E-text prepared by Stacy Brown, Anna Tuinman, Bethanne M. Simms, Ted
Garvin, and the Project Gutenberg Online Distributed Proofreading Team
(http://www.pgdp.net)
Transcriber's Note:
In the genealogical tree in Additional Note B, and a few other
locations in the text, dagger symbols have been replaced with +.
A character following a caret sign (^) is superscripted.
Translations of Christian Literature. Series V
Lives of the Celtic Saints
S^T BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX'S
LIFE OF S^T MALACHY OF ARMAGH
by
H. J. LAWLOR, D.D., LITT.D.
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
The Macmillan Company.
London
New York
1920
Printed in Great Britain by Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, Brunswick St.,
Stamford St., S.E. 1, and Bungay, Suffolk.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO vii
NAMES OF IRISH PERSONS AND PLACES x
INTRODUCTION xii
LIFE OF ST. MALACHY 1
LETTERS OF ST. BERNARD 131
SERMONS OF ST. BERNARD ON THE PASSING OF
MALACHY 141
ADDITIONAL NOTES:--
A.--ST. BERNARD'S DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE
OF THE IRISH CHURCH 161
B.--THE HEREDITARY SUCCESSION OF THE COARBS
OF PATRICK 164
C.--MALACHY'S CONTEST WITH NIALL 167
APPENDIX 171
INDEX 172
PRINCIPAL AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO
A. T.C.D. MS. F. 4, 6, containing the _Vita S. Malachiae_ and a portion
of _Sermo_ ii. imbedded therein. Cent. xiii.; copied from a much earlier
exemplar.
AA.SS. _Acta Sanctorum._
A.F.M. _Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters_, ed. J.
O'Donovan, 1851.
A.I. Annals of Inisfallen, in O'Conor, _Rerum Hibernicarum Scriptores_,
1814-1826, vol. ii.
A.L.C. _Annals of Loch Cé_, ed. W. M. Hennessy (R.S.), 1871.
A.T. _Annals of Tigernach_ (so called: see J. MacNeill in _Eriu_, vii.
30), ed. W. Stokes, in _Revue Celtique_, xvi.-xviii.
A.U. _Annals of Ulster, otherwise Annals of Senat_, ed. W. M. Hennessy
and B. MacCarthy, 1887-1901.
Adamnan. The Life of St. Columba, written by Adamnan, ed. W. Reeves
(Irish Archæological and Celtic Society), 1857.
Archdall. M. Archdall, _Monasticon Hibernicum_, 1786: the earlier part
ed. by P. F. Moran, 1873.
C.M.A. _Chartularies of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin_, ed. J. T. Gilbert
(R.S.), 1884.
_Cant._ S. Bernardi Sermones in Cantica, in _P.L._ clxxxiii. 779 ff.
(1879): English Translation by S. J. Eales, _The Life and Works of St.
Bernard_, vol. iv., 1896.
Colgan, _A.S.H._ J. Colgan, _Acta Sanctorum Hiberniae_, Lovanii, 1645,
tom. i.
D.A.I. The Dublin Annals of Inisfallen, Royal Irish Academy MS. 23, F.
9.
_De Cons._ S. Bernardi _De Consideratione Libri V._, in _P.L._ clxxxii.
727 ff. (1879): English Translation by G. Lewis, 1908.
_De Dil._ S. Bernardi _De Diligendo Deo_ in _P.L._ clxxxii. 973 ff.
(1879). English Translations by M. C. and C. Patmore, second ed., 1884,
and E. G. Gardner, 1916.
Dugdale. W. Dugdale, _Monasticon Anglicanum_, ed. J. Caley, H. Ellis and
B. Bandinel, 1817-30.
Eadmer. Eadmeri _Historia Novorum in Anglia_, ed. M. Rule (R.S.), 1884.
_Ep._ S. Bernardi Epistolæ in _P.L._ clxxxii. 67 ff. (1879): English
Translation in S. J. Eales, _The Life and Works of St. Bernard_, vols.
i.-iii. (1889-1896).
Giraldus, _Expug._; _Gest._; _Top._ _Giraldi Cambrensis Opera_, ed. J.
S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock and G. F. Warner (R.S.), 1861-1901. _Expugnatio
Hibernica_, vol. v. p. 207 ff.; _De Rebus a se Gestis_, vol. i. p. 1
ff.; _Topographia Hibernica_, vol. v. p. 1 ff.
Gorman. _The Martyrology of Gorman_, ed. W. Stokes (Henry Bradshaw
Society), 1895.
Gougaud. L. Gougaud, _Les Chrétientés Celtiques_, 1911.
Gwynn. The Book of Armagh, ed. J. Gwynn, 1913.
J.R.S.A.I. _Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland_:
references to volumes according to the consecutive numbering.
Jaffé. _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_, ed. P. Jaffé, 1851.
John of Hexham. _Historia Johannis Prioris Hagustaldensis Ecclesiae_, in
_Symeonis Monachi Dunelmensis Opera Omnia_, ed. T. Arnold (R.S.), ii.
(1885), 284 ff.
K. Codex Kilkenniensis; Marsh's Library, Dublin, MS. Z. 1.5, containing
the _Vita S. Malachiae_. Cent. xv.
Keating. G. Keating, _History of Ireland_, ed. D. Comyn and P. S.
Dinneen (Irish Texts Society), 1902-1914.
L.A.J. _County Louth Archæological Journal._
L.B. Leabhar Breac, Royal Irish Academy MS. (Facsimile ed. 1876.)
Lanigan. J. Lanigan, _An Ecclesiastical History of Ireland ... to the
Beginning of the Thirteenth Century_, 1829.
M.G.H. _Monumenta Germaniae Historica._
Mansi. _Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio_, ed. J. D.
Mansi, 1759-1798.
O.C.C. _The Book of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the
Holy Trinity, commonly called Christ Church, Dublin_, ed. J. C.
Crosthwaite and J. H. Todd (Irish Archæological Society), 1844.
Oengus. _The Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee_, ed. W. Stokes (Henry
Bradshaw Society), 1905.
O'Hanlon. J. O'Hanlon, _The Life of Saint Malachy O'Morgair_, 1859.
O'Hanlon, _Saints_. J. O'Hanlon, _Lives of the Irish Saints_, vols.
i.-ix., 1875-1901.
P.L. _Patrologiæ Cursus Completus, Series Latina_, ed. J. P. Migne.
Petrie. G. Petrie, _The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland ...
comprising an Essay on the Origin and Uses of the Round Towers of
Ireland_, 1845.
Plummer. _Vitae Sanctorum Hiberniae_, ed. C. Plummer, 1910.
Plummer, _Bede_. _Venerabilis Baedae Opera Historica_, ed. C. Plummer,
1896.
R.I.A. _Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_, Archæology, Linguistic
and Literature. References to volumes according to the consecutive
numbering.
R.I.A. _Trans._ _Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy._
R.Q.H. _Revue des Questions Historiques._
R.T.A. _Register of the Abbey of St. Thomas, Dublin_, ed. J. T. Gilbert
(R.S.), 1889.
Reeves. W. Reeves, _Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down, Connor and
Dromore_, 1847.
Reeves, _Churches_. W. Reeves, _Ancient Churches of Armagh_, 1860.
Richard of Hexham. _Historia Ricardi prioris Haugustaldensis_, in
_Chronicles of Stephen_, etc., ed. Howlett (R.S.), iii. (1886), 137 ff.
Theiner. A. Theiner, _Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum,
1216-1547_, Romae, 1864.
Todd. J. H. Todd, _St. Patrick Apostle of Ireland_, 1864.
_Trias._ J. Colgan, _Triadis Thaumaturgae seu divorum Patricii, Columbae
et Brigidae Acta_, Lovanii, 1647 (vol. ii. of his _Acta Sanctorum
Hiberniae_).
_Trip._ W. Stokes, _The Tripartite Life of Patrick with other Documents
relating to that Saint_, ed. W. Stokes (R.S.), 1887.
Tundale. _Visio Tnugdali lateinisch und altdeutsch_, ed. A. Wagner,
1882.
Ussher. J. Ussher, _Veterum Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge_, in Works,
ed. C. R. Elrington, 1847-1864, vol. iv., pp. 383 ff.
V.P. _S. Bernardi Vita Prima_, in _P.L._ clxxxv., 225 ff.
Vacandard. _Vie de Saint Bernard Abbé de Clairvaux_ par l'Abbé E.
Vacandard, 4e édition, 1910.
NAMES OF IRISH PERSONS AND PLACES
Form used in this Form used by
volume. St. Bernard. Irish Form.
Antrim Oenthreb Oentreb
Armagh Ardmacha Ard Macha
Bangor Benchor Bennchor
Cashel Caselensis Caisel
Catholicus Catholicus Catlac
Cellach Celsus Cellach
Christian Christianus Gilla Crist
Coleraine Culratim Cúl Rathin
Columbanus Columbanus Columbán
Comgall Congellus Comgall
Connor Connereth Coindire
Conor Conchobar
Cork Corcagia Corcach
Dermot Diarmicius Diarmait
Derry Daire
Desmond Mumonia australis Desmuma
Donnell Domnall
Donough {Donnchad
{Donngus
Down Dunum Dún dá Lethglas
Edan Edanus Aedh
Faughart Fochart Fochart
Gelasius Gelasius Gilla meic Liag
Gilbert Gillebertus Gilla espuig
Imar Imaru Imar
Inispatrick Inis Pátraic
Iveragh Ibracensis Ui Ráthach
Leinster Laginia Laigin
Limerick Luimneach
Lismore Lesmore Lis Mór
Lugadh Luanus {Lugaid
{Molua
MacCarthy Mac (meic) Carthaig
Maelisa } Malchus Mael Ísa
Malchus }
Malachy Malachias Máel Máedóc
Moriarty Ua Muirchertaig
Munster Mumonia Muma
Murrough Murchadh
Murtough Mauricius Muirchertach
Nehemiah Nehemias Gilla na Naem
Niall Nigellus Niall
O'Boyle Ua Baigill
O'Brien Ua Briain
O'Carroll Ua Cerbaill
O'Conor Ua Conchobair
O'Hagan Ua hAedacain
O'Hanratty Ua hIndrechtaig
O'Hanley Ua hAingli
O'Kelly Ua Cellaig
O'Loughlin Ua Lochlainn
Oriel Oirgialla
O'Rorke Ua Ruarc
Patrick Patricius Pátraic
Rory Ruaidhri
Saul {Saballum } Sabal Phátraic
{Saballinum}
Shalvey Ua Selbaig
Teague Tadhg
Thomond Tuathmuma
Turlough Toirdelbach
Ulaid Ulydia Ulaid
Usnagh Uisnech
Waterford Port Láirge
INTRODUCTION
The main purpose of this Introduction is to give an account of a
movement which changed the whole face of the Irish Church, and to the
advancement of which St. Malachy devoted his life. In default of a
better word we may call the movement a Reformation, though it might
perhaps be more accurately described as an ecclesiastical revolution.
Without some knowledge of its aims and progress it is impossible to
assign to Malachy his true place in the history of his native country.
That such a movement actually took place in the twelfth century is
beyond doubt. From about the year 1200 on it is certain that the
organization of the Church of Ireland was similar to that of the other
Churches of western Christendom. The country was divided into dioceses;
and each diocese had a bishop as its ruler, and a Cathedral Church in
which the bishop's stool was placed. The Cathedral Church, moreover, had
a chapter of clergy, regular or secular, who performed important
functions in the diocese. But up to the end of the eleventh century all
these things were unknown among the Irish. The constitution of the
Church was then of an entirely different type, one that had no exact
parallel elsewhere. The passage from the older to the newer organization
must have taken place in the twelfth century. During that century,
therefore, there was a Reformation in the Irish Church, however little
we may know of its causes or its process. But this Reformation was no
mere re-modelling of the hierarchy. It can be shown that it imposed on
the members of the Church a new standard of sexual morality; if we
believe contemporary writers, it restored to their proper place such
rites as Confession, Confirmation and Matrimony; it substituted for the
offices of divine service previously in use those of the Roman Church;
it introduced the custom of paying tithes; it established in Ireland the
monastic orders of Latin Christendom[1]; and it may have produced
changes in other directions.[2] But I propose to confine myself to the
change in the constitution of the Church, which was its most striking
feature. The subject, even thus narrowed, will give us more than can be
satisfactorily treated in a few pages.
First, I must emphasize the assertion made a moment ago that the
constitution of the Irish Church in the eleventh century was _sui
generis_. Let us begin by reminding ourselves what it was from the sixth
to the eighth century. It was then essentially monastic in character.
The rulers of the Church were the abbots of the monasteries, commonly
known as the coarbs or successors of their founders. These abbots were
sometimes bishops; but whether they were bishops or of lower rank in the
ministry, their authority was inherent in their office of coarb. At this
period bishops were numerous--more numerous than in later medieval or
modern times; and certain functions were reserved for bishops, for
example, ordination. No ecclesiastic, of whatever status, could perform
such functions, unless he was of the episcopal order. But no bishop, as
such, had jurisdiction. The bishops were often subordinate officers in
monasteries, reverenced because of their office, but executing their
special functions at the command of the abbots. Sometimes a bishop was
attached to a single tribe. Sometimes a group of bishops--often seven in
number--dwelt together in one place. But in no case, I repeat, had they
jurisdiction. Thus ecclesiastical authority was vested in the abbots.
The episcopate was bestowed on certain individuals as a personal
distinction. Thus the bishops, if they were not also abbots, had only
such influence on the affairs of the Church as their sanctity, or their
learning, might give them.
It may surprise some that so anomalous a system of government should
have persisted as late as the eleventh century, in other words for a
period of over 500 years. But we must take account of the Danish--or as
we should rather call it, the Norse--invasion of Ireland. Danish ships
first appeared off the Irish coasts about the year 800. From that time
for two centuries Ireland was to a large extent cut off from intercourse
with the rest of Europe. The aim of the northern hordes, as it seems,
was not mere pillage, but the extinction of Christianity. Ecclesiastical
institutions were everywhere attacked, and often destroyed. And these
institutions were centres of scholarship. Heretofore Ireland had been
the special home of learning, and had attracted to itself large numbers
of foreign students. But in those disastrous centuries its culture was
reduced to the lowest point. In such circumstances it was not possible
that the organization of the Church should be developed or strengthened.
The Danish domination of the country must have tended to stereotype the
old hierarchical system. It might, indeed, suffer from deterioration: it
probably did. But it could not be assimilated to the system which then
prevailed on the Continent. We should expect that the constitution of
the Church in the eleventh century, whatever abuses may have crept into
its administration, would in principle be identical with that of the
pre-Danish period.
There can in fact be no doubt that it was. We have in our hands writings
of Lanfranc, Anselm, St. Bernard and Giraldus Cambrensis which picture
the state of the Irish Church at that time. They speak of it in terms
which are by no means complimentary. But when they come to details we
discover that the irregularities in its hierarchical arrangement which
shocked them most went back to the days of St. Columba. Quotations
cannot be given here. But the reader will probably find in the Life
printed below, and the authorities referred to in the notes, sufficient
proof that the constitution of the Irish Church in 1100 was in the main
a following, though perhaps a corrupt following, of that of the sixth
century.[3]
There was indeed one abuse in the Irish Church of the tenth and eleventh
centuries of which few traces are found before the Danish invasion. We
learn from St. Bernard that the abbots of Armagh were the
representatives of a single family, and held office, as of right, by
hereditary succession.[4] There is reason to believe that this evil
custom was not peculiar to Armagh.[5] According to St. Bernard, it was
the gravest departure from Catholic tradition of which the Irish Church
was guilty, and the parent of many evils. We shall hear more of it in
the sequel. For the moment it is sufficient to note that it existed.
I.--The Beginnings of the Movement
But before the eleventh century ended forces were at work in Ireland
which prepared the way for the introduction of a new order. They were
set free by the conversion of the Norsemen to Christianity, and by their
final defeat at the battle of Clontarf. The date of the conversion
cannot be fixed: it was probably a gradual process. And we do not know
from what source the Danes derived their Christianity. The victory of
Clontarf was won on Good Friday, 1014.
Now a study of the Annals reveals the fact that in the seventh and
eighth centuries there was a goodly, and on the whole an increasing,
body of scholars in Ireland. Under the Norse domination, as we might
expect, the number was greatly diminished. But already in the tenth
century there was a notable increase: in the eleventh century the number
was doubled. In the tenth century, moreover, and still more in the
eleventh, scholars began to congregate at special centres, which became
permanent homes of learning, the most prominent of these schools being
at Armagh and Clonmacnoise. And during the same period we find frequent
mention of an official, unknown before the arrival of the Norsemen, who
is styled _fer légind_ or professor. Between 925 and 1000 the obits of
twenty-three professors are recorded; in the eleventh century of more
than fifty. In the greater number of cases the _fer légind_ is
associated with one of those seats of learning which is known to have
been most prolific of scholars.
Thus it appears that gradually, as the onslaughts of the Danes became
less frequent, Irish men of learning tended more and more to become
teachers rather than mere students, and to gravitate towards a few great
centres of study. The climax of this movement towards organization and
the eminence of special places was reached about the middle of the
eleventh century (1030-1063), when mention is made of thirty-three
persons who held the office of _fer légind_, and when the principal
schools seem to have been those of Clonmacnoise, Armagh, Kildare and
Kells.[6]
The Reformation of the twelfth century, like that of the sixteenth, was
prepared for by a revival of learning.
But further, the defeat of the Danes removed the barrier which had
hindered communication between Ireland and the rest of Europe. Students
once more came to Ireland from other lands to pursue their studies. The
most remarkable of these was perhaps Sulien, the future bishop of St.
