We also find this famous architect mentioned in the Life of St. Abban, for whom he built a church. It was, says this Life, his constant occupation to work for the saints wherever he was, but he charged them so dear that he lost his sight through the displeasure of the saints at the greatness of his charges. The Gobban was probably of foreign descent, and tried to make the Scots pay well for their buildings.

It is certain that Clonmacnoise reached a high degree of perfection in architecture, and the Nuns’ Church, Relig na Cailleach, was certainly one of the most beautiful types of the Celtic Romanesque in Ireland. It was situated to the north-east of the monastic buildings, and was approached by a causeway that was built along the river, which frequently overflowed the surrounding meadows.

This church was erected at the expense of the celebrated Dervorgilla, wife of Tiernan O’Rorke, King of North Connaught. It appears to have been completed in A.D. 1167, and probably occupied the site of an older church belonging to the nuns of Clonmacnoise, for, as we have seen, we find reference made to the garden of the abbess so early as A.D. 1026, when the causeway was constructed from her garden to the Three Crosses, near the great Church of Clonmacnoise. A.D. 1082, we are told that the “cemetery of the nuns of Clonmacnoise was burned with its stone church, and with the eastern third of the entire establishment.” The cemetery here means the enclosure surrounded by the cashel, portions of which still remain; it contained not only the church, but also the cells in which the nuns dwelt, and the other buildings necessary for their accommodation. The causeway, too, can still be traced from the nunnery to the Carn of the Three Crosses, which was surmounted by a stone bearing the following Irish inscription:—

OROIT AR THURCAIN LASAN DERNAD IN CHROSSA.

(Pray for Turcan, by whom this Cross was made.)

The striking features of the Nuns’ Church are the western door-way and the chancel arch. This door-way is the principal entrance to the nave, which is 36 ft. in length, and nearly 20 ft. in breadth; the walls are 3 ft. thick. The chancel, like that of Tuam, is nearly a square—14 ft. 6 in. by 13 ft. in breadth; the walls are 3 ft. 3 in. thick, and built of hard limestone, hammer-dressed.

Lord Dunraven thus describes the door-way and chancel arch:—

“The door-way at the west end is 7 ft. in height, to the springing of the arch; 2 ft. 10 in. wide at the base, and 2 ft. 8½ in. at the top of the jambs. It is deeply recessed, and of four orders; the two inner jambs are rectangular shafts, the outer are rounded into pillars, with shallow bases and imposts. The external shafts had a plain chamfered abacus, and the hood moulding, or outer arch, terminates with heads of the same character as those in the small church at Rahan. The jambs were richly ornamented with incised chevrons and other designs. The outer arch was enriched with pellets, the inner with chevron blocks, incised with bold lines; the third with heads with rolls in their mouths, or with beak-head, or cat’s-head moulding, deeply undercut, and the front face enriched with incised traceries and chevrons, and pellets upon the soffit of the arch. The door-way had eel-heads terminating the zig-zags, but they are not so distinct as those on M‘Carthy’s Church close by, where they had been covered with accumulated earth until lately.

“The chancel arch, which was of sandstone, was 9 ft. 2 in. wide at the base, and 7 ft. 6 in. in height, to the top of the impost, making the arch about 12 ft. high. It was 15 ft. 6 in. wide from one outer pier to the other.” The ornamentation, mainly consisting of zig-zag and chevron, with a pear-shaped ornament in the inner order, is very striking, and “the capitals and ornaments of the piers,” says Lord Dunraven, “are totally unlike anything in England, and, if taken by themselves, would appear to be of much earlier character than the arch.”

This church was built, as the Four Masters tell us, by Dervorgilla in A.D. 1167. The abduction or flight of that false fair lady took place in A.D. 1152, when MacMurrough caused her to be carried to his own castle of Ferns. But next year Turlough O’Connor led an army against MacMurrough, when Dervorgilla was given up, and restored by that prince to her own friends in Meath, and shortly afterwards was taken back again by her injured husband. It is highly probable that the erring dame built the Church of the Nuns at Clonmacnoise, the foundation of her own royal ancestors, as a penance for her sins; and it may be she found grace and pardon within that holy shrine. She survived her husband several years, and died at the advanced age of 85 in the monastery of Mellifont, to which she had presented many valuable offerings during her long and eventful career.

We have already referred to the sculptured crosses in the graveyard, which are some of the finest specimens of ancient art in this country. But besides these there were numerous other objects of the highest antiquarian interest, which were produced or preserved at Clonmacnoise, to which we shall presently refer.

Under the head of Sculpture we include sculptured gravestones, high crosses, and architectural ornamentation in relief. Clonmacnoise exhibits in its churchyard more sculptured stones, and in greater variety, than all the rest of Ireland together. The first volume of The Christian Inscriptions in the Irish Language, deals exclusively, and very fully, with those found at Clonmacnoise; but as we have already referred to this part of our subject, we shall pass on to give an account of the crosses and architectural ornaments in sculpture at Tuam and Cong, which belong to the artistic School of Clonmacnoise.

The first is the celebrated high Cross of Tuam, now standing in the market place. Of this Dr. Petrie remarks[406] that “it is of far greater magnificence and interest (than the Cross of Cashel); and may justly rank as the finest monument of its class and age remaining in Ireland.” It is made of sandstone, and measures in its pedestal five feet three inches in breadth, and three feet eight inches in height; but including the shaft, which is ten feet long, the entire cross is thirteen feet eight inches high.

On the base, or pedestal, of this cross there are two highly interesting inscriptions in the Irish language, now partly defaced, but still decipherable. One is:—

OR DO U OSSIN; DON DABBAID LASAN DERNAD

“A prayer for O’Hossin (Hessian) for the abbot by whom it was made.” On the opposite side is the following inscription:—

OR DO THOIRDELBUCH U CONCHUBUIR DON ...
IARLATH LAS IN DERNAD INSAE....

That is—“A prayer for Torlough O’Conor; for the (comarb) of Jarlath by whom was made this....”

