasion of the composition of the Senchus was the
slaying of Odhran, Patrick’s charioteer, in order to test Patrick’s
doctrine of forgiveness, is told in the Introduction to the _Senchus_
(pp. 4 _sqq._) and in the _Lehor na hUidre_ (text and translation, in
Stokes, _Tripartite_, 562 _sqq._). A different story of the death of
Odhran at the hands of Foilge is told in _Vita Quarta_, c. 77, and _Vita
Tertia_, c. 59 (where the charioteer’s name is not mentioned): according
to this version the missile was aimed at Patrick. This version, but
without reference to Foilge, is likewise noticed in the Introduction to
the Senchus (p. 6).
The simplest explanation maybe that a driver of Patrick was slain by an
enemy, and that the incident was used by Patrick for raising the question
of criminal justice; mythopoeic instinct then attributed the murder to a
deliberate intention of raising the question.
The story as told in the Introduction seems to preserve a tradition that
an attempt was made by Patrick to change the penalty of eric fine for
murder into a penalty for death. This is the motive of the poem which is
fathered upon Dubthach: “I pronounce the judgment of death, of death for
his crime to every one _who kills_” (p. 13). This is to be reconciled
with the Christian doctrine of perfect forgiveness by considering
that the body only is killed, the soul is forgiven: the “murderer is
adjudged to heaven, and it is not to death he is adjudged” (_ib._). The
commentator notices the disagreement between this principle, which in the
story Patrick is assumed to have established, and the custom of eric fine
which actually prevailed, and explains it on the ground that Patrick’s
successors had no power of bestowing heaven, hence the death penalty was
discontinued, and “no one is put to death for his intentional crimes, as
long as ‘eric’-fine is obtained.”
The historical fact underlying this story is, I submit, that the Church
in Patrick’s day attempted, unsuccessfully, to supersede the system of
composition for manslaughter and private retaliation by making the act a
public offence punishable by death.
[The questions connected with the material of the laws, and the Feine,
lie quite outside my competence, and do not concern the scope of this
book. I may refer to Atkinson’s article “Feine,” in his glossary
(_Ancient Laws_, vol. vi.); Rhŷs, _Studies in Early Irish History_, pp.
52-55 (_Proc, of Brit. Acad._ vol. i.). For the legal processes and
customs, the chief work is M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s _Études sur le
droit celtique_, 2 vols. 1895; see also the Prefaces to the volumes of
the _Ancient Laws_, and Sir H. Maine’s _Early Institutions_.]
13. _Patrick’s Visits to Connaught_
An analysis of the itinerary which Tírechán has traced for Patrick
through Connaught shows that he compressed into a single journey events
which must have belonged to different visits. I pointed this out in a
paper on the “Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught” (_Proc. of R.I.A._ xxiv.
c. 2, 1903). It was remembered that Patrick visited Connaught three times
(Tír. 329₁₂), and we may probably suppose that on the two later occasions
he would have not only worked in new fields, but revisited the scenes of
his earlier work. Tírechán, who used written material as well as oral
information, worked all his records into the compass of a single journey.
This is betrayed by a number of inconsistencies in the narrative, and it
is possible to show that certain events which he ascribes to the same
journey must have happened on different occasions.
1. It is clear that the expedition to Tirawley with the sons of Amolngaid
was the principal motive of one visit, and that Patrick must have
proceeded direct from Tara to Tirawley. Tírechán’s naive reconstruction
implies that having left Tara for this purpose he engaged in a round
of missionary activity, not only in Connaught, but in Meath—performing
labours which would have occupied years—before he finally reached
Tirawley. I have pointed out at length the absurdities involved in the
story, _op. cit._ 166-7.
2. The description of the visit to Elphin implies earlier work in the
same district: (_a_) perhaps the previous foundation of Senella Cella;
(_b_) the presence of Assicus and Betheus, who had been settled there
(_loc. cit._ 163-4).
As to Senella Cella, however, Dr. Gwynn has made a very plausible
suggestion, that Tírechán confused it with Senchua = Shancough, in Sligo.
The information which he gives about Senella Cella—its location in the
land of the Hy Ailella, its association with Mathona, and connexion with
Tawnagh—suits Senchua much better. And this comparison would account for
the introduction of the statement _et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello_,
etc., in 314₁₈, as well as in 328₁. If this view is right, it is another
illustration of Tírechán’s use of written sources. The difficulty is that
we should expect Tírechán to have been sufficiently acquainted with the
geography of Connaught as to know whether _Senella Cella_ was in the land
of the Hy Ailella or not. Can _Senella Cella Dumiche_ be distinct from
both Shankill at Elphin and Shancough?
3. An earlier visit to Tirerrill is implied by (_a_) Patrick’s knowledge
of the stone altar (Tír. 313₅); and (_b_) the fact that Tamnach had
already been founded (314₁₅). Here indeed we can extricate a piece of
Tírechán’s written material, relating to Patrick’s work in Tirerrill,
and showing that he entered that territory from Leitrim, crossing the
Bralieve hills, 314₁₈:—
Et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello et plantavit aeclessiam
liberam hi Tamnuch,
and 328, _et exiit ... cell Senchuae_. See Bury, _loc. cit._ 164-6.
