The hybrid name Tot-mael contrasts the Christian tonsure with the native semi-tonsure, but it suggests total rather than coronal tonsure. It is, in any case, another undesigned testimony to the difference between the ecclesiastical and the native tonsures in Patrick’s time; while it possibly indicates that the mos Romanus introduced into Ireland in the fifth century may have been partially different from the mos Romanus which was reintroduced in the seventh.

But the passage in Tírechán on which I have commented appears to me to demonstrate that the foreign tonsure had at one time been customary for clerics in Ireland; and therefore the objection to the genuineness of the circular letter, which has been founded on the inclusion of a canon on this subject, falls to the ground.

(2) The second objection urged by Todd is that some of the canons imply a nearer approach to diocesan jurisdiction, and a more settled state of Christianity, than was possible in the days of St. Patrick. (So far as a relatively settled state of Christianity is concerned, it must be remembered that Todd did not realise how far Christianity had spread in Ireland before St. Patrick; and if we take into account that the letter of the three bishops is designed both for those parts of the island where Christian communities had existed many years before, as well as for those (like Connaught) where churches had only recently been planted, there is nothing in the canons that need surprise us on this head).

The canons which imply spheres of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are 30 and 34:—

The first of these canons implies that a bishop has a defined paruchia and that he cannot perform episcopal acts in another paruchia without the permission of its princeps. The second deals with the case of a deacon belonging to a monastic community, the head of which is not a bishop but a presbyter; he is forbidden to betake himself to another district without a letter from his abbot.

Canon 30 corresponds to the 22nd canon of the Council of Antioch (A.D. 341, Mansi, Conc., ii. 649), ἐπίσκοπον μὴ ἐπιβαίνειν ἀλλοτρίᾳ πόλει ... εἰ μὴ ἄρα μετὰ γνώμης τοῦ οἰκείου τής χώρας ἐπισκόπου.[266] Paruchia means an episcopal diocese[267] as in Eusebius, Hist. ecc. v. 33, 1 and 3. For the considerations which show that Patrick must have defined spheres of episcopal jurisdiction, I must refer to Excursus 18 in Appendix C on the Patrician Episcopate.

In canon 34 paruchia seems to have a different meaning, and refer to the district which the church of the abbot’s monastery served. It is the district of a presbyter, not of a bishop. This ambiguity would not be fatal to the genuineness of the canon. In the passage of Eusebius, cited above, παροικίαι also occurs in the sense of rural districts, several of which were under one bishop, as Duchesne has pointed out.[268] But the canon may well be a later addition to the genuine document, belonging to an age when the monastic communities had acquired greater importance.

(3) The mos antiquus of canon 25 may refer not to Ireland but to the Christian Church generally.

(4) Another objection is founded on canon 33, which enjoins:

It is suggested that this must belong to a period when the British and Irish churches were estranged by the latter’s adoption of Roman customs, that is, not earlier than A.D. 716. I cannot see the cogency of this argument. The canon does not seem to me to imply hostility to the British Church, but to be a natural precaution and safeguard against unauthorised and possibly heretical clerics coming over from Britain. It is an application to Irish circumstances of the 7th canon of the Council of Antioch (Mansi, ii. 644), μηδένα ἄνευ εἰρηνικῶν δέχεσθαι τῶν ξένων.[269] In Patrick’s time, when there was Pelagianism in Britain, some such precaution may have been specially necessary; and it is conceivable that a case of a heretic coming over to Ireland and attempting to propagate his views may have occurred and called forth this ordinance. The words sine epistola (ἄνευ εἰρηνικῶν) show that no hostility to the British Church is implied.

The outcome of this investigation is that the case for rejecting the circular letter of the three bishops on internal evidence breaks down; and otherwise an early date is suggested, as Todd admits when he says that some of the canons “were certainly written during the predominance of paganism in the country.” Hence, the external evidence being in its favour, we need not hesitate to accept the document as authentic.

[Note on the Liber de Abusionibus Saeculi]

This treatise[270] is ascribed to Patrick in some MSS., but the authorship has been generally rejected, on account of the Latin style, which is very different from that of the Confession and the Letter, and on account of the Scriptural quotations, which are taken from St. Jerome’s version. In itself, the difference in the quality of the Latin might not be decisive, for we have a conspicuous example of similar difference in style between the Historia Francorum and the Gloria Martyrum of Gregory of Tours.

In MSS. this treatise is variously ascribed to Cyprian and Augustine. The external evidence for Cyprian is best, because Jonas of Orleans, who lived in the first half of the ninth century, quotes it as Cyprian’s: De institutione regia, c. 3, Migne, P.L. 106, 288-9. This testimony and the testimonies of the MSS. are directly contradicted by the internal evidence, namely, by the Scriptural citations from the Vulgate, which render the authorship of Cyprian or Augustine untenable.