David's. Sulien the Wise was born shortly before the date of the battle
of Clontarf in the district of Cardigan. In early youth he displayed
much aptitude for learning, and in middle life, about 1058, "stirred by
the example of the fathers," he paid a visit to the Irish schools in
order to perfect his studies. He spent thirteen years in that country,
and then established a famous school at Llanbadarn Fawr in Wales. In the
library of Trinity College, Dublin, there is a precious relic of the
work of this school. It is a beautiful manuscript of St. Jerome's Latin
version of the Psalter according to the Hebrew, once the property of
Bishop Bedell.[7] The manuscript was written by a member of the school,
a Welshman named Ithael. It is adorned with excellent illuminations by
John, one of Sulien's sons, and was presented to Ricemarch, another son
of Sulien. A valuable copy of the Hieronymian Martyrology prefixed to it
gives sundry indications that it was transcribed from an Irish
exemplar. At the end of the volume are some verses composed by
Ricemarch, and perhaps written there by his own hand. They display
considerable Biblical and patristic learning. Another relic of the
school is a copy of St. Augustine's _De Trinitate_ in Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge.[8] It was written and illuminated by John, and
contains excellent Latin verses from his pen. In the British Museum
there is also a poem of Ricemarch describing the horrors of the Norman
invasion of Wales.[9] And finally we have a _Life of St. David_, by the
same author. It relates many incidents culled from the lives of Irish
saints who had in one way or another been brought into contact with
David; all of them reminiscent of Sulien's studies in the Irish
Schools.[10]
I have dwelt on these things because they illustrate in a striking way
the revival of Irish learning in the eleventh century. But just at the
time when Sulien, and doubtless many other foreigners, were coming to
Ireland to study, Irish scholars were beginning to renew their ancient
habit of travelling to other countries. By way of example I may mention
two, both of whom were known by the same name, Marianus Scotus. One of
these, a native of the north of Ireland, whose real name was Muiredach
Mac Robartaich, founded the monastery of St. Peter at Ratisbon about
1070; and he was succeeded there by six abbots of north Irish birth. He
wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles, which is still preserved in
the Imperial Library at Vienna. The other, Mael Brigte by name, left
Ireland in 1056, and after some wanderings established himself at Mainz
in 1069. He compiled a chronicle, which is of considerable value.[11]
Hereafter I shall have to mention other Irish men of travel; and it will
be seen that from some of them, who returned home, came the main impulse
to the reform of the Irish Church.
The battle of Clontarf broke the power of the Danes in Ireland; but it
did not secure their departure from the country. Those that remained
were mainly settled in the four cities of Dublin, Wexford, Waterford and
Limerick. In due time these four Danish colonies adopted the Christian
Faith, and before long they became organized churches, each presided
over by a bishop. In Dublin this took place a quarter of a century after
the battle of Clontarf, the first bishop being Dunan, in whose
episcopate the Danish king, Sitric, founded the Cathedral of the Holy
Trinity about 1040. Of the early ecclesiastical history of Wexford
practically nothing is known; but the first bishop of Waterford was
consecrated in 1096,[12] and the first bishop of Limerick eight or ten
years later.[13] These were the first churches in Ireland ruled by
bishops who were not abbots; and it seems that each of the bishops had a
defined diocese. The dioceses of Dublin, Waterford, and perhaps Wexford,
were very small, extending only a little way, if at all, beyond the
walls of the Cathedral city. The diocese of Limerick, on the other hand,
was extensive; rather larger than the present diocese of the same name.
But whether large or small each of these dioceses presented to the eyes
of the Irish a model of Church government similar to that in vogue on
the Continent, and utterly different from that to which they were
accustomed.
This might prove a potent factor in the Reformation, once a tendency
developed among the Irish to bring their ecclesiastical machinery into
conformity with that of the rest of the world. But it is manifest that
by itself it would not induce them to re-model their hierarchy. It was
not to be expected that they would cast aside the tradition of
centuries, moved merely by a desire to imitate their late enemies. If,
as is commonly held, the Danish dioceses, without exception, held
themselves aloof from, or were hostile to, Irish Christianity, such a
result could hardly have been attained, at any rate until the coming of
the Anglo-Normans. These later invaders would doubtless have forced
diocesan episcopacy on the Irish Church. But that it was established in
Ireland before the country came, even in part, under English rule, is
certain. So we must ask the question: What was the connecting link which
bound the Church of the Danish colonists to that of Celtic Ireland? By
way of answer I point to the remarkable fact, often overlooked, that all
the earliest bishops of the Danish dioceses were of Irish birth. Why
Danish Christians should have elected Irishmen as their bishops I do not
attempt to explain. But the evidence for the fact is clear.
The first two bishops of Dublin, Dunan and Patrick (Gilla Pátraic), had
unmistakably Irish names. So too had their immediate successors Donough
O'Hanley and his nephew Samuel O'Hanley; and of these two the latter is
stated by the English chronicler Eadmer[14] to have been "natione
Hibernensis." The next bishop, Gregory--the first archbishop of
Dublin--was likewise "natione Hibernensis" according to the continuator
of Florence of Worcester.[15] He was followed by St. Laurence O'Toole,
of whose nationality it is unnecessary to give proof.
Malchus, the earliest bishop of Waterford, was an Irishman;[16] so also
was Gilbert, the first bishop of Limerick. And when Gilbert resigned his
see, after an episcopate of thirty-five years, he was succeeded by
Patrick, whose name tells its own tale.[17]
Most of the Irish rulers of Danish dioceses whom I have mentioned were
men of travel. Patrick of Dublin, to whose learning Lanfranc bears
testimony, "was nourished in monastic institutions from his
boyhood,"[18] and certainly not, in an Irish religious house. Donough
O'Hanley, before his consecration, was a monk of Canterbury; Samuel
O'Hanley was a monk of St. Albans;[19] Malchus was called to Waterford
from Walkelin's monastery at Winchester;[20] Gilbert of Limerick had
visited Normandy,[21] and at a later date we find him assisting at the
consecration of a bishop in Westminster Abbey.[22] Such men had had
training which familiarized them with Roman methods of Church
Government. They were well fitted to organize and rule their dioceses.
And if they desired to imbue the Celtic Church with the principles which
they had learnt, and on which they acted, their nationality gave them a
ground of appeal which no Dane could have had. It is of course not to be
assumed that all of them were so disposed. The Danish Christians of
Dublin not only stood aside from the Celtic Church; for reasons which
will appear later they were inimical to it, and it to them. Their
bishops, with the possible exception of the first, made profession of
canonical obedience to the English Primates. Not only so: they gloried
in their subjection to Canterbury. "We have always been willing subjects
of your predecessors," wrote the burgesses and clergy of Dublin to
Ralph, archbishop of Canterbury, when the see was vacant in 1121. And
then, after a reference to the great jealousy of Cellach of Armagh
against them, they proceed to declare, "We will not obey his command,
but desire to be always under your rule. Therefore we beseech you to
promote Gregory to the episcopate if you wish to retain any longer the
parish which we have kept for you so long."[23] It was clearly
impossible that this diocese could directly influence the Irish in the
direction of reform. But no such obstacle barred the path of the first
bishops of Limerick and Waterford. Gilbert owed no allegiance to
Canterbury; Malchus was consecrated at Canterbury, but he soon escaped
his profession of obedience to Anselm.[24] Both became leaders of the
romanizing movement in Ireland.
But the influence of the Danish dioceses on the Irish Church was not
limited to the personal action of their bishops. Indirectly all of them,
including Dublin, had a share in promoting the Reformation. Archbishop
Lanfranc, as early as 1072, claimed that his primacy included Ireland as
well as England.[25] The claim, curiously enough, was based on Bede's
_History_, in which there is not a single word which supports it. But
the arrival two years later of Patrick, elect of Dublin, seeking
consecration at his hands, gave him his opportunity to enforce it. When
Patrick returned to take possession of his see he carried with him two
letters from Lanfranc. One was addressed to Gothric, the Manx prince who
for the moment was king of Dublin. Lanfranc, with tactful exaggeration,
dubs him "glorious king of Ireland," and tells him that in consecrating
Patrick he had followed the custom of his predecessors in the chair of
St. Augustine. The other letter was more important. It was directed to
Turlough O'Brien, grandson of Brian Boroimhe, who is also styled,
inconsistently, and not altogether truly, "magnificent king of Ireland":
he was doubtless king of Ireland in hope, but in fact he never extended
his sway beyond the southern half of the island. Turlough's attention is
called to the irregularities of the Irish Church. He is urged to call a
council of bishops and religious men for the extirpation of those evil
customs, and to be present at it in person. This letter evidently
produced an impression, and not only on Turlough O'Brien. For a few
years later Lanfranc wrote another letter, this time to a bishop named
Donnell and others, who had sought his advice on a difficult question
concerning the sacrament of baptism.[26]
Anselm followed in the footsteps of Lanfranc. Not long after his
consecration (1093) he wrote to Donnell, Donough O'Hanley and the rest
of the bishops of Ireland, begging the aid of their prayers, and urging
them to consult him in all cases of difficulty. Almost immediately
afterwards came the election of Malchus, bishop of Waterford, in 1096.
Among those who signed the petition for his consecration were Bishop
Donnell, Samuel O'Hanley, whom Anselm had consecrated for Dublin earlier
in the same year, and O'Dunan, bishop of Meath (_Idunan episcopus
Midiae_), whose name we shall do well to remember. But most notable of
all were Murtough O'Brien, son of Turlough, then the strongest of Irish
kings, soon to be _ardrí_, and his brother Dermot O'Brien.[27] It is
clear that Lanfranc had won the O'Briens to the Romanizing side; and
Anselm was determined to hold them fast. Within the next few years there
was a fairly regular correspondence between him and Murtough, of which
some letters have been preserved.[28] The relation between the two men
was evidently most friendly. And the archbishop fully exploited his
opportunity. Again and again he reminded the king of his duty to repress
abuses, the most important of which in his eyes were lax sexual
morality, and the consecration of bishops by single bishops, without
fixed sees or defined dioceses.
So Lanfranc and Anselm schooled the O'Briens in the principles of Rome.
And from one point of view their efforts were completely successful. The
O'Briens became staunch friends of the Reform movement in Ireland. But
from another point of view they failed. We must remember that their aim
was not only to purify the Irish Church, but to bring it into subjection
to Canterbury. That they did not succeed in doing. The Reformation,
which they taught the O'Briens to support, meant, in the end, a
repudiation of the pretensions of the English primates.
I have mentioned among those who were concerned in the election of
Malchus of Waterford, O'Dunan, bishop of Meath. He is unquestionably
Máel Muire Ua Dunáin, whom the annalists describe as "learned bishop of
the Goidhil, and head of the clergy of Ireland, and steward of the
almsdeeds of the world," and who died on Christmas Eve, 1117, at the age
of seventy-six. He is mentioned in a charter in the Book of Kells, the
date of which is apparently about 1100, as Senior of Leath Chuinn
(_i.e._ the north of Ireland).[29] He was fifty-five when Malchus was
elected, and had probably already attained the eminence throughout
Ireland which is attested by the high-flown phrases of the Annals. That
he was then bishop of Meath in the modern sense is impossible; the title
at that period would mean no more than that he was a bishop who lived
within the borders of the Kingdom of Meath. But the _Annals of
Tigernach_ tell us that he died at Clonard, from which it may perhaps be
inferred that his see was at that place. His importance for us just now
is that he is the only adherent of the Reform movement whom we have yet
discovered in the north of Ireland.
II.--The First Stage
Before proceeding further in our investigation of the origin and course
of the Reformation, it may be well to recall how far we have already
advanced. We started from the fact that a Reformation of the Irish
Church was actually accomplished in the twelfth century, and we
proceeded to look for the causes which may have brought it about. We
have found that the first of these was the revival of learning
consequent on the cessation of the ravages of the Norsemen. We have
noted also the restoration at the same period of communication between
Ireland and the rest of Europe--the coming of students to the Irish
schools, and the wanderings of Irish scholars in other lands. We have
seen that the establishment of the Danish dioceses gave to the Irish a
model of diocesan episcopacy, and that among the Irish-born bishops of
those dioceses there were men capable of leading a Reform movement. And
we have learned that Lanfranc and Anselm, through their relation with
the Danish dioceses, found means to induce the more conspicuous civil
and religious leaders of the Celtic population to undertake the work of
reconstituting the Church. Finally, we have been able to name some
persons who might be expected to take a prominent place in the early
stages of the Reformation. They are Gilbert of Limerick, Malchus of
Waterford, O'Dunan of Meath, and the princes of the O'Brien family. The
best proof that we have rightly conceived the origin of the movement
will come before us when we study the share which these persons
severally had in promoting it.
We must now trace, as far as it can be done, the first steps in the
process by which, under the influences which I have indicated, the
Church of Ireland passed from its older to its later hierarchical
system.
The earliest attempt to give concrete form to the principles of the
Reformers seems to have been made in the Kingdom of Meath, about the
year 1100. But the primary evidence for the fact is of much later date.
There are extant some constitutions of Simon Rochfort, bishop of Meath,
put forth at a synod of his diocese held at the monastery of SS. Peter
and Paul at Newtown, near Trim, in 1216. The first of them recites an
ordinance of the papal legate, Cardinal John Paparo, at the Council of
Kells in 1152, which is of great importance.
Paparo ordered that as the bishops of the weaker sees died off,
arch-priests, or, as we call them, rural deans, should succeed to their
place, and take charge of the clergy and people within their
borders.[30]
The inference which this enactment suggests is that the weaker sees to
which it refers were the centres of small dioceses, which Paparo desired
to be converted into rural deaneries. In accordance with the ordinance
of Paparo, Rochfort's synod enjoined that rural deans should be placed
in the five sees of Trim, Kells, Slane, Skreen and Dunshaughlin, each of
whom should supervise the churches in his own deanery. These, with
Clonard, which had long been the see of Rochfort's diocese, are six of
the twelve rural deaneries into which the present diocese of Meath is
divided.[31] I conclude that they, and probably the remaining six,
coincided more or less closely with dioceses ruled by bishops in the
first half of the twelfth century.[32]
Let us now call to our aid a much earlier witness. The annalists inform
us that in the year 1111 there was an assembly at Usnagh in Meath. It
decreed that "the parishes[33] of Meath" should be equally divided
between the bishops of Clonmacnoise and Clonard. We may infer that
Clonmacnoise and Clonard, two of the present rural deaneries, were then
dioceses. It is not likely that the dioceses of Meath would have been
formed into two groups, each to constitute the diocese of a bishop who
had already no diocese of his own. But however that may be, we have here
proof that before 1111 Meath had been parted into a number of small
dioceses ruled by bishops.
If the question be asked, By whose authority or influence this division
of Meath into dioceses was made? I can suggest no one more likely than
Máel Muire Ua Dunáin, the "bishop of Meath" to whom reference has
already been made.[34] He was a Meath man, and probably bishop of
Clonard: he was an ecclesiastic of great repute, especially in the
north; and he was a devoted adherent of the Reform movement. His action,
if indeed it was his, was premature and ill-advised. As we shall see,
his work had to be slowly undone. But it is remarkable, as the first
attempt known to us to establish diocesan episcopacy among the Irish. I
shall have more to say about it hereafter; but now I must follow the
main stream of events.
Gilbert,[35] the first bishop of Limerick, as has already been noted,
was an Irishman. Indeed, we may venture to describe him as one of the
most remarkable Irishmen of his time, in spite of the fact that the
Annals pass him by in almost complete silence. He was at any rate a
staunch supporter, or, as we should rather say, the leader of the
Reformation movement in its earliest course. In a letter written in 1107
Anselm exhorted him, in virtue of their mutual friendship, to make good
use of his episcopal office by correcting that which was amiss, and
planting and sowing good customs, calling to aid him in the work his
king (Murtough O'Brien), the other Irish bishops, and all whom he could
persuade.[36] That, assuredly, Gilbert was forward to do.
No sooner had he taken possession of his see than he began to organize a
diocese. Its boundaries seem to have been fixed with care. It was
exactly co-extensive with the modern diocese of Limerick, except on the
north, where it stretched across the Shannon and included part of the
present diocese of Killaloe.[37] Moreover he made the Church of St. Mary
his Cathedral Church; indeed it is not unlikely that he built it to
serve that purpose.
A few years later he was appointed Legate of the Holy See. It is
manifest that his new office gave him a unique opportunity of moulding
the fortunes of the Irish Church. In Ireland Gilbert was now virtually
the chief prelate and head of the Church. He was the representative and
embodiment of the authority of the Holy See. The whole Romanizing party
would naturally circle round him as their leader, and many waverers
would be attracted to the new movement in the Irish Church, by the claim
which he could make to speak in the name of the head of the Church
Catholic.
It was after he became legate, and no doubt in virtue of his legatine
commission, that he issued a treatise which may be regarded as the
programme of the Reformation. It is entitled _De Statu Ecclesiae_. Of
this a fragment, including its earlier chapters, is still in our
hands.[38]
Before giving a slight summary of its contents I must mention that it is
addressed "to the bishops and presbyters of the whole of Ireland," and
that Gilbert declares that he wrote it at the urgent request of many of
them. In this statement there may lurk an element of exaggeration. But
behind it there lies at least so much truth as this. A considerable body
of the clergy had approached the newly made legate, and requested his
instruction regarding the proper constitution of the Church--for such is
the subject of his tract; and that implies that the Romanizing movement
was no longer in its infancy. There were many bishops and presbyters who
had become dissatisfied with the old Irish method of Church government.
They desired to bring it into conformity with that of the Roman Church.
But they were in some uncertainty as to the nature of the changes that
should be made, and so they asked Gilbert to give them authoritative
counsel.
In reply to their petition, with the aid of an elaborate diagram, he
sketched as follows the organization of a properly ordered Church.
The bishops, he tells us, and others of higher rank in the ministry
belong to the general Church, as distinct from particular churches. The
priest is the highest officer in a particular church. It is the primary
duty of every priest to serve and obey his bishop with all humility. For
by the bishops particular churches are ruled. To each bishop are subject
all the churches within his jurisdiction. And this applies as well to
monastic establishments as to parishes. The head of each parish is a
priest, the head of each monastery is an abbot, who is himself a priest.