4. In the passage in the _Liber Armachanus_, f. 9, rᵒ (301), which Dr.
Gwynn has shown (see above, p. 250) to belong to the work of Tírechán,
the baptism of Hercaith and the dedication of his son Feradach =
Sachellus to the church are noticed; and it is recorded that Patrick
ordained Sachellus at Rome. But immediately afterwards at Selce (319)
Sachellus is already a bishop (of Baslic, _Trip._ 108). Thus two visits,
separated by an interval of years, are here implied. If the statement
is correct that Patrick took Sachellus with him to Rome, then our
conjectural chronology for his visit to Rome (see Appendix C, 15) would
give a lower limit for one of his journeys to Connaught.
5. An earlier visit to north Sligo is implied—but without
inconsistency—in the account of the visit to that region (327), as well
as in the presence of _bishop_ Brón at Selce (and cp. 313₈).
6. The notice of the visit to Ardd Senlis seems to imply an earlier
foundation there (317).
7. Sanctus Iarnascus in Mag-n-Airniu (320₂₆) is introduced as if
Christianity had already been planted there. It may be noticed that in
this passage the words _uiris uiiii. aut xii_. show that Tírechán was
using a written source; he was doubtful about the reading.
8. Entering Tirawley, Patrick crosses the Moy. This implies that he came
from the east, not from the south, as Tírechán’s itinerary would imply.
If we assume as probable the correctness of the statement that Patrick’s
work in Connaught belongs to three different visits, we may draw
tentatively the following conclusions:—
1. In the first visit, which was prior to A.D. 441, he worked (_a_) in
Tirerrill, and (_b_) in north Sligo, where Brón was ordained bishop for
his church (Killespugbrone) under Knocknaree. Perhaps he also visited
(_c_) the neighbourhood of Elphin. He visited (_d_) Mag Airthic and (_e_)
the district of the Ciarrigi, and (_f_) Mag-n-Airniu. In these regions he
converted the father of Sachellus.
It is possible that on this occasion he extended his journey to Mount
Aigli, and fulfilled the special aim of his missionary ambition by
planting a church (Ached Fobuir) near the southern limits of the forest
of Fochlad.
2. On another occasion he crossed the Shannon, as described by Tírechán,
at Lake Bofin; worked in Mag Glais and Mag Ái; revisited the Elphin
district; founded Baslic, proceeded to Lake Tecet, revisited Mag Airthic
and the Ciarrigi, etc.
3. On a third occasion, he proceeded straight (from Tara) to Tirawley in
the company of Endae and the sons of Amolngaid. After his plantation of
his faith in Tirawley he may have revisited other parts of Connaught. The
visit falls soon after Amolngaid’s death, which may have been c. 445 A.D.
It seems not at all unlikely that the second and third visits thus
distinguished occurred chronologically in reverse order. It must also be
borne in mind that he would have probably revisited many places in the
course of the two later visits.
Conclusions very similar to mine have been reached by Dr. Gwynn, who
discusses the subject in a “Supplemental Note to Chapter V.” of his
Introduction to the _Book of Armagh_. There are in the abbreviated
memoranda (which has been described above in Appendix A, ii. 2) vestiges
of the material used by Tírechán, and Dr. Gwynn points out that the first
group supplies evidence of the existence of a tradition as to Patrick’s
work in Tirerrill, independent of the rest of the itinerary which
Tírechán sketched. The first group is:—
Ailbe iSenchui. altare ... Machet Cetchen Rodán Mathona ...
Here, Dr. Gwynn observes, is a memorandum combining in continuous form
several unconnected passages in Tírechán. “It is reasonable to infer that
the tradition condensed into this memorandum was known to Tírechán; that
he endeavoured to work it into his history by breaking it up into pieces
and inserting them where he judged best.”
14. _King Amolngaid: Date of his Reign_
The death of Amolngaid, king of Connaught, is not noticed in the _Ann.
Ult._, but is recorded _s.a._ 449 in the _Annals of the Four Masters_,
and must have been derived from older Annals. Probably it was given by
Tigernach (this part of his work is not preserved), who generally records
the changes in the succession in Connaught. We cannot indeed infer that
A.D. 449 was the precise year designated in the source of the Four
Masters, because at this period their dates are not very accurate, as can
be shown by a comparison with the _Annals of Ulster_. But we can consider
it as an approximation to the date assigned by the older Annals.
The extant lists of the kings of Connaught, from Amolngaid to Aed (son of
Eochaid Tirmcharna), ob. A.D. 577, are hopelessly confused. The material
which I have examined consists of (1) the names and dates in the Annals
(_Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach); (2) List in _Book of Leinster_, 41a; (3)
List in MS. Laud, 610, f. 116 rᵒ b; (4) (_a_) prose list, (_b_) poetical
catalogue by O’Duinn, in _Book of Ballymote_, 57a, 58a. I owe the
translation of O’Duinn’s poem to the kindness of Mr. E. J. Gwynn.