O’Hoisin, or O’Hessian, referred to in the first inscription, was, as we have said, the first regular Archbishop of Tuam. He succeeded Muireadhach O’Duffy, who died in A.D. 1150, and received the pallium from Cardinal Paparo at the Synod of Kells in A.D. 1152. It is singular, however, that he is not described on the Cross as either bishop or archbishop, but simply as abbot in the one, and as comarb of Jarlath in the other. Hence Petrie conjectures that this Cross was sculptured before O’Hessian became archbishop, and whilst he was yet merely abbot of the monastery of Tuam. There is evidence that he was abbot so early as A.D. 1134, for, according to the Annals of Innisfallen, he was sent on an embassy in that year by King Turlough, to make peace between Connaught and Munster. Therefore Petrie thinks it probable that he became abbot in A.D. 1128, on the death of Muirges O’Nioc, who filled that office before him; and he held the abbacy during the entire period of O’Duffy’s rule as High-bishop of Connaught. We have already seen that Muireadhach succeeded Domhnall O’Duffy in A.D. 1136 or 1137, and ruled over Elphin, Roscommon, Clonmacnoise, and probably Tuam also until A.D. 1150. It appears to be quite clear, therefore, that this beautiful Cross of Tuam was made whilst O’Duffy was High-bishop, and O’Hessian abbot of Tuam. The prayer for Turlough O’Conor seems to imply that the work was constructed at his expense. Petrie thinks that the Cross was erected to commemorate the re-building of the ancient cathedral of Tuam, which was also accomplished at the expense of King Turlough. A slab of sandstone was found within the present cathedral, near the Communion Table, which is supposed to have been designed to commemorate the re-building of the cathedral. It may, however, have been a portion of a second Cross, and, like the other, it contains two inscriptions—one asking a prayer for the Comarb of Jarlath, that is, “for Aed O’Hossin, by whom this Cross was made,” and the other on the obverse of the slab asking a prayer for King Turlough O’Conor, and a prayer for Gillachrist O’Toole, by whom the work was wrought. There were no O’Tooles at this time in Connaught, although, later on, a branch of that tribe settled in Omey Island, on the coast of Connemara. Hence, we are inclined to think that this eminent artist came from Clonmacnoise, if he were not one of the itinerant craftsmen who at this period migrated from place to place, as they do still, for a job. One thing is clear—he was a native Celt, and a skilful workman in his craft, which was that of master sculptor or stone-cutter. The addition of his name shows that the memory of such an artist was deemed worthy of being preserved. And so, in truth, it was, if he executed both these crosses, and the beautiful chancel arch of the cathedral, which fortunately still survives the effect of time’s effacing fingers. The Crucifixion is sculptured on one face of the shaft of the Tuam Cross. The figure of the Saviour is archaic, but very striking. The figure of a bishop is on the other, and what seems to be a funeral procession is on the reverse. There are two figures standing close together, above the inscription on the pedestal of this Cross. One holds in his left hand a pastoral staff—which, however, might designate that the holder was either a bishop or an abbot. Perhaps they are intended to represent Turlough O’Conor and the comarb of Jarlath, whose names were inscribed beneath.

There was a somewhat similar high Cross in the market place of Cong. The original pedestal is there still, with an inscription, recording the names of the artist and patron who caused the Cross to be sculptured. The ancient shaft has disappeared, but its place is supplied by a modern one inserted in the original plinth by a member of the Elwood family, in the year 1822. The inscription is in Irish, but the lettering is of a later type, rather resembling the black letter than that of the Cross of Tuam. It asks “a prayer for Nichol, and for Gilliberd O’Duffy, who was abbot of Cong.” So far as we know there is no mention in our Annals either of Nichol, the artist, or of Gilliberd O’Duffy, the abbot, but it is highly probable that the latter was a member of the same illustrious family that produced so many distinguished ecclesiastics during the twelfth and the early part of the thirteenth century.

Of Cong itself we know nothing from the time of St. Fechin to the year A.D. 1114, when we are told that, like many other religious houses, it was burned in that year. It was then probably rebuilt, for mention is made of the death of Gillaciarain O’Roda, or O’Roddy, erenach of Cunga, in that year. It was he who erected with the help of Turlough O’Conor and the O’Duffys, that noble monastery of Cong, whose ruins, so picturesquely situated at the head of Lough Corrib, lend one of its many features of beauty to that enchanting scene.

There are still to be seen some very interesting architectural remains of the buildings erected during the reign of Turlough in the west of Connaught. Turlough’s reign was red with the blood of many battles, and not altogether free from deeds of revolting cruelty, yet he seems to have been a prince of lofty aims and generous aspirations. He built a bridge over the Shannon at Athlone, apparently for the first time, and another over the same river at a place called Ath Crioch, near Shannon Harbour. He also built a bridge over the river Suck at Ballinasloe; it was then called the Bridge of Dunloe, and was opposite Dunloe Street, in the modern town of Ballinasloe.

But he also did much for ecclesiastical architecture. Cormac M‘Carthy had just built a very beautiful church on the Rock of Cashel, which still bears his name; and it seems that Turlough even in this did not wish to be excelled by his rival and hereditary foe, the Prince of Munster. His first work was probably the re-building of the Cathedral of Tuam, where he had fixed his principal residence. Only a portion of the chancel and chancel arch of that beautiful church now remains; but it is quite enough to give us an idea of what the Irish Romanesque would ultimately become in capable hands. “This chancel,” says Petrie,[407] “is sufficient to make us acquainted with its general style of architecture, and to show that it was not only a larger, but a more splendid structure than Cormac’s Chapel at Cashel, and not unworthy of the powerful monarch to whom it chiefly owed its erection. The chancel is a square of twenty-six feet in external measurement, and the walls are four feet in thickness. Its east end is perforated by three circular headed windows, each five feet in height, and eighteen inches in width externally, but splaying on the inside to the width of five feet.” These windows are richly ornamented with zig-zag and other mouldings, and are connected together by strong course-mouldings, of which the external one is quaintly enriched with pateral, or cup-shaped disks.

The most striking feature, however, of this chancel was the arch opening on the nave, “which is perhaps the most magnificent specimen of its kind remaining in Ireland.” It is composed of no less than six semicircular, concentric, recessed arches of which the innermost is sixteen feet wide and fifteen feet high. The rectangular capitals are richly sculptured in a variety of interlaced traceries, and those surmounting the two jambs are adorned with curious grotesque heads with broad flat faces. The imposts too are richly sculptured in scrolls and other striking designs, and are carried along the face of the wall as tablets. The bases consist of a double plinth and torus moulding, but are otherwise unornamented as befits the solid and majestic character of the building. The arch mouldings display many varieties of ornament—the nebule, diamond, frette, and chevron—and show how the Celtic imagination loved to revel in a great variety of ornamental forms. All the ornamental parts of this peerless chancel arch are executed in red sandstone, which has withstood wonderfully well the wear and tear of time and moisture in that damp atmosphere.

Where did Turlough get the workmen whose teeming brains devised, and whose cunning hands executed this beautiful arch? It has been said that the workmen who built the grand Cistercian monasteries during the latter part of this twelfth century were imported from France and England. Well, be it so. But no one can deny that it was Celtic artists who built and adorned Cormac’s Chapel and Tuam Cathedral; and there has been nothing finer executed in any Cistercian monastery in Ireland or England either. These great monasteries were larger and grander if you will, but certainly not more artistic nor more beautiful.

The ruins of the abbey of Cong are still to be seen and speak for themselves. The ‘neck’ of land on which it was built between the two lakes, Lough Mask and Lough Corrib, gave its name to the abbey. It was rebuilt by the Augustinians under the patronage of Turlough O’Conor, in all probability between the years A.D. 1120 and 1130. The Cistercians about the same period, A.D. 1128, were introduced into England, but had not yet come to Ireland; so that Cong is the connecting link between the indigenous monasteries of the past that grew up with the growth of the Irish Church, and the houses of the foreign orders introduced during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Imar of Armagh formally adopted the Rule of St. Augustine, about the year A.D. 1126, and hence these ancient Irish monasteries came to be called Augustinian houses; but as a matter of fact they were in all respects as purely Celtic and as racy of the soil as the Irish race and the Irish tongue. The Cistercians who came to Mellifont about the year A.D. 1142, were really the first ‘foreign’ order that came to Ireland, and were followed about a century later by the Dominicans and Franciscans. The abbey of Cong was not designed, or executed, or tenanted by any foreigners. It was a purely Celtic house. It was designed most probably by some member of that talented family—the O’Duffys—that afterwards ruled over it for many generations. It was built and adorned under their superintendence by native workmen; and Turlough O’Conor and his unhappy son Roderick, both of whom, especially the latter, loved Cong much, seem to have contributed the greater part of the expense necessary for its erection.