The bishop has a pontifical church, in which is his see (_sedes_), and
of which he is the head. From it he governs the inferior churches. A
bishop can perform all the offices of a priest, but he has seven
functions peculiar to himself: to confirm, to bless, to absolve, to hold
synods, to dedicate churches and altars, to consecrate the ornaments of
churches, to ordain abbots and abbesses and the secular clergy.
Gilbert's diagram represented the bishop as ruling two churches; but he
explains that this is to be interpreted figuratively. A bishop may have
as many as a thousand churches within his jurisdiction: he must have at
least ten.
A bishop is himself subject to authority. His immediate superior is the
archbishop. An archbishop has a sphere of immediate jurisdiction, like
any other bishop, but he also rules a number of subject bishops. Of
these there must be at least three; but an archbishop is not permitted
to have more than twenty subject bishops--an important point, as we
shall see. Above the archbishop is the primate. It is the special
privilege of the primate to ordain and crown the king. He too has his
sphere of immediate jurisdiction, and he must have at least one subject
archbishop, but not more than six.
Primates and archbishops must be consecrated at Rome by the Pope, or at
least must receive the pall[39] from him. Without the pall they are not
raised above their fellow-bishops.
Finally, the primates are subject to the Pope, and the Pope to Christ.
The higher members of the hierarchy have their analogues in the civil
order. The Pope corresponds to the emperor, the primate to the king, an
archbishop to a duke, a bishop to an earl, a priest to a knight. But all
these are merely grades of the order of priests. There are but seven
orders of the ministry--priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes,
exorcists, readers and door-keepers. Of the laity Gilbert says little.
They are of two classes; husbandmen and soldiers. Their duties are to
attend church, to pay first-fruits, tithes and oblations, to avoid evil
and do good, and to obey their pastors.
There is nothing original in all this; and some parts of it must have
been very puzzling to stay-at-home Irishmen. For example, what were they
to make of Gilbert's comparison of primates, archbishops, bishops and
priests to kings, dukes, earls and knights? They knew as little of dukes
and earls in the civil order as they did of primates and archbishops in
the ecclesiastical; and they had far more kings than suited Gilbert's
scheme. But the tract is important, both as a summary of the teaching
which Gilbert had no doubt been inculcating far and wide for years, and
as a permanent record, for future use, of the aims of the Reformers.
However unintelligible the treatise may have been in parts, it brought
out with startling clearness one or two essential points. First the
Church must be ruled by bishops. Even the monasteries are subject to
them. How amazing such a statement must have sounded to men who had
inherited the tradition, many centuries old, that the abbots of
monasteries were the true ecclesiastical rulers, bishops their
subordinate officials.
Moreover, bishoprics and dioceses could not be set up at random. The
number of bishops and by consequence the size of dioceses must be
carefully considered. The puny bishoprics of Meath, for example, could
form no part of a scheme such as Gilbert adumbrated.
It was manifest that if his guidance were to be followed, no mere
modification of existing arrangements would suffice. The old hierarchy
must be torn up by the roots, and a new hierarchy planted in its place.
We shall meet Gilbert again in the course of our story. But we may now
turn aside from him to make the acquaintance of a new actor in the
drama of the Reformation. Like O'Dunan he was a Northern.
Cellach was born in 1080. He was an Armagh man, sprung from the family
which for centuries past had provided abbots for the monastery of that
city, the grandson of a former abbot. He first appears on the scene in
1105, when on the death of Abbot Donnell he became coarb of Patrick and
abbot of Armagh. He was elected, we may assume, in the customary way. He
was then under twenty-six years of age, and was apparently still a
layman. But his subsequent action shows that he was already a convinced
disciple of the new movement. Doubtless he had fallen under the spell of
Gilbert of Limerick. Six weeks after his election he abandoned the
tradition of a century and a half, and received holy orders. But in
other respects he trod in the footsteps of his predecessors. In the
following year he went on a circuit of the Cenél Eoghain, and "took away
his full demand: namely, a cow for every six, or an in-calf heifer for
every three, or a half ounce of silver for every four, besides many
donations also." Next he proceeded to Munster, with similar results. But
his circuit of Munster is important for other reasons. There he had
opportunities of intercourse with his Munster friends, Gilbert of
Limerick and Malchus of Waterford. And with that circuit we may connect
two incidents of the highest significance. In 1106, apparently in the
latter part of the year, Caincomrac Ua Baigill, bishop of Armagh, died.
The news of his death probably reached Cellach while he was in the
south. Certainly in Munster Cellach was consecrated bishop. It is
impossible not to connect the latter event with the former. He was
consecrated to fill the vacancy created by the death of O'Boyle. Thus he
was now bishop of Armagh as well as coarb of Patrick. In his own person
he united the two lines of coarbial and episcopal succession, which had
parted asunder in 957, when the first of a series of lay coarbs had been
elected, and the first of the six contemporary bishops had been
consecrated.[40] This was a great gain for the Reformers. The old
anomaly of a ruler of the Church who was not a bishop had, so far as
Armagh was concerned, disappeared for the time. And Armagh was the
principal ecclesiastical centre in Ireland. Cellach might now call
himself archbishop of Armagh, though he had not fulfilled the condition
laid down by Gilbert, that an archbishop must receive the pall at the
hands of the Pope. The title was actually accorded to him by so rigid a
papalist as St. Bernard.[41]
But there was more to come. In the year 1101 there had been held at
Cashel a great assembly of the clergy and people of Ireland. Bishop
O'Dunan, whom we already know, was at their head. To it came also
Murtough O'Brien, who earlier in the year, after an expedition in force
through Connaught and Ulster, had entered Tara as _ardrí_ of
Ireland.[42] In the presence of the assembly he surrendered Cashel, the
royal city of the kings of Munster, to the Church, as an offering to God
and St. Patrick.[43] When we consider the persons who were concerned in
this transaction we find good ground for the suspicion that the gift was
intended in some way to benefit the movement for reform. Now St. Bernard
informs us that Cellach created a second archiepiscopal see in Ireland
in subordination to Armagh.[44] After his manner he does not tell us
where it was situated. It is certain, however, that it was at Cashel,
which was the seat of an archbishop in 1110.[45] It was probably
surrendered for this very purpose by O'Brien. And if it be asked when
Cellach erected it into an archbishopric the answer is scarcely
doubtful. Only once, so far as we know, did Cellach enter Munster before
1110. It was on the occasion of his circuit. In the year of the circuit,
therefore, 1106, the archbishopric of Cashel was founded. In that same
year, or shortly afterwards, Malchus of Waterford was translated to the
new see, and became its first archbishop. There is no evidence that a
new bishop was consecrated for Waterford in succession to Malchus: this
indeed is unlikely. But it should be noted that by his acceptance of an
archbishopric subject to Armagh, Malchus was released from the
profession of obedience which he had made to Anselm ten years earlier.
He was now a bishop of the Church of Ireland, with undivided allegiance.
The reason for the creation of a second archbishopric is not difficult
to guess. By this time the plans of the Reformers must have been in some
degree matured: before long, as we shall see, they were set forth in
minute detail. Already Cellach was archbishop of Armagh. His suffragan
sees, indeed, apart from those formed by O'Dunan, if their bishops
acknowledged themselves as his suffragans, were _in nubibus_. But
suffragan sees he must have, according to the theory of Gilbert, each
with a diocese attached to it. They must be at least three in number,
but _not more than twenty_. Now it was a foregone conclusion that if the
Reformers had their way there would be more than twenty dioceses in
Ireland. Hence, by Gilbert's rule, there must be a second archbishop.
Moreover, by making the archbishopric of Cashel subject to Armagh,
Cellach secured for himself and his successors a title yet more imposing
than that of archbishop. He was now Primate of Ireland; for it sufficed,
if Gilbert spoke truly, that a primate should have one subject
archbishop. As coarb of Patrick Cellach's authority ranged over the
whole country; as primate his sway would be no less extensive. He
actually claimed the title, if not then, at least a few years later.[46]
We may now for a while leave Gilbert and Cellach and Malchus and
O'Dunan. With Gilbert as legate, and Cellach and Malchus as archbishops;
with dioceses already formed at Limerick and Waterford and in Meath,
probably also at Armagh and Cashel and Wexford; with the great extension
of the movement, and its spread from Munster to Meath and Ulster, all
was ready for the meeting of the Synod whose ordinances should give
definite shape to the policy to be pursued in the future.
III.--The Synod of Rathbreasail
Geoffrey Keating quotes from the lost _Annals of Clonenagh_ an account
of a national Synod or Council held at Rathbreasail in the year
1110.[47] The existing Annals record that a national Council met at
Fiadh meic Oengusa in 1111. With the exception of the _Annals of
Inisfallen_, none of them mention Rathbreasail; but the Inisfallen
annalist tells us that it is another name for Fiadh meic Oengusa.[48] I
shall assume therefore that there were not two national Synods in
successive years, but one; and, following the _Annals of Clonenagh_, I
shall call it the Synod of Rathbreasail, and date it in 1110.
The Synod of Rathbreasail marks the beginning of the second stage of the
Reformation movement. It was convened by the papal legate; its purpose
was the Romanizing of the Irish Church, and, in particular, the
establishment in it of diocesan episcopacy. Fortunately Keating's
excerpts from its Acts give us ample information concerning the canons
which dealt with this matter.
The annalists, as I have said, describe the council as a national
assembly. But we can hardly claim so much for it. It is much more
probable that it was in reality a meeting of the Reforming party. The
first signature appended to its canons was that of Gilbert, who presided
as legate of the Holy See. He was followed by Cellach, "coarb of Patrick
and Primate of Ireland," and Malchus, "archbishop of Cashel," whom we
have known as bishop of Waterford. The signatures of many bishops
followed, but they have not been preserved. We know, however, that
Bishop O'Dunan was present, as was also Murtough O'Brien, king of
Ireland. These were all leaders of the Reforming party; and it is
evident that they guided the deliberations of the Council. Moreover
there were no representatives of the provinces of Connaught and
Leinster, in which as yet, it appears, the Reform movement had not
established itself. That is made clear by notes appended to canons which
specially concerned those provinces. One of them begins thus: "If the
Connaught clergy agree to this ... we desire it, and if they do not"--in
that case they may do as they please, with certain limitations. The
clergy of Leinster are accorded a similar liberty. It is obvious that if
among the members of the Council there had been men who could speak with
authority for the provinces mentioned such notes need not, and
therefore could not, have been written. The Council represented Munster,
Ulster and Meath. It was national, not because it could speak for all
Ireland, but because it made laws for all Ireland.
I must now give an account of those laws, so far as they relate to the
organization of the Church. I follow the _Annals of Clonenagh_, as
reported by Keating: but in two or three places I have been obliged to
amend his text.[49]
The fathers began by appealing to English precedent. "Just as twelve
bishops were fixed under Canterbury in the south of England, and twelve
bishops in the north under the city of York," so it was ordained that
there should be twelve bishops in the south of Ireland, and twelve in
the north. The constitution of the Irish Church was henceforth, it would
seem, to be a copy of that of the English Church. But, as it happens,
neither in 1110 nor in any other year of its history, had the Church of
England twelve sees under Canterbury and twelve under York. How then can
we explain the statement of the Synod? The answer is simple. Bede[50]
preserves a letter of Pope Gregory the Great, written in 601, in which
St. Augustine of Canterbury was directed to consecrate twelve bishops as
his own suffragans. He was also ordered to consecrate a bishop for York,
who, if his mission proved successful, was likewise to consecrate twelve
suffragans, and to be promoted to the dignity of a metropolitan. It is
clear that the Synod found its precedent in this letter, not observing
that Pope Gregory's ordinance was never carried into effect. But they
made another mistake. For Gregory intended that there should be twelve
bishops in the north of England, and twelve in the south, exclusive of
the archbishops, twenty-six in all; while it is evident that the Council
of Rathbreasail intended that there should be twelve bishops in the
north of Ireland, and twelve in the south, including the archbishops,
twenty-four in all. Some one whose lead the Synod followed--probably the
papal legate--had read his Bede with little care. But that is not
surprising. Lanfranc had misread Bede, when on his authority he claimed
to be Primate of Ireland; why should not Gilbert have gone astray in
like fashion? The point to be noticed and emphasized is that the first
act of the Synod was to fix the number of the Irish sees, on the curious
principle that what the wisdom of Pope Gregory held to be good for
England would suit Ireland also.
Apparently the next step in the procedure was to determine the
distribution of the dioceses among the provinces, and to fix the see of
each prospective diocese. Ireland was divided into two portions by a
line running, approximately, from Dublin to Galway. The part to the
north of that line was known as Leath Chuinn, the part to the south as
Leath Mogha. In Leath Chuinn were the provinces of Ulster and Connaught
and the kingdom of Meath; in Leath Mogha were the provinces of Munster
and Leinster. The Synod decreed that there should be five sees in
Ulster, five in Connaught, and two in Meath, making twelve bishoprics
for Leath Chuinn; there were to be seven in Munster and five in
Leinster--twelve bishoprics for Leath Mogha. The names of all these sees
were given in the Acts of the Synod.
Finally the Synod defined the boundaries of the dioceses to which the
sees severally belonged. It is not my purpose to give a minute
description of these boundaries. That would involve an excursus on Irish
topography, which would be, to say the least, out of place. It will
suffice to indicate roughly those of the five dioceses of Ulster. To the
west was what was called the "parish" (_fairche_)[51] of Derry or
Raphoe. It was nearly identical with our diocese of Raphoe. The only
important difference is that it included Inishowen, the district between
Lough Swilly and Lough Foyle, which now belongs to the diocese of Derry.
Next to the parish of Derry or Raphoe the Synod placed the parish of
Ardstraw.[52] Ardstraw never became the see, and the diocese was
subsequently known as "of Derry." It extended eastward to the
Carntougher Mountains, and coincides pretty closely with the present
diocese. It subsequently gained Inishowen from its western neighbour,
and the strip between the Carntougher Mountains and the Bann from its
eastern neighbour. But otherwise it remains much as the Synod of
Rathbreasail determined. Next to it was to be the parish of Connor or
Down. When the portion of it to the west of the Bann was transferred to
Derry, it coincided almost exactly with the modern Down, Connor and
Dromore. On the other hand the parish of Armagh seems originally to have
included the modern county of Monaghan: it has shrunk to little more
than half its size. The parish of Clogher, at first very small, has
extended east and west, and is three times as large as it was intended
to be. On the whole the work of the Synod has stood well the test of
many centuries of history.
It is indeed wonderful that it should have done so. For the method of
the Synod--fixing the number of the dioceses before their boundaries
were discussed--was unstatesmanlike. Always, and necessarily,
ecclesiastical divisions have coincided with civil divisions. We may
find the germ of the rule in the Acts of the Apostles.[53] If this was
inevitable in other lands it was even more inevitable in Ireland in
pre-Norman days. The Irish people was a collection of clans, having, it
is true, certain common institutions, but bound together by no sort of
national constitution, and often at war with each other. If
ecclesiastical divisions were to be permanent in Ireland, they must take
account of the tribal divisions of the country. The primary
ecclesiastical unit must be the territory of a tribe, just as it was the
primary civil unit.[54] But to base the limits of dioceses, consistently
and in every case, on tribal boundaries was impossible when the number
of dioceses was arbitrarily fixed beforehand. It could not be that
exactly the same number of dioceses would suit Ulster as suited Leinster
and Connaught. In one province the tribes would be more or less
numerous, and more or less mutually antagonistic, than in another. By
reason of its method, therefore, the Synod was doomed to fall short of
complete success in its work.
We have instances in Ulster of the soundness of the principle that I
have stated. Take the diocese of Raphoe. It was designed to include
Inishowen. But from a tribal point of view Inishowen (Inis Eoghain)
belonged to the next diocese, which included the tribeland of Tír
Eoghain. Its inhabitants were of the same stock as the Cenél Eoghain,
and were known as the Cenél Eoghain of the Island. So the natural result
followed. Inishowen broke off from the diocese of Raphoe and became part
of the diocese of Derry. When this happened the diocese of Raphoe was
stabilized. It consisted of the land of a single tribe, the Cenél
Conaill; and so henceforth its limits were never altered.
We can easily understand, therefore, that the disregard of tribal
boundaries, forced on it in many cases by its method, was an element of
weakness in the Rathbreasail scheme. And yet it was natural that special
stress should be laid on the arbitrary limitation of sees which was its
main cause. Ireland was overrun with bishops. It is said that over fifty
of them attended the Synod of Rathbreasail; and they represented only
part of the country. But Gilbert had laid down the rule that an
archbishop could not have more than twenty suffragans. On this
principle, if all the existing bishops had been provided with dioceses,
or all the larger tribes had been given bishops, Ireland would have had
not two, but six or seven archbishops: and this would have been a
travesty of Catholic Church order, as it was then understood. It was
essential that the number should be ruthlessly cut down.
But the legislators of Rathbreasail did not entirely ignore tribal
boundaries. On the contrary, so far as the numerical basis of their
scheme permitted, they took them into account. And here we find that the
Synod was confronted with another difficulty. The territories of tribes
were fluctuating quantities. Hence, even if a diocese was the district
of a single tribe, with very definite boundaries, no one could be sure
that in the course of years its limits would not change. Again I take an
example from Ulster. The Synod selected the Carntougher Mountains as the
boundary between the dioceses of Derry and Connor. And wisely. For
between those mountains and the Bann there dwelt a sept--the Fir
Li--whose affinities were altogether with the people to the east of the
river. But only a few years after the Synod that territory was overrun
by the O'Kanes of the Roe Valley, and the Fir Li retreated across the
Bann, never to return. The result followed which might have been
expected. Their territory was transferred from Connor to Derry, and the
Bann to this day is the boundary of the two dioceses.[55]
It may be well, before I pass to another subject, to call attention to
some special features of the Rathbreasail canons.