These sources generally agree (with the exception of 3, which seems
to be worthless) that the three kings following Amolngaid were, in
order, Ailill Molt, Duach, and Eogan Bel. It is in regard to Duach that
the chief difficulty occurs, for he appears again in the lists as the
second (or third) king after Eogan Bel. He was son of Fergus, and is
distinguished as Tenga Uma, and is said to have fallen in the battle of
Segais. The Annals give the date of the Battle of Segais as A.D. 502
(_Ann. Ult._, _Ann. Inisf._) or 500 (Tigernach); but Tigernach has a
notice of Duach Tenga Uma under 550 (p. 139, ed. Stokes), and of his
death under 556 (as well as under 500). The list of O’Duinn distinguishes
clearly two Duachs: Duach Galach, son of Brian, who succeeded Ailill
Molt, and Duach son of Fergus, seventh in the list, who fell at the
battle of Segais. (The list in the _Book of Leinster_ also distinguishes
the two Duachs, designating the first as Galach and the second as Tenga
Uma).[411] This would put the battle of Segais about 550. The earlier
date of that battle must be accepted, as Muirchertach MacErca was
the victor in it, and the notice of it in the Annals is undoubtedly
independent of the lists of Connaught kings. It is also clear that there
was a fixed tradition that Duach Tenga Uma fell at Segais, since O’Duinn,
placing his reign at a later period, has to transfer the battle of Segais
along with him. We may therefore conclude that Duach Tenga Uma preceded
Eogan Bel, and fell in the battle of Segais A.D. 500/502. Now all the
lists agree in giving to the first Duach, who succeeded Ailill Molt,
nineteen or twenty years. This agrees with the circumstance that Ailill
Molt fell in the battle of Ocha A.D. 482.
Eogan Bel, the sources consent, fell in the battle of Sligech. The date
assigned to this battle in the Annals is A.D. 543 or 547 (both dates
in _Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach). The length of his reign is given in the
lists as thirty-seven (or thirty-four: the variation is obviously due
to confusion of uII and IIII); which is not long enough for either
of the obituary dates if he followed Duach in A.D. 500-2. Tigernach,
however, _s.a._ 503, gives his regnal years as forty-two; which would be
consistent with A.D. 543 for the battle of Sligech.
Ailill, the Womanly, Eogan Bel’s son and successor, was slain in the
battle of Cuil Conaire, which is noticed in the Annals _s.a._ 550.
The remaining years up to A.D. 577, the year of Aed’s death, would
be just accounted for by Eochaid Tirmcharna’s reign of one year and
Aed’s reign of twenty-five years (twenty-two years in lists 2 and 4; a
confusion here too of II and u). But at this point, after Ailill, occurs
the repetition of Duach Tenga Uma: he appears in Tigernach as well as in
the lists (except 4); and seven years are assigned to him. Further, the
catalogue of O’Duinn inserts Eogan Srem between this second Duach and
Eochaid Tirmcharna, and gives him twenty-seven years. Eogan Srem also
appears in the prose list in the _Book of Ballymote_, but before Ailill.
If we take as fixed points the death of Ailill in 550 and that of Aed in
577, it is obvious that, even if Aed reigned only twenty-two years, there
is no room for a second Duach and Eogan Srem in this period.
On the other hand, if we take the sum total of all the regnal years as
given in O’Duinn’s poem up to Aed’s death, and reckon back from A.D. 577,
we find that we are taken back to the neighbourhood of the death of king
Dathi. It will be best to give O’Duinn’s list:—
Amolngaid reigned 20 years
Ailill Molt ” 11 ”
Duach, son of Brian ” 20 ”
Eogan ” 37 ”
Ailill ” 5 ”
Eogan Srem ” 27 ”
Duach, son of Fergus ” 7 ”
Eochaid ” 1 ”
Aed ” 25 ”
---------
Total 153 ”
Reckoning back 153 years from A.D. 577, we reach A.D. 424. The date of
Dathi’s death was A.D. 428, but if we take into account the conditions of
such a calculation, where incomplete years may be set down as full years,
the divergence might be consistent with the conclusion that the list was
constructed on the initial assumption that Amolngaid succeeded Dathi in
428—which implies that Dathi was king of Connaught (but see below).
We can now see how the chronology was constructed in O’Duinn’s source.
It will be simplest, for the purpose of criticism, to tabulate the dates
(approximately) implied by that construction:—
Amolngaid ceased to reign 444
Ailill I. ” 455
Duach I. ” 475
Eogan I. ” 512
Ailill II. ” 517
Eogan II. ” 544
Duach II. ” 551
Eochaid ” 552
Aed ” 577
These dates are entirely at variance with the chronology of the Annals.
We are entitled to criticise them on the assumption that the dates of
the Annals for the battles of Segais, Sligech, and Cuil Conaire are
approximately correct. O’Duinn’s figures would place Segais _c._ 475
instead of 502 (or 500), Sligech _c._ 512 instead of 543 (or 547), Cuil
Conaire _c._ 517 instead of 550. But if we omit from his list Eogan II.
and Duach II., and then reckon back from 577, we get approximately dates
assigned in the Annals to the second and third of these three battles,
namely, 551 for Cuil Conaire, 546 for Sligech; while the contradiction
between the duration of Eogan Bel’s reign and the date of Segais is
the same here as in the other sources. If Segais was fought in 502 and
Sligech in 546/7, and Eogan Bel reigned thirty-seven years, then seven or
eight years are left unaccounted for, and the reign of the second Duach
serves to fill this interval. But there is no room for Eogan Srem between
the battle of Segais and the death of Aed.