It was built on a scale of great magnificence. The abbey church was 140 feet in length. The east window consisted of three long narrow lights, not lancet-headed, but semicircular, for the Romanesque had no lancets, and where they appear in the Romanesque they are always later insertions.

It has been alleged that the pointed door-arches of Cong show a departure from the Irish Romanesque and indicate foreign origin and a later date than the first quarter of the twelfth century. Even supposing that these arches are coeval with the monastery, a glance at Sir W. Wilde’s illustration will show that they are not lancet-headed like the pure Gothic, but rather indicate the first step of the transition from the Romanesque to the Gothic, which was just beginning at this time to take place in Ireland. The most characteristic features of the existing group of ruins are to be found in the western façade, which appears to have opened on the cloister of the abbey. “It is 80 feet in length and contains a doorway, and two windows with circular arches; also two large and most elaborately ornamented lancet-headed doors, with undercut chevrons along the deep mouldings of the arches, that spring from clustered pillars, the floral capitals of which—all of different patterns—present us with one of the finest specimens of twelfth century stone-work in Ireland.”[408]

With this beautiful abbey are associated many interesting historic memories. It was to this lonely but sweet retreat that Ireland’s last High-king retired to die. He had drawn a sword that could not save his country and his race from the hated dominion of the stranger; he had seen his own children rise up in rebellion against him, and engage in the very face of their country’s enemies in fratricidal strife; he had seen his best-beloved son, O’Conor of Moenmoy, whose bold heart and strong arm were his country’s only hope, slain by “a party of his own people, and of his own tribe;” and now there was nothing left for him but to end an inglorious life by a pious and penitential death. He retired to Cong in A.D. 1183. After the death of his eldest and bravest son, he sought once more to regain his authority in Connaught. But he soon found that

“Authority forgets a dying king,
Laid widow’d of the power in his eye
That bow’d the will.”

He returned once more to his monastic retreat, and there in the year A.D. 1198, “he died amongst the Canons of Cong, after exemplary penance, victorious over the world and the devil. His body was conveyed to Clonmacnoise, and interred at the north side of the altar of the great church.”

In Metal-work the O’Duffys of Tuam and Cong have left us, at least, one memorial that will never perish. The Processional Cross of Cong, the Chalice of Ardagh, and the Tara Brooch, are regarded by all competent judges as the highest effort, each in its own way, of the Celtic art in metal-work. No one knows anything of the Tara Brooch except that it was found in the year 1850 on the sea shore near Drogheda. Neither does the Ardagh Chalice bear the name of the king or workman by whom it was made, nor ask a prayer for his soul’s welfare. We can, however, with tolerable certainty, trace its history; and we shall find that it is a product of the same school of art which produced the remarkable Cross of Cong, to which we now invite the reader’s attention.

It appears that this beautiful Cross of Cong was made originally for the Church of Tuam. It is very probable that some western prelate was present at the first General Council of Lateran, held in A.D. 1123, and that he brought home with him a relic of the true Cross, which, as we are informed in the Annals of Innisfallen, was enshrined in that year by Turlough O’Conor. “A portion of the true Cross came into Ireland and was enshrined at Roscommon by Turlough O’Conor.” The following inscriptions are found on the Cross itself, and corroborate the statement in the Annals of Innisfallen:—

We gather from these inscriptions that the Cross was made to enshrine a particle of the true Cross, on which the Creator of the world suffered. Muireadhach O’Duffy, to whom we have already referred, is here described as senior of Erin, and one of those who co-operated in this work. He has been described by the Four Masters as “chief senior of Ireland in wisdom and chastity, and the bestowal of jewels and food.” He was afterwards promoted to the position of High-bishop of Connaught, but at this period we cannot say what office he held, if he were not abbot of the monastery and head of the School of Tuam. Of King Turlough, “for whom this shrine was made,” we have already spoken. Domhnall MacFlanagan O’Duffy, “under whose superintendence this shrine was made” at Roscommon, is described as successor of Coman and Ciaran, and Bishop of Connaught. We know from the Annals of Lough Cé that he was then Bishop of Elphin. Perhaps he was afterwards translated to Tuam, and then took the title of Bishop of Connaught. It is highly probable, too, that he brought this shrine along with him from Elphin to Tuam. Of this translation, however, there is no record. Lastly, a prayer is asked for Maelisu Mac Bratdan O’Echan (or Egan), the artist who made this shrine. He was comarb of St. Finnen of Clooncraff, County Roscommon.

It will hardly be contended that O’Echan was anything but a pure Roscommon Celt. The Mac Egans were from time immemorial Brehons in various parts of Connaught, and afterwards in Ormond, in the County Tipperary. It is not unlikely that the artist who made the “Cross of Cong” was a member of this most distinguished literary family.

The shaft of the cross is 2 ft. 6 in. high; the breadth across the arms is 1 ft. 6¾ in. It was made of oak, covered with eight copper plates, and one plate of brass, all adorned with a richly interwoven tracery. “On the central plate on the face, at the junction of the arms, is a boss surmounted by a convex crystal. Thirteen jewels remain of the eighteen which were disposed at regular intervals along the edges, and on the face of the shaft and arms, the spaces are visible for nine others, which were placed at intervals down the centre. Two beads remain of four settings which surrounded the central boss. The shaft terminates below in the grotesque head of an animal, beneath which it is attached to a spherically ornamented ball, surmounting the socket, in which was inserted the pole or shaft for carrying the cross.”[409]

Such is the description given by Miss Stokes of the Cross of Cong. But no description can convey an adequate idea of the rare beauty of this peerless cross. It must be seen to be appreciated. It has been conjectured that it was taken from Tuam to Cong either by Archbishop Muireadhach O’Duffy, who died in Cong A.D. 1150, as we have already seen, or, perhaps, by King Roderick O’Conor, who also ended his chequered life in the same holy retreat, nearly forty years later. It was found by Father Prendergast, P.P., the last Abbot of Cong, in an old oaken chest in Cong, and was purchased from his successor by Professor M‘Cullagh, who presented it to the Royal Irish Academy in 1839.

The Chalice of Ardagh, which has been pronounced to be “the most beautiful example of Celtic art ever yet found,” also appears to have been a product of the School of Clonmacnoise[410] during the abbacy of the O’Duffys.