First, let us note the prominence which is given to Limerick, the
diocese of Gilbert, the president of the Synod. Usually a diocese is
somewhat vaguely defined by four places on its borders. But here no less
than thirteen are named. So full are the indications that a fairly exact
map of the diocese could be drawn. Further, in this diocese alone
mention is made of a Cathedral Church: "The Church of Mary in Limerick
is its principal church."[56] Note the present tense: "The Church of
Mary _is_"--not shall be--"its principal church." We remember that
Gilbert insisted in the _De Statu Ecclesiae_ that a diocese should have
a "pontifical church." Again, the boundaries of this one diocese are
protected by a clause which has no parallel elsewhere: "Whosoever shall
go against these boundaries goes against the Lord, and against Peter the
Apostle, and St. Patrick and his coarb and the Christian Church." Who
but the legate of the Pope would have thus invoked St. Peter?
Surely this portion of the ordinances of the Synod must have been
penned by Gilbert himself. And the whole passage--by the minuteness of
its description of the diocese, by the strength of the terms in which it
is expressed, by the reference to the Cathedral Church as already
existing--suggests that the diocese was formed and organized before the
Synod met, as I have already assumed. We may even suspect that an
attempt had been made to invade it, which Gilbert stoutly resisted,
relying on his legatine authority.
In the list of dioceses there is an omission which demands explanation.
No mention whatever is made of Dublin, the oldest diocese in Ireland.
Not only so; the northern limit of the diocese of Glendalough is marked
by Lambay Island and Greenogue, which lies due west of it in the County
Meath. Thus the diocese of Glendalough, as contemplated by the
Synod--and, it may be added, as it was in fact forty years
later[57]--included the whole of the actually existing diocese of
Dublin. The Danish Christians of Dublin and their Irish bishop are
treated as interlopers; they are absolutely ignored. It may be said that
this was due to the mutual hostility which divided the diocese of Dublin
from the native Church, and to the fact that the bishops of Dublin had
always been subject to Canterbury. But it is not enough to say this; for
the estrangement of Dublin from the Irish is the very thing that has to
be accounted for.
It had its root in the growing prosperity of the Danish city. The Irish
had no towns. Town life was introduced among them by the Norsemen. And
of their towns Dublin was always the chief. By this time it had become
so important that it had good right to be called the metropolis of the
country. And its citizens were thoroughly aware of this. As early as
1074 the burgesses of Dublin and their bishop, Patrick, claimed for it
that title.[58] Now in all reason a metropolis should have a
metropolitan as its bishop; and no doubt the bishops of Dublin thought
themselves _de facto_, if not _de jure_, superior to the other bishops
of Ireland. In fact we find one of them playing the archbishop. We have
two interesting letters of Anselm, written apparently about 1100. One of
them is addressed to Malchus, bishop of Waterford, directing him to
rebuke Samuel O'Hanley, bishop of Dublin, for various irregularities, in
particular for having his cross carried before him like an archbishop;
the other is addressed to Samuel himself, and complains of the same
actions.[59] These proceedings are not likely to have been brought to an
end by Anselm's letters; and we may assume that they were continued as
long as Samuel held the see of Dublin. It was but natural that Cellach
should strongly resent them, for they were disrespectful both to himself
and to the archbishop of Cashel. We are not surprised, therefore, to
find that on the death of Samuel in 1121, eleven years after
Rathbreasail, Cellach tried to get possession of the Church of
Dublin,[60] most probably with the intention of bringing it under the
jurisdiction of the bishop of Glendalough. Nor are we surprised that the
men of Dublin at once replied by electing another bishop and bidding
Ralph of Canterbury to consecrate him if he desired to retain the
suffragan see which they had so long preserved for him.[61] We shall see
hereafter how the bishops of Dublin were at length induced to look with
favour on the Irish Church. Meanwhile we learn that they were not very
obedient suffragans of Canterbury; and we cease to wonder that they were
ignored in the Rathbreasail decrees.
Another feature of the canons of the Synod is worth noting. In several
instances the see of a diocese was not absolutely fixed. Two places were
named, and it was apparently left to the bishop of the future to select
that one of the two which he preferred to be his city. Thus we have a
diocese of Derry or Raphoe, a diocese of Connor or Down, another of
Wexford or Ferns, and so forth. The meaning of this is best seen by
taking a single example. To one of the dioceses of Munster was assigned
the area now occupied by the two dioceses of Waterford and Lismore. It
consisted of the original Danish diocese of Waterford, together with a
much more extensive non-Danish area. Alternative sees were named; it was
described as the parish of Lismore or Waterford. Now Lismore was the
most sacred spot in the enlarged diocese. It was the site of a monastery
founded by St. Mochuta. It was an ideal place for a bishop's see. But it
was doubtless ruled at the moment by an abbot, the coarb of Mochuta.
Unless he was prevailed on to accept episcopal orders, or was deprived
of his authority, a diocesan bishop could not be established there. On
the other hand, Waterford had no sacred traditions; but it was already
the see of a diocese. In default of Lismore it would be a convenient
place for the see. Between Lismore and Waterford the circumstances of
the future must decide. Ultimately, it appears, Malchus retired from the
archbishopric of Cashel, and became bishop of his older diocese, now so
much greater than it had been. He placed his stool, however, not at
Waterford but at Lismore.[62] A similar, but not always identical
course was followed in other such cases.
What the Synod of Rathbreasail actually accomplished was this. It gave
to Ireland a paper constitution of the approved Roman and Catholic type.
But by doing this it had not achieved the purpose of its existence. In
the years that followed, its enactments had to be carried into effect.
And here was the real crux. Before the Church came to be ruled by
diocesan bishops, the existing rulers--the coarbs of church
founders--must be dispossessed of their authority; the numerous bishops
of the old Irish type must be got rid of; the jurisdiction of the new
bishops must be fixed by common consent, or enforced without it; and
revenues must be provided for them. A mere synodal decree could not
accomplish all this. The diocesan system could become a fact throughout
the whole Church, and the last vestiges of the ancient constitution be
made to disappear, only after determined effort, and probably bitter
contention. And when all was done it would certainly be found that the
scheme of dioceses arranged at Rathbreasail had been largely departed
from.
I can best illustrate the nature of the difficulties which had to be
encountered, and the length of time which might be required to overcome
them, by giving a short outline of the history of the forming of the
dioceses of the kingdom of Meath.
In Meath, as we have seen, there were dioceses ruled by bishops before
Rathbreasail. But these dioceses were of small size. It may be doubted
whether most of them fulfilled the condition laid down by Gilbert, that
a bishop should have not less than ten churches within his jurisdiction.
They had therefore to be grouped under a smaller number of prelates.
What had to be accomplished in this case was not so much the clipping of
the wings of the abbots, as the extirpation of the more recently
appointed diocesan bishops. The Synod determined that the kingdom should
be divided into two dioceses, one in the west, the other in the east.
The western see was to be at Clonard, at the moment, as it seems, the
see of O'Dunan, and famed as the site of the great monastery of St.
Finnian, founded in the sixth century; the eastern see was to be at
Duleek, near Drogheda. Now a few months after the Synod of Rathbreasail
there was held at Usnagh a local synod of the men of Meath, at which the
king and many notable persons were present.[63] This synod ordained that
the parishes of Meath should be equally divided between the bishops of
Clonmacnoise and Clonard. It will be observed that the principle of the
Rathbreasail decree was accepted, that there should be two, and only
two, dioceses in Meath. But the change made in the sees is significant.
The Synod of Rathbreasail intended that Clonard should be the see of the
western diocese, which would include Clonmacnoise. The Synod of Usnagh
demanded that Clonmacnoise, founded by one of the most noted of Irish
saints, St. Ciaran, should be one of the surviving sees, and that
Clonard should be the see, not of the western, but of the eastern half
of the kingdom. Thus the Synod of Rathbreasail was at once met with
strenuous and, as it proved, successful opposition in Meath.
And here I may mention another fact. A few years after the Synod we have
proof of the existence of a diocese in the north of the kingdom, which
has not hitherto been mentioned, and which is not named in the
Rathbreasail canons. We know it as the diocese of Kilmore.[64] It may
have been one of O'Dunan's dioceses, or it may have been founded later.
One thing is certain. The diocese formed the territory of a strong
tribe. Consequently it had in it the element of stability. It was never
suppressed: it exists to this day. So far as it was concerned the canons
of Rathbreasail were a dead letter from the beginning.
But let us return to Clonard. It was the business of its successive
bishops, in accordance with the decrees of Usnagh, to annex the small
neighbouring bishoprics of east Meath. They had considerable success. We
possess a list of churches granted by Eugenius, the last Irish bishop of
Clonard, to the monastery of St. Thomas the Martyr, Dublin.[65] They are
scattered over the three deaneries of Dunshaughlin, Skreen and Trim.
Thus Eugenius had absorbed into his diocese the bishoprics of those
three places. Another document tells us that this same Eugenius
consecrated the church of Duleek;[66] which implies that the diocese of
Duleek was also suppressed. Thus by 1191, the year of Eugenius's
death--within eighty years of the Synod of Rathbreasail, and before the
Anglo-Normans had captured the ecclesiastical domination of Meath--the
diocese of Clonard had expanded to four times its original size. Its
bishop ruled the whole area of the modern county of Meath which lies
south of the Boyne and Blackwater.
Simon Rochfort, the first English bishop, stretched his arm further. We
have a charter of his, which may be dated before 1202, confirming to St.
Thomas's Abbey a number of churches in his diocese.[67] It includes
most, if not all, of the churches granted by his predecessor, but adds
others. Among these are some in the deanery of Slane. The bishopric of
Slane had been absorbed.
The rapid extension of his diocese towards the north suggested to
Rochfort the desirability of having for his headquarters a more central
place than Clonard. So in 1202 he translated the see to Newtown, near
Trim,[68] and began to call himself Bishop of Meath. Ten years later, as
we know, this "impudent bishop" captured the diocese of Kells.[69] The
bishop of Meath (no longer of Clonard) from his see at Newtown had the
oversight of nearly the whole of the modern county. Within the confines
of his diocese were the seven older dioceses of Clonard, Dunshaughlin,
Skreen, Trim, Duleek, Slane and Kells. This was probably the whole of
the eastern diocese as designed by the Synod of Usnagh.
But the policy of annexation still went forward apace. Another document
enables us to measure the progress of half a century. It is a concordat
concerning metropolitical visitations, between the archbishop of Armagh
and Rochfort's third successor, Hugh de Tachmon. It is dated 9th April,
1265.[70] The tenor of the concordat does not concern us: it is
important for our purpose because it proves that in 1265 there were
eleven rural deaneries in the diocese of Meath. Four more petty dioceses
had been suppressed, Mullingar, Loxewdy, Ardnurcher and Fore. The
diocese was co-extensive with that of the present day, except that the
diocese of Clonmacnoise--as small in 1265 as it had been in 1100--was
not yet brought in.
Clonmacnoise preserved its independence three centuries longer. It was
incorporated with Meath in 1569. Thus at length the dream of the fathers
of Rathbreasail was fulfilled. There were two dioceses in the ancient
kingdom of Meath--Meath and Kilmore. But neither Duleek nor Clonard nor
Clonmacnoise was a see. From that day to this, in fact, the diocese of
Meath has had no see. And the boundary which parts Meath from Kilmore is
very different from the line which the fathers of Rathbreasail drew
between the dioceses of Clonard and Duleek, or that which the assembly
of Usnagh drew between Clonmacnoise and Clonard.
IV.--St. Malachy's Part in The Reformation
It is not possible, within the limits of this Introduction, to follow
the later stages of the Reformation movement in detail. In the present
section I confine myself to the part which St. Malachy played in its
development.
Malachy was born at Armagh in 1095. He was therefore a mere boy when the
Synod of Rathbreasail met. At the dawn of his manhood he became the
disciple of the recluse Imar O'Hagan. Imar was in sympathy with the aims
of the reformers, and it was probably through his influence that Malachy
became imbued with their principles. He soon attracted the notice of
Cellach, and was by him ordained deacon. He was advanced to the
priesthood about 1119. Shortly afterwards Cellach made the young priest
his vicar. For the next year or two it was Malachy's duty to administer
the diocese of Armagh; and he did so in the most effective--indeed
revolutionary--fashion. He evidently let no man despise his youth. His
purpose, as his biographer tells us, was "to root out barbarous rites,
to plant the rites of the Church." "He established in all the churches
the apostolic sanctions and the decrees of the holy fathers, and
especially the customs of the Holy Roman Church." He introduced the
Roman method of chanting the services of the canonical hours. "He
instituted anew Confession, Confirmation, the Marriage contract, of all
of which those over whom he was placed were either ignorant or
negligent." In a word, Malachy showed himself an ardent reformer.[71]
One wonders how, even with the assistance of Cellach and Imar, a young
man who had never left Armagh could have already become sufficiently
acquainted with the usages of other churches to carry out these sweeping
measures. Perhaps his zeal was not always according to knowledge. But he
soon became aware of his limitations, and determined to seek
instruction. With the consent of Cellach and Imar he betook himself to
Malchus, who had by this time retired from the archbishopric of Cashel
and was settled at Lismore. There Malachy spent three years. During that
period he doubtless increased his knowledge of Roman customs and
principles. But he did more. Cormac MacCarthy, son of the king of
Desmond, was then a refugee in the monastery of Malchus. Between Cormac
and Malachy there grew up a friendship, which proved in later years of
much advantage to the reforming cause.[72]
But at length Malachy's presence was urgently needed in the north, and
he was recalled by Cellach and Imar. What had happened was this. The
coarb of St. Comgall at Bangor, the principal religious site in the
north-east of Ireland, had lately died. Since he ended his days at
Lismore, it may be assumed that he was a friend of Malchus, and of the
movement with which he was identified. At any rate his successor, who
was Malachy's uncle, expressed his willingness to surrender his office
and the site of the monastery to his nephew.[73] Here was an opportunity
to carry into effect one of the canons of Rathbreasail, which had
hitherto been a dead letter, by establishing the diocese of Connor.
Cellach, duly elected coarb of Patrick, and consecrated bishop, had no
doubt been able to organize the diocese of Armagh in accordance with the
Rathbreasail scheme. In like manner such a man as Malachy, enjoying the
prestige which belonged to the coarb of Comgall, if consecrated bishop,
would probably succeed in organizing the diocese of Connor. So in 1124
Malachy journeyed to Bangor, was installed as abbot, and was made bishop
by Cellach.[74] He administered his diocese with the same vigour which
had already characterized his work at Armagh. But it is interesting to
observe how closely he conformed to the old Irish type of bishop, in
spite of his Roman proclivities. At heart he was far less bishop of
Connor than coarb of Comgall, abbot of Bangor. Indeed, in strictness, he
had no right to the title "bishop of Connor"; for Connor was not his
see. He made Bangor his headquarters.[75] Doubtless Malachy preferred
Bangor to the nominal see, because it was consecrated by centuries of
sacred memories, and because as yet he could not place the office of
bishop above that of abbot. He ruled his great newly formed diocese, or
as much of it as he succeeded in ruling, from its remotest corner on the
sea shore, as Aidan ruled Northumbria from Holy Island. There he lived
among his brethren, of whom he gathered a great company. There was no
provision for his mensa, for he was "a lover of poverty." He practised
austere asceticism. Yet he was an active missionary. He travelled
incessantly through the diocese, but always on foot, visiting the towns,
and roaming about the country parts, surrounded by his disciples. He
preached to the people whom he met on his way.[76] Nothing could be
more unlike a medieval bishop of the ordinary kind. At every point we
are reminded of the labours of Aidan and Ceadd and Cedd as they are
described by Bede. But we may be sure that it was precisely because
Malachy was coarb of Bangor, because he lived according to the ancient
Irish ideal of sainthood, that he secured the obedience of the people of
his diocese.
In such work as I have mentioned Malachy was engaged from 1124 to 1127.
In the latter year he was driven out of Bangor by Conor O'Loughlin, king
of the north of Ireland, and a second time betook himself to Lismore.
There he again met Cormac MacCarthy, for that unfortunate prince was
once more taking sanctuary with Malchus. He had succeeded a little while
before to the throne of Desmond, but had been driven out by Turlough
O'Conor, who made his brother king in his stead. But after a few months,
persuaded by the entreaties of Malchus and Malachy, and aided by the
arms of Conor O'Brien, king of Thomond, a nephew of Murtough, Anselm's
correspondent, he made a successful attempt to regain his kingdom.[77]
Then Malachy moved on to Iveragh in the County Kerry, and there, under
Cormac's patronage, he founded a new monastery for his community.[78]
Once again Cormac has friendly intercourse with Malachy, and another
O'Brien is on good terms with the reformers.
It was at Iveragh, two years later, that Malachy received news of the
death of Archbishop Cellach.[79] It was an announcement which must have
caused great anxiety to him and his friends. Who was to succeed to the
primacy?
The importance of the question will become manifest if we recall the
progress which had already been made at Armagh, and what still remained
to be done. When Cellach was elected abbot in 1105, and in the following
year was consecrated bishop, a great point had been gained. For the
first time for 150 years the church of Armagh had a bishop as its ruler.
We may suppose that Cellach soon organized the diocese, the limits of
which were fixed at Rathbreasail. But whatever Gilbert or Malchus might
hold as to the source of his authority, we cannot imagine that the
members of the Church in the diocese based their allegiance to him on
any other ground than the fact that he was their abbot and the coarb of
Patrick. That he was a bishop added nothing, in their view, to his
claims. Moreover Cellach belonged to the family which had long supplied
Armagh with abbots. The abuse of hereditary succession had not
disappeared with his appointment.[80] If his successor was chosen in the
time-honoured way, a member of the coarbial family would certainly be
selected, and in all probability he would be a layman, who would not
accept episcopal orders. In a word, all that had been achieved by the
reformers at the most important ecclesiastical centre in Ireland would
be undone.
Cellach had foreseen this, and accordingly he determined to nominate
Malachy as his successor. "With the authority of Patrick" he laid upon
the nobles, and especially upon "the two kings of Munster," the
obligation of securing that his wish should be carried into effect. The
two kings who were thus charged with a difficult duty were Conor
O'Brien, king of Thomond, the principal representative of the O'Briens,
and Cormac MacCarthy, king of Desmond, Malachy's friend.