Again, if we take Duach I.’s death at Segais in 502 as a fixed point, and
reckon backward with O’Duinn’s figures, we find 482 for the accession of
Duach I., 471 for the accession of Ailill Molt, and 451 for the accession
of Amolngaid. If Amolngaid followed Dathi in 428, this would imply an
error of about twenty-four years.
We have now the clue to the construction of O’Duinn’s list. A period of
_c._ 153 years from the accession of Amolngaid to the death of Aed had to
be accounted for. The recorded regnal years were insufficient, and the
defect was supplied by an impossible interpolation in the sixth century,
whereas it was in the fifth century, in the period anterior to Duach,
that the supplement was chiefly needed. Having established this point,
we need not consider further the succession of kings subsequent to Duach
Tenga Uma.
It is clear that there was a definite tradition assigning to Amolngaid
twenty years, to Ailill Molt eleven years, and Duach twenty years; and
that the chronologer, whom O’Duinn followed, did not venture to tamper
with these numbers in order to account for the missing years. As for
Ailill Molt, twenty years are assigned to him in the list in the _Book of
Leinster_. But this may be at once rejected; for twenty years represent
the duration of his reign as king of Ireland (462-482), and it is highly
improbable that the throne of Connaught became vacant at the same moment
as the throne of Ireland. Accepting then eleven years as the genuine
tradition, he must have succeeded to Connaught _c._ 471, as he died in
482, and there is no reason to suppose that he resigned the kingship
of Connaught before his death. The interval from 482 to 502 is exactly
covered by the twenty years assigned to Duach Tenga Uma. If Amolngaid
followed Dathi in 428 and reigned for twenty years, the end of his reign
would fall _c._ 448, which would correspond to the record in the _Annals
of the Four Masters_ (449). Thus we should arrive at an interval of about
twenty-four years between Amolngaid’s death and Ailill Molt’s succession
(448-471), which is unaccounted for. [The confusion of Ailill Molt’s
regnal years in Connaught with his twenty regnal years in Ireland served
to shorten this period by nine years; and in the list of the _Book of
Leinster_ the residue of the chronological error is “corrected” by adding
fourteen years to the reign of Amolngaid, to whom thirty-four years are
assigned.]
The question therefore is, who reigned in Connaught between Amolngaid
and Ailill Molt? Now I think it can hardly be insignificant that in the
Annals as well as in the lists Duach Tenga Uma is reduplicated. This
must have had some motive, and the most probable explanation seems to
be that two Duachs did reign in Connaught, and that O’Duinn is right in
distinguishing Duach son of Brian from Duach son of Fergus, though he
confuses the order and chronology. For it is clear that he had knowledge
of Duach Galach son of Brian, whom he describes as falling in battle with
the Cinel Eogain. His notice of this king is as follows (I use the text
and translation furnished by Mr. E. J. Gwynn):—
Duach mac Briain abus | Duach son of Brian next
XX bliadan a flaithus, | was sovereign 20 years;
fuair a brath, ba tennel tair, | he met his betrayal—he was a prince
| in the east—in
’sa cath re ceinel Eogain. | battle with the cinel Eogain.
Ced ri cloindi Briain na mbladh | The first of the family of Brian the
| famed
Duach galach gargg dargiallsad, | was Duach valiant (_Galach_) fierce
| to whom men gave obedience;
bladh don duine os gach dine | fame the man had beyond all
| generations
gurgab uile in airdrige. | so that he took the entire
| overkingship.
secht oshein rochuala | 77 years from thence I have heard
secht ndeich da bliadan buadha | years of victory
co Seagais in Coraind cain | to Segais of fair Corand
co har Conaill is Eogain. | to the battle of Conall and Eogan.
The last stanza presents a difficulty. The battle of Segais was not the
“battle of Conall and Eogan,” so that the preposition _co_ “to” either
in v. 3 or in v. 4 must be a mistake for _ó_ “from.” O’Curry, in his
_Manuscript Material_, refers to this poem, and evidently assumes that
_ó_ should be read in v. 4; for he infers that the battle in which Duach
son of Brian was killed was fought 79 [sic] years before the battle of
Segais (which he dates A.D. 504 after the Four Masters), thus obtaining
425 for Duach’s death, and placing his reign before Amolngaid.
Now it is to be observed that the 77 years exactly correspond to the sum
total of the regnal years between the death of the first Duach and that
of the second Duach, according to O’Duinn’s own incorrect arrangement (37
+ 5 + 27 + 7 = 76). The question therefore arises: is the statement as
to the period of 77 years an inference from the arrangement, or is the
arrangement determined by an independent record that 77 years elapsed
between the two battles in question? The former alternative seems less
probable; for it does not appear why this particular interval, if it
were only an inference from the arrangement, should be selected for
special mention. It seems much more probable that (as is suggested by the
expression “I have heard”) the stanza embodies a tradition independent
of this particular reconstruction of the regnal list. If so, O’Curry’s
inference was correct, and we get (502 - 77 =) 425 as the date of the
battle in which Duach MacBriain fell. There would be no difficulty in
this date for Duach’s death; his father, Brian, was son of Eochaid and
brother of Niall; he was himself cousin of Loigaire and Amolngaid.[412]
In this case, one of the causes of the contradictions in the Connaught
succession was a confusion of the Duach who reigned towards the
beginning of the fifth century with the Duach who reigned at the end.