It is a two-handed chalice, probably used for the Communion of the laity at a time when the Eucharist was still administered under both species of bread and wine. It is seven inches high, and nine one-half inches in diameter across the mouth; the bowl is four inches deep, and was capable of containing about three pints. The cup is composed of gold, silver, brass, bronze, copper, and lead. The upper rim is of brass, much decayed and split from some local action on that particular alloy; but the bowl itself is of silver, the standard value of which is four shillings per ounce. There is a beautiful band running round the bowl, which contains the names of the Twelve Apostles engraved in uncial letters of the eleventh century. No description can convey an adequate idea of the exquisite beauty of this chalice. It comprised no less than 354 different pieces, put together with the nicest ingenuity, and exhibiting almost every variety of Celtic ornamentation. Yet the leading impression produced by the view of this beautiful cup is chaste and classic elegance of design, combined with admirable beauty of form, and delicacy of execution.

The history of this wonderful chalice, now preserved in the Royal Irish Academy, is very curious, and points to Roscommon or Clonmacnoise as the place where it was wrought.

We are informed in the Chronicon Scotorum that “Turlough O’Conor presented three precious things to Ciaran at Cluain, viz., a drinking horn inlaid with gold, a silver cup with gold, and a patena of copper with gold and silver.” This cup, with its mullocc or patena, was, of course, a chalice; and it was kept for use on the high altar of Clonmacnoise until A.D. 1125; “when the altar of the great stone church of Clonmacnoise was opened, and precious things were taken out of it, that is—the carrachan, or model of Solomon’s Temple—it was probably a tabernacle—which was given by Maelsechlainn, son of Domhnall, and the cuidin of Donnchadh, son of Flann, and the three articles which Turlough O’Conor gave, that is—a silver goblet and a silver cup, with a golden cross over it, and a drinking horn with gold—and the drinking horn of Ua Riata, King of Aradh, and a silver chalice with a burnishing of gold, and an engraving and the silver cup of Ceallach, Comarb of Patrick.”

But shortly after all these precious articles were ‘revealed against the Foreigners of Luimnech,’ after having been stolen by Gillacomghain; and he was hanged for stealing them, at Dun Cluana Ithair, having been given up for that purpose by Conor O’Brian, King of Munster. The thief thought to make his escape from Cork, Lismore, and Waterford; but Ciaran always stopped the vessel in which he embarked to cross the sea, so that she could get no wind to fill her sails; and the wretch made a dying declaration at the gallows that he had seen Ciaran with his crozier stopping every ship in which he attempted to escape.

Now it is a curious fact that the Chalice of Ardagh was dug up from the edge of a rath called Reerasta, close to the village of Ardagh, in the County Limerick, and other smaller golden cups, with five fibulae, were found on the same occasion. Were they secreted there by Gillacomghain, or some of his accomplices, the Danes of Limerick, for we are not told that the family of Clonmacnoise recovered all the plunder? There is a local tradition that Reerasta was occupied by the Danes of Luimnech; and also that in later times Mass was often celebrated there. It may be then, if not secreted by the Danes, that the chalice was given by the family of Cluain to some of the clergy in the neighbourhood when the thieves were discovered, and that they used it for celebrating Mass in this place during the times of persecution, and secreted the chalice on some occasion when forced to fly for their lives.

It is highly probable, therefore, that this beautiful cup was stolen from Clonmacnoise, was secreted at Reerasta, and was accidentally found, as already described, by a young man, who was digging a portion of the old fort which had been levelled for the purpose of tillage.[411] The artist who made the Cross of Cong for King Turlough, was equally well qualified to make the Ardagh chalice. He was, as we have seen, a native of the County Roscommon, he wrought the Cross for King Turlough O’Conor, under the superintendence of Domhnall Mac Flanagan O’Duffy, Bishop of Connaught or Elphin, and Abbot of Roscommon and Clonmacnoise. It is clear that the chalice was made before Mac Egan made the Cross of Cong, yet in all probability it would be difficult to find in all Ireland a second artist who would be capable of executing metal-work with such marvellous fertility of design and delicacy of execution. We think that, on the whole, the evidence justifies us in concluding that it was owing to the munificence of Turlough O’Conor, and the intelligent patronage of the O’Duffys, that this great Western School of Art was created and fostered, which has left so many memorials of its artistic genius at Clonmacnoise Tuam, Boyle, and Cong.

Another most interesting piece of metal-work is the shrine of St. Manchan of Lemanaghan, which seems to have been also a product of the Clonmacnoise School of Art. St. Manchan himself died of the plague in A.D. 664, most likely at his own cell in Lemanaghan which takes its name from the saint—“the grey land of Manchan.” Not inappropriately either, for it was built on a gravelly ridge surrounded by a waste of brown bog, so that the contrast between the colouring of the ridge and the bog is very striking. It is situated about three miles north-east of Ferbane, in the King’s County, on the right of the road to Clara. The remains of Manchan’s cell are still to be seen, and three blessed wells are also close at hand.

In O’Reilly’s Irish Writers, Manchan is set down as the author of a Latin Treatise, De Mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae, which has been printed amongst the works of St. Augustine. But Dr. Reeves has shown[412] that this treatise on the Wonders of Holy Scripture must rather be assigned to an Irish monk of the seventh century named Augustine, of whom hardly anything else is known.

St. Manchan is much better known to moderns on account of the famous shrine or reliquary, which appears to contain some fragments of the bones of the saint, and is, undoubtedly, one of the most beautiful productions of Celtic art, as it has always been considered—opus pulcherrimum quod fecit opifex in Hibernia.[413] The Four Masters bear emphatic testimony to the same effect. A.D. 1166.—“The shrine of Manchan of Maothail (Mohill) was covered by Rory O’Conor, and an embroidering of gold was carried over it by him, in as good a style as a relic was ever covered in Ireland.” St. Manchan had another oratory at Mohill, County Leitrim.

This shrine is at present preserved in the Catholic Church of Boher, near the Prospect Railway Station, on the Athlone and Portarlington line; and a fac-simile may be seen in the Royal Irish Academy. We need not describe it at length here. It is in the usual form of such Celtic shrines, somewhat like the roof of a house—24 inches long, 15 broad, and 19 inches high. On each side there is a large and beautiful cross composed of five bosses, at the extremities elaborately ornamented, and united by the arms of the cross which were covered with plates of enamel, fixed in a yellow ground with red border lines. Above and below the crosses there must have been originally as many as fifty human figures, but at present only ten remain. The metal work throughout was richly gilt, and ornamented with the usual interlaced figures, characteristic of our Celtic ornamentation.

When the shrine was opened it was found to contain a few small fragments of bones, and some pieces of the original box of yew in which they were enclosed, with a few of the silver plates which adorned the original reliquary. As Lemanaghan was originally given to Clonmacnoise as an “Altar-sod,” about the year A.D. 645, there can hardly be any doubt that St. Manchan was sent from Clonmacnoise to occupy it, and that it always continued to be a daughter of Clonmacnoise. Hence we are justified in concluding that Rory O’Conor had this beautiful work of art executed by some of the cerds of that famous monastery.

CHAPTER XXIII.

The exact place and date of his birth cannot be ascertained, but that he was an Irishman may not for a moment be questioned. In the first place we have the express testimony of the celebrated Alcuin, an almost contemporary writer, who declares that Virgilius was born, reared, and educated in Ireland.[414] Then the author of the poetical epitaph over Virgilius, in his own church of Salzburg, bears the same testimony,[415] affirming that it was the ‘Hibernian land’ that sent him, under God’s guidance, to Salzburg. His Life, too, written about the year A.D. 1190, by a disciple of Ebenhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, expressly affirms the Irish birth of Virgilius; and such, we may add, has been the unvarying tradition of the church and city of Salzburg.