From Cellach's point of view the choice of a successor which he had made
was a wise one. Malachy was as zealous a reformer as himself. He was a
man of unusual ability and force of character. Besides, he was
possessed of a personal charm which might in time disarm opposition. He
was already a bishop; therefore, if he were once seated in the chair of
Patrick, the question whether the new coarb should be consecrated would
not arise. More important still, he was not of the coarbial stock; with
his entry into the see the scandal of hereditary succession would come
to an end.
But it was not to be expected that the appointment would be accepted
without strong protest; and at the moment there seemed little prospect
that the scheme of Cellach would attain fruition. There is no need to
enter into the details of the fierce struggle that ensued. It is dealt
with elsewhere.[81] Suffice it to say that by 1137, with the aid of
O'Brien and MacCarthy, and apparently with assistance also from Donough
O'Carroll, king of Oriel, he was undisputed coarb of Patrick and
archbishop of Armagh. The victory was won, and an immense stride had
been made in the Reformation movement.
But Malachy had no mind to spend the rest of his life at Armagh. Five
years before, as the condition of his entry into the fray, he had
stipulated that as soon as he had been accepted as archbishop he should
resign the see and return to his beloved Bangor. So in 1137 he nominated
and consecrated Gelasius as his successor in the primacy, and "returned
to his former parish, but not to Connor." Let me explain this
enigmatical statement. Malachy had had some years' experience of the
people of the diocese of Connor, whom St. Bernard gently describes as
"not men but beasts." He had doubtless discovered that the district
which it included could not be ruled by a single bishop. In fact it
consisted of two tribal territories, Dál Araide in the north, and Ulaid
in the south; and the two tribes which inhabited them were usually
engaged in mutual war. He decided that it should be divided into two
dioceses. He consecrated a bishop for Dál Araide, with his see at
Connor, and himself resumed the oversight of Ulaid, with his see at
Bangor.[82] Thus originated the present dioceses of Down and Connor. In
Malachy's time the boundary between them seems to have run west from
Larne. In the course of centuries it has shifted further south.
This division was a direct violation of the letter of the ordinance of
Rathbreasail; but it did not contravene its spirit. In the letter, which
ignored the civil divisions of the country, the ordinance could not be
obeyed. Malachy adopted a scheme which secured the permanent rule of
diocesan bishops in the district.
Malachy was now, and continued to be till his death, bishop of Down, or
more strictly of Bangor; in the current Irish phrase bishop of Ulaid.
But his activities already extended beyond his diocese. Within the next
two years he succeeded in establishing in actual fact another diocese
which till now had existed only on paper. It was that which the Synod of
Rathbreasail had called the diocese of Clogher, and which we know by the
same name; but which for sixty years or more bore the name of the
diocese of Oriel.
That we may understand his action let us return for a moment to the five
Ulster dioceses as planned at Rathbreasail. In four of them regard was
paid to tribal boundaries. The diocese of Raphoe corresponded to Tír
Conaill, Derry to Tír Eoghain, Armagh to Oriel, while Connor
comprehended the two territories of Dál Araide and Ulaid. The diocese of
Clogher was of necessity the remainder of the province. If it coincided
with a tribal district, that could only happen by chance. In fact it did
not. It was much smaller than the other dioceses. It embraced only the
present barony of Clogher in the county of Tyrone, and the portion of
Fermanagh lying between it and the Erne waterway. It had within it no
element of cohesion. It was most unlikely that it could ever constitute
an ecclesiastical unit, governed by a bishop.
Nevertheless an attempt seems to have been made to consolidate it as a
diocese a few years after Rathbreasail; as might have been expected,
without success. A bishop of Clogher, who apparently had no diocese,
died in 1135. He was succeeded by Christian O'Morgair, brother of
Malachy. He was probably nominated and consecrated by his brother, who
was then titular archbishop of Armagh. Now about this time Donough
O'Carroll, king of Oriel, joined the ranks of the reformers, as we may
suppose under the influence of Malachy. His kingdom included the little
diocese of Clogher; but the main part of it consisted of the present
counties of Monaghan and Louth. Accordingly a bold stroke of policy was
conceived and carried out. The diocese of Clogher was enlarged so as to
cover the greater part of O'Carroll's kingdom. For this purpose the
archbishop of Armagh surrendered a large part of his diocese--the whole
of Monaghan and Louth. Then Christian moved his see from Clogher to the
spot now occupied by the village of Louth. Thus there was constituted a
new diocese, which included the Rathbreasail diocese of Clogher, but was
four times its size, and had its see at Louth. It was known as the
diocese of Oriel. In all this we see plainly the hand of Malachy. Not
long after the removal of the see Christian died, and Malachy selected
and consecrated his successor, one Edan O'Kelly. O'Kelly had a long
episcopate, from 1139 to 1182; and with the help of O'Carroll he
organized his diocese, and gave it a cathedral at Louth with a chapter
of Augustinian canons.[83] Once again Malachy was the maker of a
diocese; and once again, in the interest of stability, he transgressed
the letter of the Rathbreasail canons, while fulfilling their spirit. It
was not till after the coming of the Anglo-Normans that the see was
brought back to Clogher. Subsequently the county of Louth reverted to
Armagh, and the diocese extended to the west. About the year 1250 its
boundaries came to be what they now are.[84]
In 1139, after settling the affairs of the diocese of Oriel, Malachy
left Ireland on an important mission. It will be remembered that Gilbert
had declared that no archbishop could exercise his functions till the
Pope had sent him the pall. That was the current doctrine of the age.
Now neither Cellach, nor Malachy, nor Gelasius, nor Malchus, nor his
successor at Cashel, had received that ornament. They had therefore, in
the strict sense, no right to the title of archbishop. Malachy resolved
to make request to the Pope in person for palls for the two Irish
metropolitans. So he set out from Bangor for Rome.[85] Of his journey it
is unnecessary to say anything here.[86]
At Rome Malachy was received by Pope Innocent II. with great honour. He
confirmed the erection of the metropolitan see of Cashel. But he
politely declined to grant the palls. They must be demanded, he said, by
a council of the bishops, clergy and magnates; and then they would be
given.
But if the Pope refused Malachy's request, he bestowed on him an office,
the securing of which we may conjecture to have been one of the purposes
of his visit to Rome, though St. Bernard does not say so. Gilbert, now
old and infirm, had resigned the see of Limerick, and with it his
legatine commission. Innocent made Malachy papal legate in his
stead.[87]
Thus Malachy returned to Ireland, still bishop of Down indeed, but
virtually chief prelate of the Irish Church. For the following eight
years he laboured with zeal and vigour. St. Bernard unfortunately gives
little information concerning the details of his administrative work as
legate. But he relates one incident which suggests that in this period
Malachy was instrumental in founding another diocese. He nominated and
consecrated the first known bishop of Cork,[88] not improbably with the
intention that he should unite in his own person the two offices of
coarb of Barre, founder of Cork, and diocesan bishop.
And in this connexion it is worth noticing that he was evidently on
friendly terms with Nehemiah, the first known bishop of the neighbouring
diocese of Cloyne.[89] If that diocese was also founded by him he once
again violated the letter of the Rathbreasail canons, for by them Cloyne
was included in the diocese of Emly.
In 1148 Malachy convened a synod at Inispatrick, an island opposite
Skerries, Co. Dublin. This synod demanded the palls in due form, and
sent Malachy to obtain them. But he got no further on his journey than
Clairvaux. There, after celebrating Mass on St. Luke's Day, he was taken
ill of a fever; and there a fortnight later he died in the arms of St.
Bernard, on All Souls' Day, 2nd November, 1148.[90]
Nevertheless the palls came. They were brought to Ireland by a legate
specially commissioned by Pope Eugenius III., John Paparo, cardinal
priest of St. Laurence. A synod was held at Kells to receive them in
March 1152,[91] of which the joint presidents were Paparo, as _legatus a
latere_, and Christian, first abbot of Mellifont, and now bishop of
Lismore, who had lately succeeded Malachy as _legatus natus_.
Of this synod Keating gives a short account, abridged from the _Annals
of Clonenagh_,[92] from which he had also derived his knowledge of the
proceedings at Rathbreasail. He preserves a list of the bishops who
attended. It includes twenty-two names, if we count two vicars who
represented absent bishops. There were besides, as Keating informs us,
five bishops-elect. And there was certainly one bishop of a diocese who
was neither present nor represented, Edan O'Kelly, bishop of Oriel. So
it appears that in 1152 there were at least twenty-eight dioceses in
Ireland--a number considerably larger than was contemplated at
Rathbreasail. The increase in number is partly accounted for by the
presence of the bishop of the recently formed diocese of Kilmore, the
division of the diocese of Connor into Connor and Down, and, a most
striking addition, the inclusion of Gregory, bishop of Dublin, among the
assembled prelates. It is remarkable that the bishop of Kells is not
mentioned, though the synod was held in his own city. How was the bishop
of Dublin induced to throw in his lot with the Irish Church? We shall
see in a moment.
Much business was transacted at this Synod. But that which concerns us
most nearly is the giving of the palls. Cardinal Paparo brought the
Irish bishops more than they had asked for; more indeed than they
desired. He presented, not two palls but four, Dublin and Tuam, as well
as Armagh and Cashel, being recognized as archiepiscopal sees. This
excessive generosity caused much displeasure among the Irish bishops.
"For Ireland," says Keating, apparently paraphrasing the _Annals of
Clonenagh_, "thought it enough to have a pall in the church of Armagh
and a pall in Cashel; and particularly it was in spite of the church of
Armagh and the church of Down that the other palls were given." The
cause of this discontent is not far to seek. The chief gravamen no doubt
was that Dublin was included among the four. The constant friction which
had subsisted for many years between the diocese of Dublin and the Irish
Church sufficiently explains the indignation of the archbishop of
Armagh, aggravated by the fact that the creation of new archbishops
imposed a limit upon his authority. It also enables us to understand why
his displeasure was shared by the Irish generally. That a see whose
bishops had behaved so haughtily in the past should, at the very moment
of its entrance into the Irish Church, receive so signal an honour, long
denied to Armagh and Cashel, and that in the person of its bishop it
should be given jurisdiction over bishops whom till now it had treated
with contempt, could not but be regarded as unreasonable, or even
insulting. But on the other hand, recalling the early history of the
Church in Dublin, we can comprehend why, in spite of all this, special
favour was bestowed upon it. Dublin, as we have seen, was a not too
submissive suffragan of Canterbury. Its ambition was that its bishop
should have the status of a metropolitan. The opportunity had come for
gratifying its desire, and at the same time bringing it under the Irish
ecclesiastical régime. The pall at once separated it from Canterbury and
united it with Ireland. It was the price paid for its submission to the
Primacy of Armagh. Gregory therefore became archbishop of Dublin, and
had the right--which his predecessor had long before illegally
assumed--to have the cross carried before him. With the gift of the pall
Paparo bestowed upon him "the principal part of the bishopric of
Glendalough as his diocese," promising him the remainder on the death of
the bishop who then ruled it. All this was done, we are told, because it
was fitting that the place "in which from ancient time had been the
royal seat and head of Ireland," should be made a metropolitan see.[93]
There was at last one Church in Ireland, which embraced within it not
only the Celtic parts of the island, but all the Danish dioceses as
well. And the whole Church was ruled by the bishops. The Reformation may
not have been complete in every detail--there was indeed much left for
the Anglo-Normans to do--but the Synod of Kells had set the crown on the
work of the Irish reformers. And this consummation was mainly due to the
wisdom and the untiring zeal of St. Malachy of Armagh.
* * * * *
A few words more will suffice to complete this too lengthy
introduction. The _Life of Malachy_ was certainly written before the
Synod of Kells met in March 1152; for Christian, who attended the Synod
as bishop of Lismore, is spoken of in the _Life_ as abbot of
Mellifont.[94] Its earliest possible date is a couple of months after
Malachy's death. The ignorance displayed in § 69[95] of the movements of
the Pope in 1148 is so inexplicable on the assumption of a later date
that it may be assigned to January 1149.[96] In the following
translation the text printed by de Backer[97] is used, with the
exception of a few sentences which have been emended. It does not differ
to any great extent from that of Mabillon.[98] Following de Backer I
have divided the text into chapters, in accordance with the MSS.; but
Mabillon's sections have been retained, as more convenient for
reference, the numbers of de Backer's sections being added within
brackets.
By way of illustration four letters of St. Bernard and his two sermons
on St. Malachy have been added. They are translated from Mabillon's
edition,[99] with some corrections. The dates of these documents are
discussed below.[100]
St. Bernard's numerous quotations from the Bible and other sources are
printed in italics, so far as I have recognized them. The scriptural
allusions are given as nearly as possible in the words of the Authorized
(in the Apocryphal books the Revised) Version, though at times they do
not agree with the Vulgate Latin. Where it has been found necessary to
depart from their renderings, the symbol "vg." follows the references in
the footnotes.
I desire to make grateful acknowledgement of help received from my
friends, of whom I must specially mention Dr. L. C. Purser, Senior
Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, Mr. R. I. Best, the Rev. J. E. L.
Oulton, the Rev. Dr. J. M. Harden and the Rev. Canon C. P. Price. My
wife assisted me in the preparation of the index.
_St. Patrick's Day, 1920._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See _Life_, §§ 6 (end), 7, 16, 17, 39 with notes, and Additional
Note A.
[2] _E.g._ in the doctrine of the Eucharist and of Baptism. See
_Life_, § 57, and Lanfranc's letter to Donnell in Ussher, 495; _P.L._
cl. 532.
[3] See p. 46, note 1, and Additional Note B.
[4] _Life_, § 19.
[5] R. King, _Memoir Introductory to the Early History of the Primacy
of Armagh_, 1854, p. 22.
[6] See Lawlor, _Psalter and Martyrology of Ricemarch_, vol. i., pp.
ix-xii.
[7] MS. A. 4. 20.
[8] MS. 199.
[9] Cotton MS. Faustina, C. 1, f. 66.
[10] Lawlor, _op. cit._, pp. xii.-xvii.
[11] Lanigan, vol. iii. p. 446; vol. iv. pp. 2-8; Reeves, _On Marianus
Scotus_, extracted from the _Natural History Review and Quarterly
Journal of Science_, July, 1860. B. MacCarthy, _The Codex
Palatino-Vaticanus, No. 830_, 1892, pp. 4 ff.
[12] Below, p. 18, note 6.
[13] See below, p. 47, note 3.
[14] p. 73.
[15] _Chronicle of John of Worcester_, ed. J. R. H. Weaver, 1908, p.
16.
[16] p. 18, note 6.
[17] p. 47, note 3, p. 73, note 1. I can name only three bishops of
Danish sees who were apparently of Danish extraction; and they all
lived at a time when the Reformation was far advanced. They are Erolbh
(Erulf?), bishop of Limerick, who died in 1151, and Tostius of
Waterford and Turgesius of Limerick, who were in office in 1152.
_A.F.M._ 1151, and _Annals of Clonenagh_ quoted in Keating, iii. 317.
[18] Ussher, 491.
[19] Ware, _Bishops_, ed. Harris, p. 309; Eadmer, p. 73.
[20] Ussher, 518; and below, _Life_, § 8.
[21] See p. 47, note 3.
[22] 1115. Eadmer, p. 236. Gougaud (p. 358) infers from this passage
that Limerick was at that time a suffragan see of Canterbury. But this
seems impossible in view of Gilbert's share in the proceedings of the
Synod of Rathbreasail five years earlier. Eadmer is not a very good
witness in such matters, and his language is hardly decisive for two
reasons. (1) It is not clear that he includes Gilbert among the
suffragans who co-operated in the consecration: "Huic consecrationi
interfuerunt et cooperatores extiterunt suffraganei ecclesiae
Cantuariensis, episcopi videlicet hi, Willelmus Wintoniensis, Robertus
Lincoliensis, Rogerus Serberiensis, Johannes Bathoniensis, Urbanus
Glamorgatensis, Gislebertus Lumniensis de Hibernia." (2) The word
"suffragan" is often used as meaning merely an assistant bishop. Thus
in the fifteenth century several bishops of Dromore were "suffragans"
of the archbishop of York; but Dromore was certainly not regarded as
one of his suffragan sees.
[23] Ussher, 532.
[24] See p. xxxvi.
[25] Ussher, 567; _Beati Lanfranci Opera_, ed. J. A. Giles, Oxon.,
1844, vol. i. p. 24.
[26] See Ussher, 490-497; _P.L._ cl. 532, 535, 536. This Donnell was
probably Donnell O'Heney (Ua hEnna), a Munster bishop who died in 1098
(_A. U._).
[27] Ussher, 515-519. The letter to Donnell is also in _P.L._ clix.
262.
[28] Ussher, 520-527; _P.L._ clix. 173, 178, 243.
[29] _Miscellany of Irish Archælogical Society_, vol. i. (1846), p.
136.
[30] Wilkins, _Concilia_, i. 547. In the form in which Rochfort quotes
it the ordinance applies to the whole of Ireland. But we have no
evidence of the transformation of dioceses into deaneries outside
Meath; and it is quite probable that a synod held in Meath would have
in view, in such a decree, only the conditions which prevailed in that
district.
[31] The deanery of Dunshaughlin is now named Ratoath. The deanery of
Kells has been divided into Upper and Lower Kells.
[32] The cogency of this argument is enhanced when we observe that
there is strong independent evidence for the existence in the twelfth
century of one of the six dioceses--the diocese of Kells. (_a_) Up to
the latter part of the sixteenth century (1583) there was an
archdeacon of Kells, as well as an archdeacon of Meath; the
jurisdiction of an archdeacon (at any rate in Ireland) seems to have
been always originally co-extensive with a diocese. The first known
archdeacon of Kells was Adam Petit who was in office in 1230 (_R.T.A._
279; _C.M.A._ i. 101); but it is unlikely that he had no predecessors.
(_b_) Among the prelates who greeted Henry II. at Dublin in 1171 was
Thaddaeus, bishop of Kells (Benedict of Peterborough (R. S.), i. 26).