If then the first Duach died _c._ 425, it seems probable that he was
succeeded by Amolngaid. There seems to be no clear evidence that Dathi
was king of Connaught while he was king of Ireland. It is stated in the
_Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach_ (p. 90) that he ruled Connaught and
Ireland. It is quite conceivable that he was king of Connaught before
405, and that in that year he secured the succession to the throne of
Ireland by agreeing to transfer the kingship of Connaught to his cousin
Duach. The hypothesis that Amolngaid immediately followed Duach _c._ 425
is supported by two considerations.
1. Provisionally assuming, for the purpose of the argument, that
Amolngaid might have succeeded Dathi, I pointed out that the sum total
of regnal years in O’Duinn’s list, from Amolngaid’s accession to Aed’s
death, would take us back to the close neighbourhood of Dathi’s death in
428. But there is actually a difference of four years (577 - 153 = 424).
If Amolngaid succeeded Duach in 424/5, we may say that the agreement of
this date with the total of years in O’Duinn’s reckoning is precise.
2. On this hypothesis we are able to solve the main problem—the interval
between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.
For if Amolngaid succeeded in 424/5, and reigned 20 years, his death
would fall in 444/5. There would consequently be an interval of 26 or 27
years between his death and the accession of Ailill Molt in 471. Now if
Duach mac Briain had a son, we might expect to find him elected to the
throne. The prose list in the Book of Ballymote designates Eogan Srem
as the son of Duach Galach (that is, Duach mac Briain); and the regnal
years assigned to Eogan Srem in O’Duinn’s poem are precisely the number
required to fill up the interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.
The inference therefore would be that Amolngaid was followed by Eogan,
Duach’s son, _c._ 444/5.
In order to show the force of the argument, I may say, at the risk of
tautology, that it consists of three converging considerations. (_a_)
Eogan Srem is introduced, in the lists in the Book of Ballymote, among
the Kings of Connaught in the sixth century in defiance of chronology.
His appearance in these lists has to be explained, and is most naturally
explained by supposing that he was at one time King of Connaught, though
not at the time implied in the lists. If the conclusion is right that
Duach mac Briain died in 425, then his son Eogan Srem must be moved back
into the fifth century. (_b_) The 27 regnal years assigned to Eogan Srem
exactly occupy the vacant interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.
(_c_) The succession of Eogan Srem, son of Amolngaid’s predecessor, is
just what we might expect; it is exactly parallel to the successions in
the fifth century to the throne of Ireland. Thus: Niall, Dathi, Loigaire
son of Niall; Dathi, Loigaire, Ailill son of Dathi; Loigaire, Ailill,
Lugaid son of Loigaire.
These considerations seem to me to outweigh the circumstance that
Amolngaid’s death is assigned in the Annals of the Four Masters to A.D.
449. It would be otherwise if the date were recorded in the Annals of
Ulster. But a comparison of the Four Masters with the other Annals shows
that the former compilation constantly deviates by several years, and,
for the early period at least, a date which is found only in it, cannot
be accepted as accurate with any confidence.
* * * * *
I have presented this investigation so as to show the steps by which
I reached the conclusion, as I believe that thus it will be easier to
criticise it. The reconstruction which I propose seems at least to
satisfy the conditions of the problem. It may be convenient to tabulate
the list of the kings, in accordance with these results, as follows:—
Duach Galach, mac Briain _d._ 424/5
Amolngaid _d._ 444/5.
Eogan Srem, son of Duach _d._ 471.
Ailill Molt _d._ 482.
Duach Tenga Uma _d._ 502.
15. _Patrick at Rome_
The evidence for a visit of Patrick to Rome A.D. 441 depends upon two
records, one in the Annals, the other in Tírechán.
(1) _Ann. Ult. sub a._ 441: Leo ordinatus est xlii<i> Romane ecclesie
episcopus et probatus est in fide catolica Patricius episcopus.
(2) Tírechán, (p. 301₆: see above, p. 250):
Et exiuit [sc. Sachellus] cum Patricio ad legendum xxx annis et
ordinauit ilium in urbe Roma et dedit illi nomen nouum Sachellum
et scripsit illi librum psalmorum quern uidi [sc. Tírechán], et
portauit [sc. Sachellus] ab illo partem de reliquis Petri et
Pauli Laurentii et Stefani quae sunt in Machi.
[Cp. Tírechán, 329₂₄, where Patrick is said to have given to Olcan
(ordained bishop at Dunseverick) _partem de reliquiis Petri et Pauli et
aliorum et uclum quod custodiuit reliquias_].
The ordination of Leo is wrongly placed in the _Annals_ in 441; it
belongs to 440. But its close association with the notice of St.