In our domestic Annals we have first the testimony of the Four Masters, who, A.D. 784, record that “Ferghil, i.e., the Geometer, abbot of Achadh-bo, died in Germany in the thirteenth year of his bishopric;” and as we shall presently see, this was the date of the death of Virgil, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and thirteen years was the duration of his episcopacy. In the Annals of Ulster, under date of A.D. 788, we find that:—“Fergil, abbot of Achadh-bo, died”—the year corresponds to A.D. 784 of the Four Masters, and that appears to be the true date.

There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that Virgilius of the Latin is equivalent to Fergil of the Irish, as the root-words sufficiently imply; and that Ferghil the Geometer, who died in Germany as a bishop, having been previously abbot of Aghaboe, is the celebrated Virgilius, Archbishop of Salzburg, so widely known to fame as an astronomer and theologian.

Virgil, with a few companions from Ireland, one of whom was a priest—Sidonius or Sedna—arrived in France about the year A.D. 741—the year in which Charles Martel died, and was succeeded in his office of mayor of the palace by the famous Pepin le Bref, father of the still more renowned Charlemagne. Virgil spent some two or three years in the Court of Pepin, who sent him, about A.D. 743, with strong letters of recommendation to the Court of Ottilo, Duke of Bavaria. At this period Bavaria had been partially converted to the faith, by the zealous labours of St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, afterwards Archbishop of Mentz and Legate of the Apostolic See. Much, however, still remained to be done; and it was the wish of Pepin that Duke Ottilo should avail himself of the services of the two Irish priests, of whose zeal and learning he had ample proofs in the conversion of his own half-Christian subjects. The duke received the friends of Pepin with much consideration; for he seems to have kept them near himself, and entrusted them with his confidence, as we may fairly infer from subsequent events.

The zeal of the Irishmen, however, soon got them into trouble; but what was a source of trouble to them has since proved a useful lesson to all theologians of the Church.

Many of the priests of the period in Germany were by no means learned; so it happened that one of them when baptizing a catechumen made use of this form:—“Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritua Sancta”—which even a boy learning the Latin Grammar can perceive is very different from the orthodox form. The case was referred to Boniface, who declared that the baptism was invalid, and ordered those so baptized to be baptized again. Virgil and his friend, Sidonius, afterwards Archbishop of Bavaria, knew how jealous the Church has always been about re-baptizing those once validly baptized; and they declared that in their opinion the baptism in question was valid. Boniface, however, persisted in his opinion. He was, as he himself says, an Englishman from Saxonia transmarina—and though it is highly probable that he was of Irish origin, he did not wish to accept the teaching of the Irish theologians on this occasion. So the matter was referred to Rome; and it so happened that Pope Zachary, a Calabrian Greek, and a man, too, of great learning and holiness, then filled the Chair of St. Peter. His decision, sent by letter to Boniface, declares distinctly that if the minister of the sacrament, through ignorance of Latin, and not from any heretical purpose of introducing a new form, pronounced the words as given above, the baptism must be held to be valid.[416]

This clear and emphatic expression of Catholic doctrine, as every theological student knows, we owe to Virgil and Sidonius. They rightly deemed that this error in the form was not substantial but accidental; it was not introduced from malice, with a view to pervert the form of the sacrament, but from ignorance; the priest evidently had the intention of doing what the Church does; he corrupted the integrity of the form, but it remained perfectly intelligible to any bystander acquainted with the Latin language, and hence the baptism itself was valid.

Boniface yielded prompt obedience to the Apostolic See, but, although a saint and martyr, he felt sore at the victory gained over him by the Irish strangers,[417] who intruded into his spiritual domain, and seemed to supplant him in favour with the Duke Otillo. And, no doubt, there were not wanting interested parties who strove to foment dissensions between these two saints and servants of God. No one, indeed, who knows the history of Boniface, will endorse the spiteful remark of Basnage that he was—“Vir si quis unquam superbus sive zelotes.” But he was human like others, and his own letters clearly showed that he felt keenly the victory of Virgil. He waited, however, for a while, and then sent a friend of his, Buchardus of Wirzburg, to Rome with letters for the Pope, in which he brought four serious charges against Virgil. He accused him, as we know from the Pope’s answer, first, that this Virgil was making malicious accusations against him, Boniface, because he had been convicted by Boniface of teaching erroneous doctrine;[418] secondly, Boniface charged him with whispering false things to the Duke, with a view of sowing dissension between him, Boniface, and the Duke;[419] thirdly, he accused Virgil of giving out that he was dismissed by the Pope from Rome,[420] in order to get one of the four bishoprics of Bavaria just then vacant. Lastly, he brings against him the most formidable charge of all, that Virgil taught that there was another world, and other men under the earth, and another sun and moon.[421] And, in the same letter, Boniface complains that a certain Samson, an Irishman—“genere Scottus”—erred from the way of truth, teaching that a man could become a Christian merely by the imposition of hands, without baptism. Clearly Boniface was hard on the Irishmen then in Bavaria; and the whole tone of the letter shows that he had not forgotten his previous contest with Virgil and Sidonius.

The Pope in his answer deals with these charges with the greatest prudence. He had very great respect for Boniface, but it is clear he is not prepared to accept all his statements without proof. He makes no special remark on the two first charges, for they could be easily explained. But, as to the third, he declares that the alleged statement of Virgil is false, that he was not (absolutus) dismissed, or sent home by the Pope in order to get a bishopric in Bavaria. Indeed, as to this charge, there is no evidence that Virgil was ever in Rome at all; but it is highly probable that both Pepin and Ottilo were anxious for his advancement to a See in Bavaria, and that their zeal was attributed to the time-serving ambition of Virgil himself. The charge is entirely inconsistent with his character; and it is hardly necessary to observe that it is no proof of its truth that it was made in these letters sent to Rome by Boniface. Too many unfounded charges of the kind have been made in Rome both since and before.

As regards the fourth charge, that of teaching that there was another world, and other men, and another sun and moon, it deserves fuller notice at our hands.

It is clear that Virgil held the doctrine of the Antipodes, and that Boniface, not unwilling to find him erring in doctrine, formulated his teaching as above. The words of the Pope thereupon are noteworthy.[422] “Concerning this charge of false doctrine, if it shall be established,” says the Pope, “that Virgil taught this perverse and wicked doctrine against God and his own soul, do you then convoke a council, degrade him from the priesthood, and drive him from the Church.” But what is this doctrine as represented to the Pope? Certainly not that taught by Virgil, and which he learned in the schools of his native land. The doctrine censured by the Pope, was that there is another world, and another race of men quite different from us, not children of Adam, and hence not redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This was the sense in which the Pope understood the doctrine of the Antipodes, this was the sense in which it was understood by St. Augustine, and for that reason reprobated by him as well as by the Pope. And the very words, in which the accusation against Virgilius is formulated, clearly point to this “perverse and wicked” teaching. The truth of the matter was, that neither Boniface nor the Pope knew astronomy as well as Virgil, and hence they imagined he taught doctrines which were quite different from his real opinions.