(_c_) In the time of Innocent III. (1198-1216) the question was raised
in the papal curia whether the bishop of Kells was subject to the
archbishop of Armagh or the archbishop of Tuam (Theiner, p. 2). (_d_)
The bishop of Kells is mentioned in a document of the year 1202 (_Cal.
of Docts. Ireland_, i. 168). (_e_) A contemporary note records the
suppression of the bishopric: "When a Cistercian monk ... had been
elected and consecrated bishop of Kells by the common consent of the
clergy and people, and had been confirmed by the Pope, the impudent
bishop of Meath cast him out with violence and dared to [add] his
bishopric to his own" (_C.M.A._ ii. 22). This statement implies that
the dispossessed bishop ruled over a diocese. Moreover, when we
remember that the see was certainly suppressed before Rochfort's Synod
of 1216, that Rochfort was the first person who assumed the title
"bishop of Meath" in the modern sense, and that a bishop of Kells died
in 1211 (_A.L.C._), we need not hesitate to conclude that the
"impudent bishop" was Rochfort himself, and that the suppression was
accomplished about 1213.
[33] _I.e._ dioceses. This synod is mentioned in _A.T._, _A.I._ and
the _Annals of Boyle_. Particulars of its Acts and of the persons
present at it are given in _C.S._ and _D.A.I._ _C.S._ has "parish" in
the singular. But this does not seem to yield good sense; for the
whole extent of the kingdom of Meath could scarcely have been called a
"parish" in the twelfth century. I therefore read "parishes." The
singular may have been substituted for the plural at a later time,
when the kingdom (or the greater part of it) included only the
dioceses of Meath and Clonmacnoise, and their earlier history was
forgotten. Cp. the unhistorical statement of St. Bernard about Down
and Connor in _Life_, § 31. _D.A.I._ have an anomalous form
(_faircheadh_), which may have come from either the singular
(_fairche_) or the plural (_faircheadha_) in the exemplar, but more
probably from the latter.
[34] p. xxiv. f.
[35] See p. 47, note 3.
[36] Ussher, 513.
[37] A small portion of the present diocese of Limerick lies north of
the Shannon.
[38] Ussher, 501 ff.; _P.L._ clix. 995.
[39] See p. 65, note 1.
[40] See Additional Note B, pp. 164, 166. The events of Cellach's life
are gathered from _A. U._
[41] _Life_, § 19.
[42] See MacCarthy's Note in _A. U._ 1101.
[43] _A.F.M._, Keating, iii. 297. Keating seems to confuse the events
of 1101 with those of 1106.
[44] _Life_, § 33.
[45] See p. 18, note 6.
[46] See next page.
[47] Keating, iii. 299 ff. The date is there misprinted 1100.
[48] I formerly disputed this identification, on the ground that the
archbishop of Cashel who was present at Fiadh meic Oengusa was O'Dunan
(G. T. Stokes, _Ireland and the Celtic Church_, ed. 6, 1907, p. 372).
I am now convinced that he was archbishop of Cashel. I was not then
aware that all MSS. of Keating date the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110.
[49] On p. 298 read _no_ (_or_) for _is_ (_and_) before _Dun dá
Leathghlas_; and on p. 306 _chathar_ for _chuigear ar fhichid_ (i.e.
_twenty-four_ for _twenty-five_). On p. 306 a portion of the note on
the Leinster diocese has evidently dropped out, which should be
restored to bring it into conformity with the corresponding passage on
p. 302.
[50] _H.E._ i. 29.
[51] _I.e._ diocese.
[52] The parish (using the word in its modern sense) in which is
Newtown Stewart, co. Derry.
[53] Ramsay, _Paul the Traveller_ (1907), p. 173.
[54] Some changes of phraseology might have been made here and
elsewhere if Professor MacNeill's _Phases of Irish History_ (1919) had
come into my hands before this volume went to press. But they would
not have affected the argument.
[55] See _Irish Church Quarterly_, vol. x. p. 234.
[56] Agus is é teampull Muire i Luimneach a príomheaglais.
[57] When Cardinal Paparo came to Ireland in 1151 he found "a see
constituted at Dublin in the diocese of Glendalough."--_Crede Mihi_
(ed. Gilbert), p. 11.
[58] Ussher, 488 (_P.L._ cl. 534), 564.
[59] _Ibid._ 528, 530; _P.L._ clix. 109, 216.
[60] See p. 20, note 3.
[61] See p. xxii.
[62] See p. 18, note 6.
[63] See above, p. xxviii.
[64] There was a bishop of Breifne (_i.e._ Kilmore) in 1136 (_A.T._).
[65] _R.T.A._ p. 269.
[66] _Ibid._ p. 259.
[67] _Ibid._ p. 241.
[68] _Cal. of Papal Letters_, v. 75. For date see _Cal. of Documents,
Ireland_, i. 168.
[69] See p. xxviii, note 1.
[70] _R.T.A._ p. 71.
[71] _Life_, §§ 4-7.
[72] _Life_, §§ 8 f., and p. 21, note 1.
[73] See _Life_, § 12, and p. 27, note 1.
[74] See _Life_, § 16, and notes.
[75] p. 33, note 1.
[76] _Life_, §§ 16, 17.
[77] See _Life_, § 9, and notes.
[78] _Life_, § 18.
[79] _Ibid._ § 19.
[80] See p. xv, and Additional Note B.
[81] _Life_, §§ 20-31, with notes, and Additional Note C.
[82] §§ 31, 32.
[83] See _Life_, § 34 and notes.
[84] For a fuller account of the beginnings of the diocese of Clogher
see _L.A.J._ vol. iv. pp. 129-159. To the reasons there given for
believing that Christian transferred the see from Clogher to Louth
should be added the fact that in Tundale (p. 54) he is called
_Lugdunensis episcopus_.
[85] _Life_, §§ 33, 34.
[86] _Ibid._ §§ 35-41. The reader may be reminded, however, that the
two visits of Malachy to Clairvaux, in the course of this journey,
produced the friendship between him and St. Bernard, which had its
twofold issue in the composition of the important documents included
in this volume, and the introduction of the Cistercian Order into
Ireland.
[87] _Life_, § 38.
[88] § 51.
[89] § 47.
[90] _Life_, §§ 67-75.
[91] There was no unnecessary delay on the part of the Pope in sending
the palls. After the death of Malachy a deputation was sent from
Ireland to Rome to demand them. Paparo set out to confer them, and
reached England in 1150; but King Stephen would not allow him to
proceed to Ireland except on terms which he could not accept. (John of
Hexham, p. 326; _Historia Pontificalis_ in _M.G.H._ xx. 539 f.)
[92] Vol. iii. p. 313 ff.
[93] See Letter of Pope Innocent III. to Henry of London, 6 Oct. 1216,
in _Crede Mihi_ (ed. Gilbert), p. 11.
[94] §§ 14, 52.
[95] See p. 122, note 1.
[96] Cp. _R.I.A._ xxxv. 258 ff. This conclusion is corroborated by
Tundale's Vision, which seems to have been written early in 1149 (see
Friedel and Meyer, _La Vision de Tondale_, 1907, pp. vi-xii; _Rev.
Celt._ xxviii. 411). The writer speaks of the _Life of Malachy_ as
already written, and in course of transcription (Tundale, p. 5, 'cuius
uitam ... Bernhardus ... transscribit'). He may have derived his
erroneous statement (_ibid._) that Pope Eugenius went _to Rome_ in the
year of Malachy's death from St. Bernard: see p. 122, note 1.
[97] _AA.SS._, Nov., xii. 1., 143-146.
[98] _Sancti Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-vallensis Opera Omnia_, ed. J.
Mabillon, 1839, vol. i. 2, cols. 1465-1524. Reprinted _P.L._ clxxxii.
1073-1118.
[99] _Op. cit._ i. 2, 2221-2231; i. 1, 341, 356, 357, 374; reprinted
in _P.L._ clxxxiii. 481-490; clxxxii. 545 f., 558 f., 579 f.
[100] See notes on pp. 131, 133 f., 137, 141, 157.
THE LIFE OF ST. MALACHY
PREFACE
1. It is indeed always worth while to portray the illustrious lives of
the saints, that they may serve as a mirror and an example, and give, as
it were, a relish to the life of men on earth. For by this means in some
sort they _live_ among us, even _after death_,[101] and many of those
who _are dead while they live_[102] are challenged and recalled by them
to true life. But now especially is there need for it because holiness
is rare, and it is plain that our age is lacking in men. So greatly, in
truth, do we perceive that lack to have increased in our day that none
can doubt that we are smitten by that saying, _Because iniquity shall
abound the love of many shall wax cold_;[103] and, as I suppose, he has
come or is at hand of whom it is written, _Want shall go before his
face_.[104] If I mistake not, Antichrist is he whom famine and sterility
of all good both precedes and accompanies. Whether therefore it is the
herald of one now present or the harbinger of one who shall come
immediately, the _want_ is evident. I speak not of the crowd, I speak
not of the vile multitude of _the children of this world_:[105] I would
have you lift up your eyes upon the very _pillars_[106] of the Church.
Whom can you show me, even of the number of those who seem to be _given
for a light to the Gentiles_,[107] that in his lofty station is not
rather a smoking wick than a blazing lamp? And, says One, _if the light
that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness_![108] Unless
perchance, which I do not believe, you will say that they shine who
_suppose that gain is godliness_;[109] who in the Lord's inheritance
_seek not the things which are_ the Lord's, but rather _their own_.[110]
Why do I say _their own_? He would be perfect and holy, even while he
seeks his own and retains his own, who should restrain his heart and
hands from the things of others. But let him remember, who seems to
himself to have advanced perhaps thus far, that the same degree of
holiness is demanded even of a gentile.[111] Are not _soldiers_ bidden
to _be content with their wages_ that they may be saved?[112] But it is
a great thing for a doctor of the Church if he be as one of the
soldiers; or, _if_, in truth (as the prophet speaks to their reproach),
_it be as with the people so with the priest_.[113] Hideous! Is it so
indeed? Is he rightly to be esteemed highest who, falling from the
highest rank can scarce cleave to the lowest, that he be not engulfed in
the abyss? Yet how rare is even such a man among the clergy! Whom,
likewise, do you give me who is content with necessaries, who despises
superfluities? Yet the law has been enjoined beforehand by the Apostles
on the successors of the Apostles, _Having_ food _and_ raiment, _let us
be therewith content_.[114] Where is this rule? We see it in books, but
not in men. But you have [the saying] about the righteous man, that _the
law of his God is in his heart_,[115] not in a codex. Nor is that the
standard of perfection. The perfect man is ready to forgo even
necessaries. But that is beside the mark.[116] Would that some limit
were set on superfluous things! Would that our desires were not
infinite! But what? Perhaps you might find one who can achieve this. It
would indeed be difficult; but [if we find him] see what we have done.
We were seeking for a very good man, a deliverer of many; and lo, we
have labour to discover one who can save himself. The very good man
to-day is one who is not utterly bad.
2. Wherefore, _since the godly man has ceased_[117] from the earth, it
seems to me that I do not employ myself to no purpose when I recall to
our midst, from among those _who were redeemed from the earth_,[118]
Bishop Malachy, a man truly holy, and a man, too, of our own time, of
singular wisdom and virtue. _He was a burning and a shining light_;[119]
and it has not been quenched, but only removed. Who would with good
right be angry with me if I move it back again? Yes indeed, neither the
men of my own age, nor any succeeding generation should be wanting in
gratitude to me if by my pen I recall one whom the course of nature has
borne away; if I restore to the world one _of whom the world was not
worthy_;[120] if I preserve for the memory of men one _whose memory may
be blessed_[121] to all who shall deign to read; if while I rouse my
sleeping friend, _the voice of the turtle be heard in our land_[122]
saying, _Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world_.[123]
Then again, he was buried among us;[124] this duty is eminently ours.
Nay, is it not mine, inasmuch as that holy man included me among his
special friends, and in such regard that I may believe that I was second
to none _in that respect of glory_?[125] Nor do I find that intercourse
with holiness so eminent misses its reward; I have already received the
first-fruits. He was near the end; nay, rather, near the beginning,
according to the saying, _when a man hath finished then is he but at the
beginning_.[126] I ran to him that _the blessing of him that was ready
to_ die might _come upon me_.[127] Already he could not move his other
limbs; but, mighty to give blessing, he raised his hands upon my head
and blessed me.[128] I have _inherited the blessing_;[129] how then can
I be silent about him? Finally, you enjoin me to undertake this task,
Abbot Congan,[130] my reverend brother and sweet friend, and with you
also (as you write from Ireland) _all_ that _Church of the saints_[131]
to which you belong.[132] I obey with a will, the more so because you
ask not panegyric but narrative. I shall endeavour that it may be
chaste and clear, informing the devout, and not wearying the fastidious.
At any rate the truth of my narrative is assured, since it has been
communicated by you;[133] and beyond doubt you assert nothing but things
of which you have most certain information.
_Here ends the Prologue._
FOOTNOTES:
[101] Ecclus. xlviii. 12 (vg.).
[102] 1 Tim. v. 6. Cp. Rev. iii. 1.
[103] Matt. xxiv. 12.
[104] Job xli. 22 (vg.).
[105] Luke xvi. 8.
[106] Gal. ii. 9.
[107] Isa. xlix. 6.
[108] Matt. vi. 23.
[109] 1 Tim. vi. 5.
[110] Phil. ii. 21; 1 Cor. xiii. 5.
[111] Cp. Matt. v. 47.
[112] Luke iii. 14.
[113] Isa. xxiv. 2; Hos. iv. 9 (inexact quotation).
[114] 1 Tim. vi. 8 (inexact quotation).
[115] Ps. xxxvii. 31.
[116] _Gratis._
[117] Ps. xii. 1.
[118] Rev. xiv. 3.
[119] John v. 35.
[120] Heb. xi. 38.
[121] Ecclus. xlv. 1.
[122] Cant. ii. 12. For the meaning compare Cant. lix. 3: The voice of
the turtle "is a sign that winter is past, proclaiming nevertheless
that the time of pruning has come.... The voice, more like one who
groans than one who sings, admonishes us of our pilgrimage." After
Eugenius III. had visited Clairvaux St. Bernard wrote, "The voice of
the turtle has been heard in our chapter. We had great joy and
delight." (_Ep. 273._)
[123] Matt. xxviii. 20.
[124] That is, at Clairvaux. See § 75.
[125] Apparently a confused reference to 2 Cor. iii. 10; xi. 17 (vg.).
[126] Ecclus. xviii. 7 (inexact quotation).
[127] Job xxix. 13.
[128] See § 73, end.
[129] 1 Pet. iii. 9.
[130] This abbot, to whom the _Life_ is dedicated, belonged to the
Cistercian Order, as the words "reverend brother" imply. He may
therefore be identified with Congan, abbot of the Cistercian monastery
of the Suir, mentioned in § 64. That he was personally known to St.
Bernard is clear; and it is probable that he was one of the Irishmen
who by Malachy's desire were instructed at Clairvaux (§ 39). Thady
Dowling (_Annals_, _s.a._ 1147) identifies him with "Cogganus," abbot
of Killeshin, near Carlow, stating on the authority of Nicholas
Maguire that he wrote the _gesta_ of Malachy and Bernard. Though this
statement is probably not accurate, it is possible that our Congan was
abbot of Killeshin before he became a Cistercian.
[131] Ecclus. xxxi. 11 (vg.).
[132] _Vestra illa omnis ecclesia sanctorum._ We should perhaps
render, "the whole church of holy persons over which you preside,"
_i.e._ Congan's convent. Elsewhere in the _Life_, _ecclesia_ is used
for a local community, such as the church of Armagh (§ 20, etc). But
see Serm. i. § 3. Vacandard understands the phrase to mean "the
Cistercian communities of Ireland" (_R.Q.H._ lii. 48).
[133] _Vobis_ (pl.); _i.e._ Congan and others in Ireland.
_Here begins the life of Malachy the Bishop_
CHAPTER I
_The early life of Malachy. Having been admitted to Holy Orders he
associates with Malchus_
[Sidenote: 1095.]