Patrick’s _probatio_ shows the meaning of the words _probatus est_;[413]
and in fact there is no other conceivable meaning than formal approval
by the Church, and the only form which that approval was likely to take
in such a case was the approval of the Church’s chief representative,
the Bishop of Rome. Such approval might have come in the shape of a
formal epistle from the Roman bishop to the bishop in Ireland. But when
we find in our seventh-century authority, Tírechán, a statement that
Patrick was in Rome accompanied by Sachellus, and when we find that in
his time there were relics of Peter and Paul and other martyrs at Armagh
procured by St. Patrick; and seeing that there is nothing improbable in
these records, and that, on the contrary, a visit of Patrick to Rome
is antecedently probable; we may venture, I think, to combine these
testimonies and conclude that Patrick did visit Rome at the beginning of
Leo’s pontificate. The tradition of Sachall has all the appearance of
being genuine; and Tírechán in this passage was using an older written
document, as is proved by his uncertainty about a numeral (_cum uiris
uiii aut uiiii_, 300₂₇; cp. above, App. A, ii. 1).
The notice in the Annals _probatus est in fide Catholica_ is, by its
brief formal character, stamped, in my judgment, as a contemporary entry,
made probably in a fifth-century calendar. If it had been concocted in
the sixth century, or at any later period, it could never have taken this
shape; it would have been expressed more clearly. It implies and assumes
contemporary knowledge—the knowledge, as I contend, of the visit to Rome.
There is another remarkable notice in the Annals, two years later,
which it seems to me may bear on the subject—_Ann. Ult. sub a._ 443:
_Patricius episcopus ardore fidei et doctrina Christi florens in nostra
provincia._[414]
_Ann. Inisf.: Patricius in Christi doctrina floruit._
It is clear that the Ulster Annals give the entry in its original form,
which is abbreviated (and translated into the past tense) by the
Annalist of Inisfallen. It has never been explained why a notice of
this kind should be entered under this particular year. Such a notice,
attached to a certain year, must have had a motive in some particular
occurrence which happened at that date. It belongs unquestionably to that
small group of contemporary entries which, preserved in calendars, found
their way into the later annalistic compilations (see above, p. 282). Now
Patrick’s visit to Rome supplies an explanation which would fully account
for it. His return from Rome, with the new prestige and authority with
which the Roman bishop’s approbation would have invested him, furnishes
a motive which would explain a formal entry recording his activity and
success at this juncture.[415]
* * * * *
The passage in Tírechán quoted above calls for a remark. There is
obviously an error in _ad legendum_ xxx _annis_. The error probably arose
from some combination of the genuine tradition that Sachellus accompanied
Patrick to Rome with the false idea (which had arisen before Tírechán’s
time through chronological confusions about Patrick’s life) that Patrick
studied for thirty years abroad.
16. _Appeal to the Roman See_
The genuineness of the canon prescribing reference to the Roman see
has been sufficiently indicated in the text (chap. viii. § 4); but some
observations may be added here by way of illustration. It is clear
that the attitude of the Irish Church to the see of Rome in the sixth
century has a very distinct value as evidence from which inferences
may be made in regard to its relation to Rome in the fifth century.
And for the feelings of Irish ecclesiastics towards the Roman see in
the sixth century, we can have no better evidence than the letters of
St. Columbanus, who was born and educated in Ireland. For on the one
hand Columbanus identifies his own opinions with those of the Irish,
and speaks as if he were writing in Ireland; while, on the other, he
admonishes the bishops of Rome with such boldness and plainness that he
cannot be accused of “Romanising” tendencies. We are therefore justified
in taking the spirit which he displays towards the _Cathedra Petri_ as
indicative of the spirit of the Irish Church.
In the three letters which are addressed to bishops of Rome (Epp. 1, 3,
5) there is the fullest recognition of the Pope’s _auctoritas_ in the
Western Church, and it is just this recognition which makes Columban
lay such solemn weight on his own admonitions—an error (_peruersitas_,
p. 175₄) committed by the Pope being one of the most serious disasters
that could befall the Church. It is clear that Ireland is in no wise
excluded from the general _auctoritas_ of the “Apostolic Fathers” (cp.
pp. 164₃₁, 165₂₃), for Pope Boniface is addressed as _omnium totius
Europae Ecclesiarum capiti_ (Ep. 5, p. 170₁₀). In this letter Columbanus
writes: _nos enim devincti sumus cathedrae sancti Petri_ (174₂₅), and
_vos_ (the Popes) _prope caelestes estis et Roma orbis terrarum caput est
ecclesiarum, salva loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari praerogativa_.
The reservation (showing that the writer is expressing his conviction and
not merely using rhetorical phrases of politeness) renders this evidence
all the more telling; and the same may be said of the reservation which
he makes as to the claim of the Popes as successors of the keeper of
the keys of heaven (175₈₋₁₉). The attitude of Columban is briefly
expressed in the wish: _Rex regum, tu Petrum, te tota sequatur ecclesia_
(177₁₅).[416]
The unity of the Catholic Church is an axiom with Columbanus, and there
is not the smallest reason to doubt that this idea was inculcated in
Ireland. _Unius enim sumus corporis commembra, sive Galli sive Britanni
sive Iberi sive quaeque gentes_ (164). It is not without significance
that in the story of the baptism of the daughters of King Loigaire,
preserved by Tírechán, one of the five rudiments of Christianity in
which the converts are required to express their belief is the _unitas
aecclessiae_ (316₂, Rolls ed.).