It is well to observe that great diversity of opinion prevailed concerning the existence of Antipodes, both amongst the ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church.

Plato is said to have been the first who held the existence of Antipodes, and used the word in its present signification. But there is no evidence that he himself believed in their actual existence, even though he invented the term which so accurately describes them.

Lactantius, however, in his treatise “De falsa Sapientia Philosophorum,” ridicules the notion of Antipodes, and, as he clearly regards it as a philosophical error, we may fairly conclude that some of the ancient philosophers taught their existence.

It would be easy enough to show how unpalatable the doctrine of the Antipodes was to the ecclesiastical authorities of the eighth century; and in what sense the Pope must have understood the alleged teaching of St. Virgilius. What the Pope declared to be perverse and wicked doctrine—not heretical—was that there is another world, and another race of men—alii homines—and therefore not Sons of Adam, and another sun and moon to shine upon them. But this certainly was not the teaching of Virgilius, for according to him it was the same world, and the same sun and moon, and the same race of men who dwelt in the opposite regions of the world.

Virgil must have, in his own defence, explained the real meaning of his words to the satisfaction of the Pope, for we find no further mention of the controversy; and we know, too, that in a short time afterwards he was promoted to the See of Salzburg, which would certainly not be sanctioned in Rome if they had any suspicion of his doctrine.

Pagi, indeed, holds that there must have been two different Virgils, one who had the dispute with St. Boniface, and another who was Bishop of Salzburg; and yet he admits that both were in Bavaria in A.D. 746. This hypothesis is intrinsically improbable, and altogether unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the only reason given by Pagi is the silence of the writer of Virgil’s Life, published by Canisius, regarding the disputes with Boniface. But the answer is quite simple: the writer of the Life gives very few facts, although he narrates many miracles; and hence from his silence we can infer nothing against the generally received opinion.

Pagi also alleges that Virgil was the fifth Bishop of Salzburg. Here, again, however, he is mistaken, at least if we are to credit the author of the second Life given by Canisius, who makes him the eighth bishop after St. Rudbert. Other writers, however, make him fifth after the founder of the See, following the anonymous author of an old poem on the Bishops of Salzburg, who describes them as:—

“Advena Virgilius statuens quam plurima quintus,
Multo plura quaerens Arno super omnia sextus.”

It is almost impossible to fix the exact year in which Virgilius became Bishop of Salzburg. The metrical epitaph on his tomb declares that for nearly forty years he ruled the church of Salzburg; and as the latest year assigned for his death is A.D. 785, this would bring the beginning of his episcopacy before A.D. 750. Another account represents him as consecrated by St. Stephen, successor of Zachary; and as the former did not begin his reign until A.D. 752, we must place the beginning of Virgil’s episcopacy after that event. As he spent some years abbot of St. Peter’s Monastery in Salzburg before he became bishop, the date given in his Life, written by the disciple of St. Ebenhard, towards the end of the twelfth century, is much more probable—that he was consecrated bishop in succession to John in A.D. 766 or 767. The same writer tells us that for two years after his nomination to the See, he continued to refuse the appointment; and that during this time the duties of the episcopal office were performed by a bishop called Dowd, Dobda, a countryman of the saint, who seems to have come with him from Ireland. At last he was prevailed upon to allow himself to be consecrated, but he yielded only to the earnest entreaties of all the neighbouring prelates.

His life was spent in unceasing labour, not only for his own flock, but for the conversion of the neighbouring provinces, especially Carinthia, which was still pagan. He not only sent missionaries to preach the Gospel amongst these half-civilized people, but towards the close of his life he himself paid frequent visits to the newly-established churches, and did much to confirm them in the faith. Hence Virgilius is venerated to this day as the Apostle of Carinthia.

He rebuilt the monastery of St. Peter in a style of great magnificence, for he always loved the good monks of St. Benedict, who had chosen the Irish stranger to be their abbot and father; and when he died, he left his bones amongst them. He also built a stately church in honour of St. Stephen, and a splendid basilica dedicated to St. Rudbert, which he made the cathedral of the diocese, and to which he translated the relics of that saint, the founder and first bishop of the church of Salzburg.[423] When he had these great works completed, he set out on a missionary journey amongst the neighbouring tribes; but finding his end approaching, “he quickly returned,” says the writer of his life:—

“And when he came in view of his beloved Salzburg, and its encircling hills, he began to weep copious tears, and he cried out—Haec requies mea, hic habitabo quoniam elegi eam—and having celebrated the Holy Sacrifice, he died without pain—leni correptus morbo—on the fifth day before the Kalends of December, A.D. 784; or according to another, but less probable account, in A.D. 780. His body was buried in the southern wing of the monastery which he himself had spent twelve years in building. There he was honourably buried as became a great High Priest, and his soul went up to enjoy the fellowship of heavenly citizens for endless ages.”

We hear no more of St. Virgil for four hundred years, until near the end of the twelfth century, when his Life was written by one who was himself a witness of many of the facts which he relates. “In the year of our Lord’s Incarnation, A.D. 1171,” he says in the opening paragraph:—

“On the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the twenty-first year of the Pontificate of our Lord Pope Alexander III., the most Serene Prince Frederic being august Emperor of the Romans, and Otto of Witelenspach, most renowned Duke of Bavaria; when the edifice of the aforesaid monastery of St. Peter, which had some years before been destroyed by fire, was being rebuilt at the expense and by the command of the illustrious Pastor Chunrad, Archbishop of Salzburg, Legate of the Apostolic See in Germany, and Cardinal Priest of St. Marcellus, through the co-operating grace of the Holy Spirit, and the suffragant clemency of the Divine Majesty, it came to pass that the body of the blessed Virgilius, which had been hidden from all persons for many centuries, was wonderfully brought to light.”

“It happened on a certain day that some stones having fallen from the wall, gave an opportunity to the passers-by to look into the opening, in which they noticed signs of a hollow space, and the outlines of an ancient picture were observed drawn in gold. Thereupon the canons of the church made an investigation; and upon further opening the wall, the tomb and image (depicta imago) of St. Virgilius, eighth Bishop of Salzburg after St. Rudbert, was discovered, with the following inscription:—‘Virgilius templum construxit schemate pulchro.’ And moreover the day of his death was marked, the fifth before the Kalends of December (27th Nov.) Anno 781.”

Then the writer goes on to narrate how the archbishop and the clergy, and all citizens, crowded to the tomb to venerate the sacred relics; and he gives a long list of most extraordinary miracles which were daily performed at the tomb, but which we cannot stay to transcribe.

The name of St. Virgilius is not found in the Roman Martyrology, says Basnage, but he is always spoken of as a saint in the Annals of the Benedictines; and in the Canons of a Council of Salzburg, held in A.D. 1274, the assembled prelates declare that they recognise Rudbert, Virgil, and Augustine, as the patrons of that church, and command, under penalty of excommunication, their feast days to be kept as holidays. It is hardly necessary to add that the festival of Virgilius, Bishop and Confessor, is celebrated by the Irish Church on the 27th November.[424]

II.—Sedulius, Commentator on Scripture.