1. Our Malachy, born in Ireland,[134] of a barbarous people, was brought
up there, and there received his education. But from the barbarism of
his birth he contracted no taint, any more than the fishes of the sea
from their native salt. But how delightful to reflect, that uncultured
barbarism should have produced for us so worthy[135] _a fellow-citizen
with the saints and member of the household of God_.[136] He who brings
_honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rock_[137] Himself did
this. His parents,[138] however, were great both by descent and in
power, _like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth_.[139]
Moreover his mother,[140] more noble in mind than in blood, took pains,
_in the very beginning of his ways_,[141] _to show_ to her child _the
ways of life_,[142] esteeming this knowledge of more value to him than
the empty knowledge of the learning of this world. For both, however, he
had aptitude in proportion to his age. In the schools _he was taught_
learning, at home _the fear of the Lord_,[143] and by daily progress he
duly responded to both teacher and mother.[144] For indeed he was
endowed from the first with a _good spirit_,[145] in virtue of which he
was a docile boy and very lovable, wonderfully gracious to all in all
things. But he was [now] drinking, instead of milk from the breast of a
mother, _the waters of saving wisdom_,[146] and day by day he was
increasing in discretion. In discretion, shall I say, or in holiness? If
I say both, I shall not regret it, _for I should say the truth_.[147] He
behaved as an old man, a boy in years without a boy's playfulness. And
when because of this he was regarded with reverence and astonishment by
all, he was not found on that account, as commonly happens, more
arrogant, but rather quiet and subdued in _all meekness_.[148] Not
impatient of rule, not shunning discipline, not averse from reading,
not, therefore, eager for games--so especially dear to the heart of boys
of that age. _And he advanced beyond all of his own age_[149] in that
learning, at least, which suited his years. For in discipline of morals
and advance in virtues in a short time he even outshone _all his
instructors_.[150] His _unction_,[151] however, rather than his mother,
was his teacher. Urged by it he exercised himself not slothfully also in
divine things, to seek solitude, _to anticipate vigils_,[152] to
_meditate in the law_,[153] to eat sparingly, to pray frequently, and
(because on account of his studies he had not leisure to frequent the
church, and from modesty would not) to _lift up holy hands
everywhere_[154] to heaven; but only where it could be done
secretly--for already he was careful to avoid vainglory, that poison of
virtues.[155]
2. There is a hamlet near the city in which the boy studied,[156]
whither his teacher was wont to go often, accompanied by him alone. When
they were going there both together, as he related afterwards, he would
_step back, stop a moment_,[157] and standing behind his teacher, when
he was not aware of it, _spread forth his hands toward heaven_,[158] and
quickly send forth a prayer, as if it were a dart; and, thus
dissembling, once more would follow the teacher. By such a pious trick
the boy often deceived him who was his companion as well as teacher. It
is not possible to mention all the qualities which adorned his earlier
years with the hue of a good natural disposition; we must hasten to
greater and more useful matters. One further incident, however, I
relate because, in my judgement, it yielded a sign, not only of good,
but also of great hope in the boy. Roused once on a time by the
reputation of a certain teacher, famous in the studies which are called
liberal, he went to him desiring to learn. For indeed he was now
grasping after the last opportunities of boyhood, and was longing
eagerly for such learning. But when he went into the house he saw the
man playing with an awl, and with rapid strokes making furrows in the
wall in some strange fashion. And shocked at the bare sight, because it
smacked of levity, the serious boy dashed away from him, and did not
care even to see him from that time forward. Thus, though an avid
student of letters, as a lover of virtue he esteemed them lightly in
comparison with that which was becoming. By such preliminary exercises
the boy was being prepared for the conflict which awaited him in more
advanced[159] age; and already in his own person he was challenging the
adversary. Such, then, was the boyhood of Malachy. Moreover he passed
through his adolescence with like simplicity and purity; except that as
_years_ increased, there _increased_ also for him _wisdom and favour
with God and man_.[160]
3. From this time, that is, from his early adolescence, _what was in the
man_[161] began to appear more plainly, and it came to be seen that _the
grace of God which was in him was not in vain_.[162] For the
_industrious young man_,[163] seeing how _the world lieth in
wickedness_,[164] and considering what sort of spirit _he had received_,
said within himself, "It is _not the spirit of this world_.[165] What
have the two in common?[166] One has no _communion_ with the other any
more than _light with darkness_.[167] But my spirit _is of God_, and _I
know the things that are freely given me_[168] in it. From it I have
innocence of life till now, from it the ornament of continence, from it
hunger for _righteousness_,[169] from it also that _glory of mine_, by
so much more secure because it is more secret, _the testimony of my
conscience_.[170] None of these is safe for me under _the prince of this
world_.[171] Then, _I have this treasure in an earthen vessel_.[172] I
must take heed lest it should strike against something and be broken,
and the _oil of gladness_[173] which I carry be poured out. And in truth
it is most difficult not to strike _against something amid_ the stones
and rocks _of this_ crooked and winding _way and life_.[174] Must I thus
in a moment lose together all _the blessings of goodness with which_ I
have been _prevented_[175] from the beginning? Rather do I resign them,
and myself with them, to Him from whom they come. Yea, and I am His. I
_lose my_ very _soul_[176] for a time that I may not lose it for ever.
And what I am and all that I have, where can they be as safe as in the
hand of their Author? Who so concerned to preserve, so powerful to hold,
so faithful to restore? He will preserve in safety. He will restore in
good time. Without hesitation I give myself to serve Him by His gifts. I
cannot lose aught of all that I spend on my labour of piety. Perchance I
may even hope for some greater boon. He who gives freely is wont to
repay with usury. So it is. He will even heap up and _increase virtue in
my soul_."[177]
So he thought--and did; _knowing that_ apart from deeds _the thoughts of
man are vanity_.[178]
[Sidenote: c. 1112.]
4. (3) There was a man in the city of Armagh,[179] where Malachy was
brought up--a holy man and of great austerity of life, a pitiless
_castigator of his body_,[180] who had a cell near the church.[181] In
it he abode, _serving God with fastings and prayers day and night_.[182]
To this man Malachy betook himself to receive a rule[183] of life from
him, who had condemned himself while alive to such sepulture. And note
his humility. From his earliest age he had had God as his teacher--there
is no doubt of it--in the art of holiness; and behold, he became once
more the disciple of a man, himself a man _meek and lowly in
heart_.[184] If we did not know it, by this one deed he himself gave us
proof of it. Let them read this who attempt to teach what they have not
learned, _heaping to themselves_ disciples,[185] though they have never
been disciples, _blind leaders of the blind_.[186] Malachy, _taught of
God_,[187] none the less sought a man to be his teacher, and that
carefully and wisely. By what better method, I ask, could he both give
and receive a proof of his progress? If the example of Malachy _is_ for
them _a very small thing_,[188] let them consider the action of Paul.
Did not he judge that his _Gospel_, though he had _not received it of
man but_ from _Christ_,[189] _should be discussed_ with men, _lest by
any means he was running or had run in vain_?[190] Where he was not
confident, neither am I. If any one be thus confident[191] let him take
heed lest it be not so much confidence as rashness. But these matters
belong to another time.
5. Now, however, the rumour of what had happened went through the city,
and it was universally stirred by this new and unexpected event. All
were amazed, and wondered at his virtue, all the more because it was
unusual in a rude people. You would see that then _thoughts were being
revealed out of the hearts of many_.[192] The majority, considering the
act from a human standpoint, were lamenting and grieving that a youth
who was an object of love and delight to all had given himself up to
such severe labours. Others, suspecting lightness on account of his
age, doubted whether he would persevere, and feared a fall. Some,
accusing him of rashness, were in fact highly indignant with him because
he had undertaken a difficult task, beyond his age and strength, without
consulting them. But without counsel he did nothing; for he had counsel
from the prophet who says, _It is good for a man that he bear the yoke
in his youth_, and adds, _He sitteth alone and keepeth silence because
he hath borne it upon him._[193] The youth sat at the feet of Imar (for
that was the man's name) and either _learned obedience_[194] or showed
that he had learnt it. He sat as one that was at rest, as meek, as
humble. _He sat and kept silence_,[195] knowing, as the prophet says,
that _silence is the ornament of righteousness_.[196] _He sat_ as one
that perseveres, _he was silent_ as one that is modest, except that by
that silence of his he was speaking, with holy David, in the ears of
God: _I am a youth and despised, yet do not I forget thy precepts._[197]
And for a time _he sat alone_, because he had neither companion nor
example; for who before Malachy even thought of attempting the most
severe discipline inculcated by the man? It was held by all indeed to be
wonderful, but not imitable. Malachy showed that it was imitable by the
mere act of sitting and keeping silence. In a few days he had imitators
not a few, stirred by his example. So he who at first _sat alone_[198]
and the only son of his father, became now one of many, from being _the
only-begotten_[199] became _the firstborn among many brethren_.[200] And
as he was before them in conversion,[201] so was he more sublime than
they in conversation; and he who came before all, in the judgement of
all was eminent above all in virtue. And he seemed both to his
bishop[202] and to his teacher,[203] worthy to be promoted to the degree
of deacon. _And they constrained him._[204]
[Sidenote: 1119(?)]
[Sidenote: 1120.]
6. (4) From this time onwards the Levite[205] of the Lord publicly
girded himself to every work of piety, but more especially to those
things in which there seemed some indignity. In fact it was his greatest
care to attend to the burial of the dead poor,[206] because that
savoured not less of humility than of humanity. Nor did _temptation_
fail to test our modern Tobit,[207] and, as in the old story, it came
from a woman,[208] or rather from the serpent through a woman.[209] His
sister,[210] abhorring the indignity (as it seemed to her) of his
office, said: "What are you doing, madman? _Let the dead bury their
dead._"[211] And she attacked him daily with this _reproach_.[212] But
he _answered the foolish_ woman _according to her folly_,[213] "Wretched
woman, you preserve the sound of the _pure word_,[214] but you are
ignorant of its force." So he maintained with devotion, and exercised
unweariedly the ministry which he had undertaken under compulsion. For
that reason also they[215] deemed that the office of the priesthood
should be conferred upon him. And this was done. But when he was
ordained priest he was about twenty-five years old.[216] And if in both
his ordinations the rule of the Canons seems to have been somewhat
disregarded--as indeed does seem to have been the case, for he received
the Levitical ministry before his twenty-fifth, and the dignity of the
priesthood before his thirtieth year[217]--it may well be ascribed to
the zeal of the ordainer and the merits of him who was ordained.[218]
But for my part, I consider that such irregularity should neither be
condemned in the case of a saint, nor deliberately claimed by him who is
not a saint. Not content with this the bishop also committed to him his
own authority[219] _to sow the_ holy _seed_[220] in a _nation_ which was
not _holy_,[221] and to give to a people rude and living _without
law_,[222] the law of life and of discipline. He received the command
with all alacrity, even as he was _fervent in spirit_,[223] not
hoarding up his talents, but eager for profit from them.[224] And
behold he began to _root out_ with the hoe of the tongue, _to destroy_,
_to scatter_,[225] day by day making _the crooked straight and the rough
places plain_.[226] _He rejoiced as a giant to run_ everywhere.[227] You
might call him a consuming _fire_ burning _the briers_ of crimes.[228]
You might call him _an axe_ or _a mattock casting down_[229] evil
plantings.[230] He extirpated barbaric rites, he planted those of the
Church. All out-worn superstitions (for not a few of them were
discovered) he abolished, and, wheresoever he found it, every sort of
malign influence _sent by evil angels_.[231]
7. In fine whatsoever came to his notice which was irregular or
unbecoming or perverse his _eye did not spare_;[232] but as the hail
scatters the _untimely figs_ from _the fig-trees_,[233] and as _the wind
the dust from the face of the earth_,[234] so did he strive with all his
might to drive out before his face and destroy entirely such things from
his people. And in place of all these the most excellent legislator
delivered the heavenly laws. He made regulations full of righteousness,
full of moderation and integrity. Moreover in all churches he ordained
the apostolic sanctions and the decrees of the holy fathers, and
especially the customs of the holy Roman Church.[235] Hence it is that
to this day there is chanting and psalmody in them at the canonical
hours after the fashion of the whole world. For there was no such thing
before, not even in the city.[236] He, however, had learnt singing in
his youth, and soon he introduced song into his monastery,[237] while as
yet none in the city, nor in the whole bishopric, could or would sing.
Then Malachy instituted anew[238] the most wholesome usage of
Confession,[239] the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Marriage
contract--of all of which they were either ignorant or negligent.[240]
And let these serve as an example of the rest, for [here] and through
the whole course of the history we omit much for the sake of brevity.
8. (5). Since he had a desire and a very great zeal for the honouring of
the divine offices and the veneration of the sacraments, lest by chance
he might ordain or teach anything concerning these matters otherwise
than that which was in accordance with the rite of the universal Church,
it came into his mind to visit Bishop Malchus,[241] that he might give
him fuller information on all points. He was _an old man, full of
days_[242] and virtues, and _the wisdom of God was in him_.[243] He was
of Irish nationality, but had lived in England in the habit and rule of
a monk in the monastery of Winchester, from which he was promoted to be
bishop in Lismore,[244] a city of Munster, and one of the noblest of the
cities of that kingdom. There so great grace was bestowed upon him from
above that he was illustrious, not only for life and doctrine, but also
for signs. Of these I set down two as examples, that it may be known to
all what sort of preceptor Malachy had in the knowledge of holy things.
He healed a boy, who was troubled with a mental disorder, one of those
who are called lunatics, in the act of confirming him with the holy
unction. This was so well known and certain that he soon made him porter
of his house, and the boy lived in good health in that office till he
reached manhood. He restored hearing to one who was deaf; in which
miracle the deaf person acknowledged a wonderful fact, that when the
saint put his fingers into his ears on either side he perceived that
two things like little pigs came out of them. For these and other such
deeds, his fame increased and he won a great name; so that Scots[245]
and Irish flowed together to him and he was reverenced by all as the one
father of all.
[Sidenote: 1121]
When therefore Malachy, having received the blessing of Father Imar, and
having been sent by the bishop,[246] came to him, after a prosperous
journey, he was kindly received by the old man; and he remained with him
for some years,[247] in order that by staying so long he might draw
fuller draughts from his aged breast, knowing that which is written,
_With the ancient is wisdom._[248] But I suppose that another cause of
his long sojourn was that the great Foreseer of all things would have
His servant Malachy become known to all in a place to which so many
resorted, since he was to be useful to all. For he could not but be dear
to those who knew him. In fact one thing happened in that period, by
which in some measure he made manifest to men what had been known to
God as being in him.
[Sidenote: 1127]
9. A conflict having taken place between the king of South
Munster[249]--which is the southern part of Ireland--and his
brother,[250] and the brother being victorious, the king, driven from
his kingdom, sought refuge with Bishop Malchus.[251] It was not,
however, in order that with his help he should recover the kingdom; but
rather the devout prince _gave place unto wrath_[252] and made a virtue
of necessity,[253] choosing to lead a private life. And when the bishop
was preparing to receive the king with due honour, he declined it,
saying that he preferred to be as one of those poor brothers who
consorted with him, to lay aside his royal state, and to be content with
the common poverty, rather to await the will of God than to get back his
kingdom by force; and that he would not for his earthly honour _shed
man's blood_,[254] since it would _cry unto_ God against him _from the
ground_.[255] When he heard this the bishop rejoiced greatly, and with
admiration for his devotion satisfied his desire. Why more? The king is
given a poor house for his dwelling, Malachy for his teacher, bread with
salt and water for his food. Moreover for dainties, the presence of
Malachy, his life and doctrine, were sufficient for the king; so that he
might say to him, _How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea, sweeter
than honey to my mouth._[256] Besides, _every night he watered his couch
with his tears_,[257] and also with a daily bath of cold water he
quenched the burning lust for evil in his flesh. And the king prayed in
the words of another king, _Look upon my affliction and my pain; and
forgive all my sins._[258] And _God did not turn away his prayer nor His
mercy from him_.[259] _And his supplication was heard_,[260] although
otherwise than he had desired. For he was troubled about his soul; but
God, the avenger of innocence, willing to show men _that there is a
remainder for the man of peace_,[261] was preparing meanwhile _to
execute a judgement for the oppressed_,[262] which was utterly beyond
his hope. And God _stirred up the spirit_ of a neighbouring _king_:[263]
for Ireland is not one kingdom, but is divided into many. This king
therefore seeing what had been done, was filled with wrath; and
indignant, on the one hand, at the freedom of the raiders and the
insolence of the proud, and on the other, pitying the desolation of the
kingdom and the downfall of the king, he went down to the cell of the
poor man; urged him to return, but did not succeed in persuading him. He
was instant, nevertheless, pledged himself to help him, assured him that
he need not doubt the result, promised that God would be with him, _whom
all his adversaries would not be able to resist_.[264] He laid before
him also the oppression of the poor and the devastation of his country;
yet he prevailed not.
10. But when to these arguments were added the command of the
bishop[265] and the advice of Malachy--the two men on whom he wholly
depended--at length, with difficulty, he consented. A king followed a
king, and according to the word of the king,[266] _as was the will in
heaven_,[267] the marauders were driven out with absolute ease, and the
man was led back to his own, with great rejoicing of his people, and was
restored to his kingdom. From that time the king loved and always
reverenced Malachy; so much the more because he had learned more fully
in the holy man the things that were worthy of reverence and affection.
For he could not be ignorant of the holiness of him with whom he had
enjoyed so much intimacy in his adversity. Therefore he honoured him the
more in his prosperity with constant acts of friendship, and faithful
services, _and he heard him gladly, and when he heard him did many
things_.[268] But enough of this. Nevertheless I suppose it was not
without purpose that the Lord so magnified him then _before kings_,[269]
but _he was a chosen vessel unto Him_, about _to bear His name before
kings_ and princes.[270]
FOOTNOTES:
[134] Malachy was born in 1095, before November. See below, p. 130. n.
2.
[135] _Urbanum_, citizen-like.
[136] Eph. ii. 19.
[137] Deut. xxxii. 13.
[138] _A.T._ make the curious statement that "Mael Maedoc o Mongair
and his father Mughron" died in 1102. This is perhaps sufficient
evidence that Malachy's father was Mughron Ua Morgair, who according
to _A.U._ was _ard fer légind_ (chief professor) at Armagh, and died
at Mungret, Co. Limerick, on October 5, 1102. Malachy was then only
seven or eight years of age. Thus we may account for the large part
taken by his mother in his early education. But a poem attributed to
Malachy (_L.B._ 88) calls his father Dermot. The form of the surname
varies. It is usually written Ua Morgair; but _A.T._, _A.I._ (Ua
Mongain), _L.B._ (_l.c._), and the Yellow Book of Lecan (T.C.D. MS. H.
2. 16, p. 327 c), have Ua Mongair. The form Ua Morgair is certainly
right, for it appears in the contemporary Book of Leinster (_R.I.A._
xxxv. 355-360); and Ua Mongair obviously arose out of it through
confusion of the similar letters _r_ and _n_. The name must have been
unfamiliar, if it had not died out, when the mistake was made.
Therefore we may accept Colgan's statement that the family was known
as O'Dogherty in his day (_Trias_, p. 299). If so, they had probably
only resumed an earlier surname: for according to MacFirbis (Royal
Irish Academy MS. 23 P. 1, p. 698) Malachy was of the same stock as
St. Mael Brigte, son of Tornan. The latter, as well as the
O'Doghertys, were of the race of Conall Gulban (Adamnan, Genealogy
opp. p. 342).
[139] 2 Sam. vii. 9.
[140] It is interesting to note the emphasis laid by St. Bernard on
the influence of Malachy's mother on his life. How much he himself
owed to his mother Aleth is well known. See _V.P._ i. 1, 2, 9, 10.
Malachy's mother was probably a member of the family of O'Hanratty.