The point is that its own solidarity with the rest of Christendom, and
consequent respect for the Bishop of Rome as the head of Christendom,
were axioms of theory, however little they were acted on in the sixth
century, in the Irish Church. And such must have been the teaching of
Patrick himself. Patrick, spiritually reared in the Gallic Church, must
(without direct testimony to the contrary) be presumed to have shared in
the attitude of Gallic churchmen to the Roman see. It was not, indeed,
the attitude of unquestioning obedience and submission of later ages.
What it was has been fully explained in chap. iii. _ad fin._ and in chap.
viii. § 4.
Reference must be made to another passage in Columbanus, which might be
thought to prove something more (_Ep._ 5, p. 171).
Nos enim sanctorum Petri et Pauli et omnium discipulorum
divinum canonem spiritu sancto scribentium discipuli sumus,
toti Iberi, ultimi habitatores mundi, nihil extra evangelicam
et apostolicam doctrinam recipientes: nullus hereticus, nullus
iudaeus, nullus scismaticus fuit; sed fides catholica, _sicut a
vobis primum_, sanctorum videlicet apostolorum successoribus,
_tradita est_, inconcussa tenetur.
In this assertion of the orthodoxy of Ireland, the words which I have
italicised might be taken to imply that Ireland received the Catholic
faith directly from the Popes. This would be a misinterpretation. The
words can only refer generally to the transmission and maintenance of
orthodox doctrine at Rome.[417]
* * * * *
The text of the canon of appeal (Hibernensis, 20, 5, b) is as follows:—
Si quae difficiles[418] questiones in hac insula oriantur, ad
sedem apostolicam referantur.
It is referred to in the _Liber Angueli_ (356₁₁), where the claim of
Armagh to decide a _causa ualde difficilis_ is laid down; but if Armagh
does not succeed in settling the question, then _ad sedem apostolicam
decreuimus esse mittendam_ [sc. _causam_]. It is further stated:
hii sunt qui de hoc decreuerunt id est Auxilius Patricius
Secundinus Benignus.
If these names are selected from the signatories of a synod at which the
canon was passed, the presence of Secundinus, who died 447-8 (see App. B,
note p. 292), shows that the synod must have been held before that year.
Benignus would have been still a presbyter.[419]
17. _Patrick’s Paschal Table_
[See Dr. B. MacCarthy’s _Introduction_ to the _Annals of Ulster_, vol.
iv.]
The Paschal table drawn up by Dionysius (based on a cycle of 19 years
like the Alexandrine) superseded the Paschal canon of Victorius of
Aquitaine about 525 A.D. in the Roman Church. The canon of Victorius
(based on a cycle of 532 years) had been introduced in 457 A.D. and
continued to be used in Gaul to the end of the eighth century. Before
the reception of the Victorian system, the date of Easter was calculated
in the west by a cycle of 84 years. In the time of St. Patrick, the
terms between which Easter could fluctuate, according to the _supputatio
Romana_ based on this cycle, were the 16th and 22nd of the lunar month,
the 22nd March and 21st April of the calendar. These terms were due to
modifications (which had been introduced in 312 and 343 A.D.) of an older
computation, in which the lunar limits were the 14th and 20th of the
lunar month, the calendar limits the 25th March and 21st April.[420]
There were thus four stages, from the end of the third century, in the
Paschal computation adopted at Rome:
1. 84 cycle: lunar terms, 14 × 20: cal. terms, M. 25 × A. 21
2. 84 cycle: lunar terms, 16 × 22: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 21 [after
343 A.D.]
3. 532 cycle: lunar terms, 16 × 22: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 24 [after
457 A.D.]
4. 19 cycle: lunar terms, 15 × 21: cal. terms, M. 22 × A. 25 [after
525 A.D.]
The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland never adopted the Victorian
cycle, and the great question of the seventh-century controversies was
whether they should adopt the Dionysian computation, and abandon their
old system which was based on a cycle of 84. There is no doubt that a
cycle of 84 was used in Ireland in the 6th and 7th centuries, for we
have the clear and express testimony of one of the great Irish churchmen
of the sixth century, Columbanus of Bobbio and Luxeuil. In a letter
addressed to a Gallic synod 603 or 604 A.D., he writes: _plus credo
traditioni patriae meae, iuxta doctrinam et calculum octoginta quatuor
annorum_.[421] The confirmation supplied by Bede, _H.E._, 2, 2 and 5, 21,
as well as by Aldhelm (ed. Dümmler, _M.G.H., Epp. Mer. et Kar. Aeui_, i.
233), is superfluous.
But what surprises us is that this Paschal reckoning which prevailed
in Ireland in the sixth and seventh centuries was not the _supputatio
Romana_ of the fourth and fifth centuries. The Paschal limits were
different. The Irish celebrated Easter from the 14th to the 20th of
the moon, and not before 25th March.[422] In other words, their system
represented the oldest of the four stages noted above. How is the
survival of this system to be explained?
If we suppose that a table of Paschal computation was brought by Patrick
to Ireland in the first half of the fifth century, it is not probable
that he would have introduced any other than the _supputatio Romana_.