Another eminent Irish scholar of the Dispersion was Sedulius, the Commentator on Scripture. Sedulius the Elder, of whom we have already spoken at length, is known as the Poet; the present Sedulius is, for the sake of distinction, commonly called Sedulius the Younger, or the Commentator.

Of his personal history unfortunately we know only two facts—first, that he was an Irishman; and secondly, that he was, as his writings abundantly prove, a most distinguished scholar. We cannot even identify him for certain amongst the many Irish scholars, who are known to have borne this name during the eighth and ninth centuries.

There was a Sedulius, who is supposed to have been Bishop of Strathclyde in Scotland, and who was certainly present at a Council held in Rome, A.D. 721.[425] He describes himself under his own hand as a British Bishop of Irish birth;[426] and he was accompanied by another prelate who calls himself Fergustus Episcopus Scotiae Pictus—that is a Pictish Bishop of Scotia, which at that time must mean a Bishop of the Irish Picts. Both happened to be in Rome together, and were invited to assist at this Council and subscribe their names. It is another of the many proofs that indicate the close union between Rome and the Celtic Churches at this period.

The Four Masters, A.D. 785 (recte 789), make mention of the death of Siadhal, or Sedulius, ‘Abbot of Dublin.’ The same entry (A.D. 789) is in the Annals of Ulster, but in the Martyrology of Donegal he is described as Bishop of Dublin, and in the Tallaght Martyrology on the same day (12th Feb.) he is simply called ‘Siadal Bishop;’ but nothing more is known about him. If there was a Bishop in Dublin, there certainly was no See of Dublin at this period; for the See was certainly of Danish origin.

There was also a Siadhail, abbot and Bishop of Roscommon, who died in A.D. 813.[427] Another Siadhail, or Sedulius, who died in A.D. 828, was abbot of Kildare; and according to Lanigan he was ‘unquestionably’ the author of the Commentaries, which are ascribed by all the learned to some Irishman of that name, who flourished about this period. Lanigan, however, has given no satisfactory evidence of this ‘unquestionable’ fact; and although it is quite possible that Sedulius of Kildare may have been the author of the Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles, it is just quite as possible that he was Sedulius, the Bishop-abbot of Roscommon, or some Hibernian exile of the same period, who flourished in the Schools of France or Italy.

Whoever he was, he was certainly a learned man. Montfaucon has preserved a Greek psalter,[428] written by this Sedulius, which is of itself quite satisfactory evidence of his Greek scholarship. He was besides an accomplished Latin poet, and his patristic lore is simply marvellous. No doubt his work as a commentator consists, to a very large extent, of extracts from the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin; but so does every commentary of the kind worth reading. Where commentators begin to be original, they generally cease to be orthodox. At best their learning can only succeed in putting the old truths in a new way. It has been insinuated[429] that Sedulius in his Commentaries on St. Paul adopted what are now called Calvinistic views about grace and predestination. There is not a shadow of foundation for the charge, except that Sedulius quotes and approves of the teaching of St. Augustine. But how far St. Augustine was from holding such views, it is quite unnecessary to show in this place. These Commentaries on St. Paul are really very valuable, and even at this day are worthy of careful study.

Besides the Commentaries on St. Paul, Sedulius also wrote a Commentary on St. Matthew, the proper title of which is—Collectaneum Sedulii in Mattheum ex diversis Patribus excerptum. He is also said to have written a grammatical commentary on Priscian, and on the Secunda Editio of Donatus, works which were both in common use in the ancient schools of Ireland. He was somewhat of a politician also, and wrote a treatise on Politics in Aristotle’s sense, not referred to by Lanigan, for it was only discovered in comparatively recent times by Cardinal Mai in the Vatican, and has been published by him in the ninth tome of his Nova Collectio Scriptorum. Everything goes to show that he was a man of the very widest culture attainable in that age, and that he, like Virgilius and John Scotus Erigena, of whom we are now about to speak, acquired that culture in the schools of his native land.

III.—John Scotus Erigena.

John Scotus Erigena, a man of Irish birth and education, was by far the most distinguished scholar of the ninth century in Western Europe. He was at once theologian, philosopher, and poet; he could write Greek verses and expound the Scriptures in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; he was familiar with Aristotle and Plato, as well as with St. Basil and St. Augustine, and was not only rector of the Royal School of Paris, but is also said to have been professor of dialectics and mathematics. He was known as the “Master” by excellence, and was spoken of as a “miracle of knowledge.” Even in our own time critics of great name have ranked Scotus with Chrysostom, Dante, and Thomas of Aquin, partly from the beauty and sublimity of his thoughts, partly from the originality, depth, and subtlety of his philosophical speculations. No doubt he erred seriously, and was censured justly. He erred, however, not in the spirit of Luther and Calvin, but of Origen and St. Cyprian; for one who ought to know, and was no great friend to the Irish stranger, has attested that he was in all things a holy and humble man, filled with the Spirit of God. But he sailed through unknown seas where there was no chart to guide him. His daring spirit, soaring on strong pinions, essayed untravelled realms of thought, and in the quest of truth he often followed wandering fires; yet, as he himself tells us, in the light of God’s revelation and the strength of His grace, the wearied spirit always found its homeward way again. He was in reality the first of the schoolmen, and his very errors, like the wanderings of every explorer of a new country, served to guide those who came after him. Moreover, he has been censured not only for his real errors, but for doctrines which he never held, although condemned under his name; and so it came to pass that he was unduly blamed by those who knew little of his history and less of his teaching, and unduly praised, we think, by those who are much more ready to eulogise him for his errors than for his virtues.