See below, p. 27, n. 2.
[141] Prov. viii. 22.
[142] Ps. xvi. 11.
[143] Ps. xxxiv. 11.
[144] The description of Malachy's boyhood by St. Bernard may be
compared with that given of his own boyhood in _V.P._ i. 3. It was
written before the _Life of Malachy_.
[145] Neh. ix. 20; Ps. cxliii. 10.
[146] Ecclus. xv. 2, 3 (vg.).
[147] 2 Cor. xii. 6.
[148] Eph. iv. 2.
[149] Gal. i. 14.
[150] Ps. cxix. 99.
[151] 1 John ii. 20.
[152] Ps. lxxvii. 4 (vg.).
[153] Ps. i. 2.
[154] 1 Tim. ii. 8.
[155] _Virus uirtutum._
[156] Armagh. See § 4.
[157] Cp. Virg. _Aen._ vi. 465.
[158] 1 Kings viii. 22, 54.
[159] _Fortiori._
[160] Luke ii. 40, 52.
[161] John ii. 25.
[162] 1 Cor. xv. 10.
[163] 1 Kings xi. 28.
[164] 1 John v. 19.
[165] 1 Cor. ii. 12.
[166] Cp. John ii. 4 (vg.).
[167] 2 Cor. vi. 14.
[168] 1 Cor. ii. 12.
[169] Cp. Matt. v. 6.
[170] 2 Cor. i. 12 (vg.).
[171] John xiv. 30, etc.
[172] 2 Cor. iv. 7.
[173] Ps. xlv. 7.
[174] Collect of Mass for Travellers.
[175] Ps. xxi. 3.
[176] Matt. x. 39.
[177] Ps. cxxxviii. 3 (vg.).
[178] Ps. xciv. 11.
[179] His name was Imar (§ 5). He was no doubt Imar O'Hagan, who
founded the monastery of St. Paul and St. Peter at Armagh, and built a
stone church for it which was consecrated on October 21, 1126. It was
placed, either at its foundation or subsequently, under the rule of
the regular canons of St. Augustine. Imar died on pilgrimage at Rome
in 1134, and is commemorated in Gorman on August 13, and in Usuard on
November 12. He was at this time evidently leading the life of an
anchoret. Reeves (_Churches_, p. 28) inferred from his Christian name
that he had some Danish blood in his veins. There is no certain
indication of Malachy's age when he became his disciple. But he had
reached adolescence (§ 3), and was old enough to choose his own
teachers (§ 2). In 1112 he was seventeen years of age. We shall see
that he long acknowledged Imar as his master: §§ 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16.
[180] 1 Cor. ix. 27 (vg.).
[181] That is, apparently, the great stone church (_daimliac mór_), on
which Cellach put a shingle roof in 1125. According to Reeves
(_Churches_, pp. 14, 28) it was probably on the site of the present
Cathedral, from which the Abbey of St. Paul and St. Peter was distant
130 yards to the north. It was the principal church of Armagh till
1268. For an account of the life of such recluses as Imar the reader
may be referred to B. MacCarthy, _Codex Palatino-Vaticanus No. 830_,
p. 5 f.
[182] Luke ii. 37.
[183] _Formam._ The word, as used by St. Bernard, seems to include the
two notions of rule and example. It would seem that Malachy received
some sort of monastic rule from Imar. Cp. § 7, "his monastery," and
the reference to "the first day of his conversion" in § 43. Both
passages imply that he belonged to a religious order. So in § 5 he is
said to have been before the other disciples of Imar "in conversion."
On later occasions he was subject to Imar's "command" (§§ 14, 16). It
is not improbable that the disciples who gathered round Imar were the
nucleus of the community which he founded at Armagh (note 1). If so,
the inference is reasonable that Malachy became a regular canon of St.
Augustine.
[184] Matt. xi. 29.
[185] Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 3.
[186] Matt. xv. 14.
[187] Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45.
[188] 1 Cor. iv. 3.
[189] Gal. i. 11, 12.
[190] Gal. ii. 2.
[191] Printed text, _hoc scit_. I read _sit_ with K (_hec sit_), and
two of de Backer's MSS.
[192] Luke ii. 35.
[193] Lam. iii. 27, 28 (inexact quotation).
[194] Heb. v. 8.
[195] The rule of silence was very strictly observed by the
Cistercians. This explains the stress laid by St. Bernard, here and
elsewhere, on Malachy's practice. Cp. the Preface of Philip of
Clairvaux to _V.P._ vi.: "In truth I have learned nothing that can
more effectively deserve the riches of the grace of the Lord than to
sit and be silent, and always to condescend to men of low estate."
[196] Isa. xxxii. 17 (vg.).
[197] Ps. cxix. 141 (vg.).
[198] Lam. iii. 28.
[199] John i. 14, 18.
[200] Rom. viii. 29.
[201] The technical word for entry into a religious order.
[202] Cellach, archbishop of Armagh (§ 19), son of Aedh, and grandson
of Maelisa, who was abbot of Armagh 1064-1091. He was born early in
1080. Of his childhood and youth we know nothing, for the statement of
Meredith Hanmer (_Chron. of Ireland_ (1633), p. 101) that he is said
to have been "brought up at Oxford" is probably as inaccurate as other
assertions which he makes about him. Cellach was elected abbot of
Armagh in August, 1105, and in the following month (September 23) he
received Holy Orders. In 1106, while engaged on a visitation of
Munster, he was consecrated bishop. Thus he departed from the
precedent set by his eight predecessors, who were without orders (§
19). He was one of the leaders of the Romanizing party in Ireland, and
attended the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 (Keating, iii. 307). He
died in his fiftieth year, at Ardpatrick, in co. Limerick, on April 1,
1129, and was buried on April 4 at Lismore. These facts are mainly
gathered from the Annals. For more about Cellach, see p. xxxiv.
[203] Imar. See above p. 11, n. 1.
[204] Luke xxiv. 29.--Malachy can hardly have been more, he was
probably less, than twenty-three years of age at this time. See p. 16,
n. 2.
[205] _I.e._ deacon.
[206] It does not appear that deacons as such were specially concerned
with the burial of the dead. The present passage, indeed, implies the
contrary. Malachy was made deacon against his will; his care for the
dead poor is mentioned as a work of piety, voluntarily superadded to
the duties of his office. His sister (see below) would have been
unlikely to ask him to abandon a practice which he could not decline.
But there was ancient precedent for a deacon engaging in such work, of
which Malachy may have been aware. At Alexandria throughout the
persecution of Valerian, one of the deacons, Eusebius by name, not
without danger to himself, prepared for burial the bodies of "the
perfect and blessed martyrs" (Eus., _H.E._ vii. 11. 24).
[207] _Tobiae._ The Greek of the Book of Tobit, followed by the
English versions, calls the father Tobit, and the son Tobias; the
Vulgate calls both Tobias. The text of chap. ii. is longer in the
Vulgate than in the Greek and English, and neither of the verses
(Vulg. 12, 23) from which St. Bernard here borrows words is
represented in the latter.
[208] Tobit ii. 12 (vg.).
[209] Cp. Gen. iii. 12 f.
[210] She is mentioned again in § 11.
[211] Matt. viii. 22.
[212] Tobit ii. 23 (vg.).
[213] Prov. xxvi. 5.
[214] Ps. xii. 6.
[215] Cellach and Imar.
[216] Malachy completed his twenty-fifth year in 1120. See p. 130, n.
2. For the date of his ordination to the priesthood see p. 16, n. 2.
[217] For the canons of councils which regulated the minimum age of
deacons and priests reference may be made to the article "Orders,
Holy," by the late Dr. Edwin Hatch in the _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_, vol. ii. p. 1482 f. From a very early date they were
respectively twenty-five and thirty years, in accordance with the
statement of the text, though there were some exceptions in remote
places. The eighth-century Irish Canons, known as the _Hibernensis_,
prescribe the same minimum ages for the diaconate and presbyterate,
and add a clause, the gist of which seems to be that a bishop at the
time of his consecration must be thirty or forty years of age
(Wasserschleben, _Irische Kanonesammlung_, 1885, p. 8). As late as the
year 1089, at the Council of Melfi, presided over by Pope Urban II.,
it was decreed (can. 5, Mansi, xx. 723) that none should be admitted
deacon under twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, or priest under
thirty. But at the Council of Ravenna, 1315 (can. 2, _ibid._ xxv.
537), the ages were lowered to twenty and twenty-five respectively.
[218] Cellach would hardly have understood the need for this apology.
It is more than probable that he was ignorant of the canons referred
to. He himself was ordained, apparently to the priesthood, in 1105,
when he was under twenty-six, and consecrated bishop in 1106, when he
was under twenty-seven years of age. St. Bernard himself seems to have
been ordained priest when he was about twenty-five years old
(Vacandard, i. 67).
[219] In other words he made him his vicar. This may well have been in
1120; for the Annals record that in that year Cellach made a
visitation of Munster. It was quite natural that during a prolonged
absence from his see he should leave its administration in the hands
of one who had proved himself so capable as Malachy. And we shall see
that this date harmonizes with other chronological data. If, then, we
place the beginning of Malachy's vicariate in 1120, his ordination as
priest, which appears to have been not much earlier, may be dated in
1119, when he was "about twenty-five years of age," _i.e._ probably
soon after his twenty-fourth birthday. His admission to the diaconate
may be placed at least a year earlier, _i.e._ in 1118. Indeed, if we
could be sure that in Ireland the normal interval between admission to
the diaconate and to the priesthood was at all as long as in other
countries we might put it further back.
[220] Luke viii. 5.
[221] 1 Pet. ii. 9.
[222] Rom. ii. 12.
[223] Rom. xii. 11.
[224] Cp. Matt. xxv. 24 ff.
[225] Jer. i. 10 (vg.).
[226] Isa. xl. 4.
[227] Ps. xix. 5.
[228] Cp. Isa. x. 17.
[229] Ps. lxxiv. 6 (vg.).
[230] Cp. Ignatius, _Trall._ 11.
[231] Ps. lxxviii. 49 (vg.: inexact quotation).
[232] Ezek. v. 11, etc.
[233] Cp. Rev. vi. 13.
[234] Ps. i. 4 (vg.).
[235] Malachy acted in accordance with the aims of Gilbert, bishop of
Limerick, who about the year 1108, wrote these words (_De Usu
Ecclesiastico_, in Ussher, 500): "I have endeavoured to describe the
canonical custom in saying the hours and performing the office of the
whole ecclesiastical order ... to the end that the various and
schismatical orders, with which almost the whole of Ireland has been
deluded, may give place to the one Catholic and Roman office."
[236] Armagh.
[237] This was probably the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul. See p.
11, n. 5. J. de Backer's suggestion (_AA.SS._, Nov. ii. 1, p. 147),
that "his monastery" was Bangor is negatived by the whole context,
which refers only to Armagh.
[238] The word "anew" (_de nouo_) seems to indicate St. Bernard's
belief that it was only in comparatively recent times that the usages
to which he refers had fallen into desuetude.
[239] It is interesting to observe that Confession is here not ranked
as a sacrament.
[240] For the statements in this section see Additional Note A.
[241] Mael Isa Ua hAinmire, who is always called Malchus in Latin
documents, though a native of Ireland, had been a monk of Winchester,
as we are here told. He was elected first bishop of the Danish colony
of Waterford in 1096, and was consecrated by Anselm, assisted by the
bishops of Chichester and Rochester, at Canterbury on December 28,
having previously made his profession of obedience to the archbishop
as one of his suffragans (Eadmer, p. 76 f.; Ussher, pp. 518, 565). He
signed the Acts of the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 as archbishop of
Cashel (Keating, iii. 307). He had probably been translated to that
see shortly after its foundation in 1106 (see below, p. 65, n. 4). The
Synod of Rathbreasail enlarged the Danish diocese of Waterford by
adding to it an extensive non-Danish area, which included the ancient
religious site of Lismore, on which St. Carthach or Mochuta had
founded a community in the early part of the seventh century (Lanigan,
ii. 353). The Synod decreed that the see of this diocese should be
either at Lismore or at Waterford, apparently giving preference to the
former (see p. xlvii). It would seem that after organizing the diocese
of Cashel Malchus retired to his former "parish," just as at a later
date Malachy retired from Armagh to Down (§ 31), placing his see at
Lismore. There, at any rate, he was established when Malachy visited
him, and there he died in 1135 "after the 88th year of his pilgrimage"
(_A.F.M._). An attempt has been made to distinguish Mael Isa Ua
hAinmire from the Malchus of the text (Lanigan, iv. 74), but without
success. It is interesting to observe that both _A.F.M._ and _A.T._
style him bishop of Waterford in the record of his death.
[242] Gen. xxxv. 29; 1 Chron. xxiii. 1; Job xlii. 16.--Malchus was in
his 75th year when Malachy visited him in 1121. See preceding note,
and p. 20, n. 3.
[243] 1 Kings iii. 28.
[244] An error for Waterford. It is explained by, and confirms, the
suggestion that Malchus transferred the see to Lismore.
[245] Throughout the _Life_, _Scotia_ is used, in its later sense, for
the country now called Scotland; and here the Scots are evidently its
inhabitants. But traces of earlier usage remain in § 14, "a Scotic
(_i.e._ Irish) work," § 61 "We are Scots," and § 72 where Ireland is
called "further Scotland" (_ulterior Scotia_).
[246] Cellach. Note Imar's share in the matter, and cp. p. 11, n. 1.
[247] Malachy must have been the archbishop's vicar for a considerable
time if the account of his labours in that capacity (§ 7) is not
grossly exaggerated. Hence, if his vicariate began in 1119 or 1120 his
departure for Lismore can hardly have been earlier than 1121; and as
he spent "some years" there before he was raised to the episcopate
(1124; see § 16), it cannot have been later. Samuel O'Hanley, bishop
of Dublin, died on July 4, 1121, and Cellach at once made an attempt,
which proved unsuccessful, to take possession of the vacant see.
Samuel's successor, Gregory, was duly elected, and was consecrated at
Lambeth on October 2. (_O.C.C._ p. 31; _A.U._ 1121; John of Worcester,
ed. J. H. R. Weaver, 1908, p. 16; Ussher, 532). It may have been in
August or September, on the return of Cellach from Dublin, that
Malachy was released from his office and went to Lismore.
[248] Job xii. 12.
[249] I read _rex australis Mumoniae_, for _rex Mumoniae_ in the
printed text, restoring the word _australis_ from two of de Backer's
MSS. The king is said in § 18 to have been Cormac, _i.e._ Cormac Mac
Carthy, son of Teague Mac Carthy, who succeeded his father as king of
Desmond (South Munster) in 1124. He was never king of the whole of
Munster. That he went to Lismore in 1121 is very probable. For the
Annals tell us that in that year Turlough O'Conor, king of Connaught,
invaded Desmond, and "arrived at the termon of Lismore" (_A.I._ say
that he destroyed Lismore, which can hardly be true). What more likely
than that one of the sons of Teague, the reigning monarch of Desmond,
should fly before that formidable warrior to the sanctuary of Mochuta?
But St. Bernard errs in supposing that he was then king of Desmond. On
Cormac, see also p. 43, n. 5.
[250] Donough Mac Carthy. See next note. There is a brief notice of
him in Tundale, p. 42.
[251] That the narrative of this and the following section is
historical, but that St. Bernard has misplaced it, is proved by the
following extract from _A.T._ under the year 1127: "A hosting by
Toirdelbach, king of Ireland [really of Connaught], till he reached
Corcach, he himself on land and his fleet at sea going round to
Corcach, ravaging Munster by sea and by land so that he drove Cormac
mac meic Carthaig into Lismore in pilgrimage. And Toirdelbach divided
Munster into two parts, the southern half [Desmond] to Donnchad mac
meic Carthaig; and the northern half [Thomond] to Conchobar o
Briain.... Cormac mac meic Carthaig came from his pilgrimage, and made
an alliance with Conchobar o Briain and with all the men of Muma, save
those of Tuathmuma. Donnchad mac meic Carthaig came from them--for he
was not in the alliance--with 2000 men."
The other Annals have notices to the same effect. These events
occurred in 1127, three years after Malachy returned from his long
stay at Lismore, and was made bishop of Connor (§ 16). If he had the
part which is ascribed to him in the restoration of Cormac, he must
therefore have paid two visits to Lismore, which St. Bernard has
confounded. That he was in the south of Ireland for a considerable
time prior to 1129 will appear later (p. 40, n. 2).
[252] Rom. xii. 19.
[253] _Necessitatem in uirtutem conuertit._ Apparently a proverbial
expression. Cp. Quintilian _Declam._ iv. 10: "Faciamus potius de fine
remedium, de necessitate solatium"; Jer. _Adv. Rufin._ iii. 2: "Habeo
gratiam quod facis de necessitate uirtutem"; _Ep._ 54. 6 (Hilberg):
"Arripe, quaeso, occasionem et fac de necessitate uirtutem." Chaucer's
"To maken vertu of necessitee" is well known (_Knightes Tale_, 3042,
_Squieres Tale_, 593, _Troilus and Criseyde_, iv. 1586).
[254] Gen. ix. 6.
[255] Gen. iv. 10.
[256] Ps. cxix. 103.
[257] Ps. vi. 6 (vg.).
[258] Ps. xxiv. 18.
[259] Ps. lxvi. 20.
[260] Ecclus. li. 11.
[261] Ps. xxxvii. 37 (vg.).
[262] Ps. cxlvi. 7.
[263] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.--Conor O'Brien. See p. 21, n. 3. It appears
from the last sentence of the passage there quoted that Donough
MacCarthy, to whom Turlough O'Conor had given the kingdom of Desmond,
had driven out O'Brien from Thomond. This explains the anxiety of the
latter to make alliance with Cormac. His action was less disinterested
than St. Bernard represents it.
[264] Luke xxi. 15.
[265] Malchus.
[266] Judas Maccabæus.
[267] 1 Macc. iii. 60.
[268] Mark vi. 20.
[269] Ps. cxix. 46.
[270] Acts ix. 15.