This inference does not depend on the view which we adopt as to Patrick’s
relations to the Church of Rome. It depends upon his connexion with the
Gallic Church. There is no evidence, so far as I can discover,[423]
that the Gallic Church did not agree with the Roman in the fourth and
fifth centuries as to the Paschal limits. We should have to suppose that
Patrick rejected both the system prevailing in western Europe, and the
Alexandrine system, in favour of the older usage prevailing in his native
country, Britain; and this, in view of the circumstances of his career,
seems extremely unlikely.[424]
The evidence, in my opinion, suggests rather a different conclusion. It
suggests that the Paschal system which prevailed in Britain in the fourth
century and survived to the seventh had been introduced from Britain
into Ireland, and taken root among the Christian communities there,
_before the arrival of Patrick_. This is what we should expect. It is in
accordance with the hypothesis of the British origin of pre-Patrician
Christianity in Ireland. It is easy to comprehend that Patrick, though
accustomed to the _supputatio Romana_, acquiesced in the continuance
of the other system or was unable to change it. It would be not at all
easy to comprehend that, if he had found Ireland a _tabula rasa_ ready
to receive any Paschal calculation that he might choose to inscribe, he
should not have introduced the system generally received in the Western
Church unless it were the system generally received in the Eastern
Church. The Paschal evidence appears to be another proof of pre-Patrician
Christianity in Ireland.
But if Patrick acquiesced in the continuance of the old system and
did not make the fixing of the Paschal feast a crucial question in
Ireland, it does not follow that he adopted it himself or may not have
made some attempt to introduce another canon. There is no _a priori_
objection to the possibility that, while the old method continued in the
old-established communities, he may have sanctioned a different table in
the new communities which he founded. This brings us to the consideration
of an important piece of evidence contained in the letter of Cummian
addressed to Segéne, Abbot of Hy (probably in 632 A.D.[425]), arguing for
the Roman Easter. Cummian states definitely that the Pasch of Patrick
differed from the Pasch of the Irish and Britons. He describes the cycle
used by Patrick thus:[426]
illum [cyclum] quem sanctus Patricius, papa noster, tulit
et facit (_leg._ fecit), in quo luna a xiv usque in xxi
regulariter et aequinoctium a xii Kl. April obseruatur.
The Paschal lunar limits in this text are those ascribed to Theophilus
and the Council of Caesarea, in the spurious _Acta_ composed by an Irish
computist[427] (possibly towards the beginning of the sixth century).
The probability, however, seems to be that the text of Cummian has
suffered corruption in the numbers, and the question is whether (1)
xiv. is an error for xv.,[428] and the Alexandrine cycle is implied, or
(2) xiv. and xxi. are errors for xvi. and xxii. respectively, and the
_supputatio Romana_ (with 84 cycle) is intended. Both these alternatives
are possible, for, though we should expect Patrick to have accepted
the Gallic usage, he _might_ have been prepossessed in favour of the
Alexandrine system at Lérins, where there was probably Eastern influence.
In any case, we can hardly feel prepared to reject the statement of
Cummian[429] that Patrick “brought” and sought to introduce a different
Paschal computation from that which prevailed among the Celts in
Cummian’s own time. We may fairly cite in confirmation the express
mention of his studies of the calendar (at Auxerre) in the Hymn of Fíacc
(l. 11, as interpreted by Thurneysen, _Rev. celt._ vi. 233; see above, p.
264).
18. _The Organisation of the Episcopate_[430]
Todd showed in great detail that bishops without sees were common in the
Irish Church in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries (_St. Patrick_,
pp. 1 _sqq._). Strictly speaking, he did not prove it for the fifth
century; nor did he show that there were no bishops with sees, even in
the times to which his instances and illustrations apply. Loofs has
maintained that both in Patrick’s time and in later times there were
“_episcopi paruchiales_” in Ireland. I hardly think that the positive
arguments which he brings forward are very convincing; the inscription of
the letter of Pope John IV. (Bede, _H.E._ 2, 19) proves nothing. But the
passage which he cites from the letter of Columbanus (A.D. 603 or 604) to
a synod of Gallic bishops and clergy may be quoted in this connexion. The
Irish monk writes:
Inde sanctus Hieronymus haec sciens iussit episcopos imitari
apostolos, monachos uero docuit sequi patres perfectos. Alia
enim sunt et alia clericorum et monachorum documenta, ea et
longe ab inuicem separata.[431]
Had the Abbot of Luxueil who writes with such approbation of the separate
functions and ideals of sequestered monks, and active clergy (including
bishops), whether regular or secular—had he been accustomed in his native
country to a system in which there were no bishops who were not members
of monasteries? This bears on the question whether the Irish Church
in the sixth century was as exclusively monastic as it is generally
represented.
It is quite inconceivable that Patrick and his foreign coadjutors should
have organised a purely monastic Church. Such a Church might have
grown into being by degrees, but it would never have been deliberately
organised in the fifth century; there was no model for it. Nor is it
conceivable that Patrick would have introduced an order of bishops, none
of whom were bound to any defined sphere of activity, but who might go
about the island promiscuously, performing episcopal duties wherever
they liked. It is incredible that he was not guided by geographical
considerations in his ordination of bishops; and it is not easy to see
how a geographical distribution could have been dispensed with.