Like many other good things which Ireland has produced, both England and Scotland have striven to make Scotus their own. Thomas Dempster, the saint-stealer, in his Menologium Scotorum, published in A.D. 1621, and dedicated to Cardinal Barberini, has endeavoured to prove that Scotus Erigena was a native of North Britain; as, however, his arguments are founded on the similarity in sound between Ayr and Erigena and between Scotus and Scot, we need not now refute them at length. Thomas Gale, an Englishman, who was the first to publish at Oxford, in A.D. 1681, Scotus’ treatise, De Divisione Naturae, maintains that he was of English birth, and was born at a place called Eringen or Ergerne, in Herefordshire, as that name is very like Erigena—for he gives no other shadow of positive proof! It is now superfluous to show at length, what all modern scholars admit, that “Scotus,” in the ninth century, and even down to the eleventh century, was exactly equivalent to “Irishman” now, although of course even then they sometimes spoke of the “Scoti of Alba” as we speak of the “Irish of Glasgow” at present. But when used alone in those early centuries the terms “Scoti” and “Scotia” were applied exclusively to the primitive race and their dwelling-place—the Milesian Scots of Ireland, of whom the Albanian Scots were a colony. In A.D. 812, before the birth of Scotus, Eginhard, the secretary of Charlemagne, says that a fleet of Normans invaded Ireland, “the island of the Scots;” and, after the death of Scotus, Alfred the Great, in his translation of Orosius, speaks of Ireland as “Hibernia, which we call Scotland.” So the very name John Scotus is the same as John the Irishman, and this name was given to him by all his contemporaries. Pope Nicholas I. calls him, in a letter to King Charles, “Joannes genere Scotus,” and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who knew him intimately, calls him “Scotus” and “Scotigena,” or Irish-born. But what settles the question is the way in which Prudentius, in his treatise on Predestination, speaks of Scotus, for Prudentius says he was himself the friend of Scotus—quasi frater—he lived some time with him in the palace of the king, and no one could know better whence Scotus came. “Te Solum,” says Prudentius, “omnium acutissimum Galliae transmissit Hibernia.” So it was Ireland, then, and not England or Scotland, sent him over to France. Later on in the eleventh century when, after the fusion of the Picts and Scots into one nation, Scotia came to signify Scotland, the cognomen Erigena was given to Scotus to signify that he was not an Albanian but an Irish Scot. We do not find, however, that any of his contemporaries gave him that name, and the form Erigena, from which Dempster infers his Caledonian origin, is not found in any existing MS. copy of his works. In most of them it is written Ierugena, which Dr. Floss, the learned editor of the works of Scotus, published in Migne’s Patrology, thinks is derived from the Greek, and signifies “native of the sacred isle”—insula sanctorum. But although Scotus himself was certainly fond of Greek compounds, very few scholars of the tenth and eleventh centuries were able to make them. For our own part we should prefer to adopt the reading Eirugena, which is found in the Florentine and Darmstad manuscripts as being a far simpler and more natural form. Eriu is the older nominative, and its vowel termination would render it better adapted to form a compound than the genitive form Erin, and thus we get Eriugena, which no doubt would very soon be contracted into Erigena.

Unfortunately we know neither the exact date of Erigena’s birth, nor where he was born and educated. We find him an inmate of the palace of Charles the Bald in A.D. 851, when he published his book on Predestination. He must have been at that time some time in France, for he was then well known as a distinguished scholar, so that if we assume that he was born about A.D. 820, and came to France about A.D. 850, we cannot be very far astray. We know from a letter of Eric of Auxerre to Charles the Bald, that a crowd of Hibernian philosophers came to France, attracted by the liberality of that prince, and driven out of their own country by the invasion of the Danes.[430] All the Irish annalists tell us that from A.D. 815 to 845 the Danes under Turgesius plundered, desolated, and burned the whole country, but especially the churches, monasteries, and schools. In A.D. 843 “Turgesius plundered Connaught, Meath, and Clonmacnoise with its oratories;” in the same year “Forannen, the Primate of Armagh, was taken prisoner, with his relics and people” (to the number of 3,000), “and they were carried by the Danes to their ships at Limerick.” It is easy to see how young Scotus might be captured by the foreigners, and succeed in making his escape to France, or seek an asylum there, most probably either in this or the next year.

Charles the Bald, son of Louis le Debonaire, and grandson of Charlemagne, was at this time king of Northern France and Burgundy. He had few of the kingly virtues of his great grandsire, but he was a zealous patron of literature, very fond of theological discussions, was present at many French Councils, and on the whole, was far better fitted by nature to be a monk than a monarch. He received the young Irish scholar with great kindness, and treated him with marked distinction. Scotus had apartments in the palace, was made Capital, or head, of the Scholæ Palatinæ, and frequently admitted to the royal table. He was a great Greek scholar, and the king wanted him to translate into Latin the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, a task which none of his subjects was able to accomplish. Moreover, the Irishman was witty as well as wise, and the king loved a joke quite as much as he loved learning. William of Malmesbury has preserved two of the witticisms of Scotus. On one occasion, when the wine was going round the table, the Irishman by some word or act offended against the etiquette due to royalty. The king, who was sitting opposite to Scotus, good-humouredly rebuked him by asking—“Quid interest inter Scottum et Sottum?” “Tabula tantum,” says the witty Hibernian, and the monarch greatly enjoyed this turning of the tables against himself. On another occasion, Scotus was dining at the table of the king with two other clerics. We cannot, indeed, ascertain for certain whether Scotus himself was a cleric or not; he certainly does not appear to have been a priest. These two clerics were very big men, and Scotus was, like some other great men, very small. Three fishes were brought in by an attendant—one small and two large ones. The king beckoned Scotus to divide the fish with his companions. Scotus did so, giving them the small one, and keeping for himself the two big ones. The king protested against the unfair division. “It is perfectly fair, my Lord the King,” said Scotus, “for here,” pointing to himself and his plate, “we have one small and two big, and there,” pointing to his companions, “they have two big and one small.” The king laughed, and probably a fairer division was afterwards made by Scotus.

He might have long enjoyed his honours and emoluments in the palace in peace if he were prudent. But just at this period two fierce theological disputes arose in France, and either his friends at court, or his Irish blood, prompted him to mingle in the mêlée.

Just about the time when Erigena arrived in France, began the first and the warmest controversy of the ninth century concerning the abstruse question of Predestination. Most of the French bishops and theologians took part in this discussion, which was hotly debated for twelve years. Its author was a Benedictine monk, of the famous abbey of Fulda, who was called Gotteschalk, or Servant of God. Raban Maur, one of the most learned men of his own time, and for many years head of the great School of Fulda, who was now Archbishop of Mayence, cited Gotteschalk to appear before a Synod and account for his doctrinal novelties. The Council was held on the 1st of October, A.D. 848. Gotteschalk did appear in person, and handed in a profession of faith, which, according to Hincmar, was undoubtedly erroneous.

He was accordingly condemned by the Council, and Raban wrote a letter to Hincmar to inform him that a vagabond monk (gyrovagus), of the diocese of Soissons, held heretical doctrine, and was condemned by the Synod with the approbation of King Louis. He also requests Hincmar to convene a Synod in his own diocese, and condemn his doctrines in like manner. Hincmar was not slow in following this advice. That great bishop, for more than thirty years the central figure of the French Church, was in every way qualified to fill the high place which he occupied as the first prelate and peer in France. He was learned, eloquent, and resolute, a lasting friend, and, to those whom he considered in the wrong, an unrelenting foe. In his youth he had been a monk of the great Abbey of St. Denis, so that between Raban Maur, a Benedictine monk of Fulda, and Hincmar, a Benedictine of St. Denis, the former now the most powerful prince-bishop in Germany, and the latter the first prelate in France, the unfortunate Gotteschalk, a runaway monk of their order, could hope for little mercy. A great Synod of his province was convoked by Hincmar in the palace of Quiercy. The king was there, and a great number of his bishops and abbots. Gotteschalk was introduced and interrogated, but persisted in his opinions, and, if we may credit Hincmar, was very insolent in his demeanour. So the bishops ordered him to be degraded, and the abbots ordered him to be flogged according to the rule of St. Benedict, and after that to be imprisoned in an ergastulum. A great fire was kindled, Gotteschalk was ordered to take his MS. on Predestination in his hand, and the lash was then applied until he should himself fling the book into the flames, which he was glad to do very soon. He was afterwards imprisoned in the Convent of Hautvilliers, where he remained contumacious for nine years, and died, it is said, in the same spirit.