There is earlier evidence which points in a different direction. In the eighth century the tract was regarded as the work of Patrick both in Ireland and in Gaul. (1) The ninth Abuse is quoted almost entirely in the Hibernensis (above, p. 239) and ascribed to Patricius. (2) Extracts from the same section are quoted in a letter of Cathuulfus (apparently otherwise unknown), addressed c. A.D. 775 to King Charles the Great, and preserved in a ninth-century MS. (Epp. Karolini Aevi, ii. p. 503. The editor, E. Dümmler, leaves the quotation unidentified).

This evidence proves that the treatise is older than A.D. 700, and strongly suggests that its origin is Irish, that it was ascribed in Ireland to Patrick, and travelled to Gaul under his name. The twelfth Abuse, populus sine lege, is consonant with the origin of the work outside the Roman Empire.

5. Irish Hymn ascribed to Patrick

The Lorica of St. Patrick is an unmetrical quasi-poetical composition of great antiquity. It is called the Faeth Fiada, interpreted the “Deer’s Cry,” and hence the Preface in the Liber Hymnorum connects the hymn with the story of the deer metamorphosis in Muirchu (p. 282). But it seems (cp. Atkinson, Lib. Hymn. ii. 209) that the phrase really meant a spell or charm which had the power of rendering invisible, and that the story of the deer arose from a popular etymology.

We need not hesitate to identify this work with the canticum Scotticum which was current before the ninth century under Patrick’s name, as we learn from a note in the Liber Armachanus (p. 333₁₀). Whether Patrick was really the author was another question. The verdict of Professor Atkinson is as follows:—

“It is probably a genuine relic of St. Patrick. Its uncouthness of grammatical forms is in favour of its antiquity. We know that Patrick used very strange Irish, some of which has been preserved; and the historians who handed down mudebroth as an ejaculation of his would probably take care to copy as faithfully as they could the other curious Irish forms which the saint had consecrated by his use” (Lib. Hymn. ii. p. lviii).

If it can be proved that some of the forms in the Lorica could not have been used by a native Irish writer, this would be a very strong argument for its composition by Patrick. It seems possible that Patrick’s expression mudebroth was remembered as the solecism of a foreigner. “The oath dar mo De broth is mere jargon; De broth ought to mean something like ‘God’s doom-day’; but even then there would be a difficulty, because the genitive Dé could not precede its governing noun” (Atkinson, ib. ii. 179).

It may be said, then, that the Lorica may have been composed by Patrick; but in any case it is an interesting document for the spirit of early Christianity in Ireland.

The latest editions are Atkinson’s in the Liber Hymnorum (i. 133 sqq.) with translation (ii. 49 sqq.), and that of Stokes and Strachan in Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus, vol. ii. 353 sqq.

6. Hymn of St. Sechnall

The Latin Hymn of St. Sechnall or Secundinus, the coadjutor of Patrick,[271] preserved in the MSS. of the Liber Hymnorum, is certainly very ancient. It might be rash to affirm that its ascription to Secundinus is correct; but Patrick is spoken of throughout as if he were alive, and the absence of all references to particular acts of the saint or episodes in his life confirms the view that it was composed before his death; hymnographers of later times would hardly have omitted such references. There is no mention of miracles. As the author thus confined himself to generalities, the hymn supplies no material for Patrick’s biography. It is worth while noticing that, if the hymn is contemporary, as it seems to be, the verse

may be allusive to the event commemorated in Ann. Ult. s.a. 441 (see below, p. 367).

The hymn, in trochaic metre, is unrhymed, and does not exhibit the characteristics of later Latin hymns composed in Ireland. It takes no account of elision, or quantity, except in the penultimate syllable of the verse, which is always short.[272]

The best text will be found in Bernard and Atkinson, Liber Hymnorum, i. 3 sqq. On the metre see Atkinson, ib. xiii., xiv.

7. Life of Germanus, by Constantius

Constantius, who wrote the Life of Germanus of Auxerre, has a place in literary history, for Sidonius Apollinaris published his Letters at his suggestion and dedicated them to him. Constantius (for whose character see Sidonius, iii. 2) composed the Life at the wish of Patiens, Bishop of Lyons (who also appears in the correspondence of Sidonius), and one of the two letters which are prefixed to the Life is addressed to Patiens. The other is addressed to a Bishop Censurius (see Sidonius, vi. 10). The episcopate of Patiens gives the years 450 and c. 490 as the limits for the composition of the work, but the author implies in the first prefatory letter that some time had elapsed since the death of Germanus. W. Levison (Neues Archiv 29, pp. 97 sqq. 1903) suggests (p. 112) c. 480 or some years later as the probable date.

The editions of the Life in the collection of Surius (iv. 405 sqq., ed. 1573) and the Acta Sanctorum (July 7, p. 200 sqq.) do not represent the original work, but a text with extensive additions. The older text of Mombritius (Sanctuarium, i. 319 sqq. 1480) comes much nearer to the original (Levison, p. 101). The original work is preserved, without the later interpolations, in various MSS., and its extent was recently defined by the Bollandists, Bibl. hagiographica Latina, i. 515, n. 3453, cp. ii. 1354. A critical edition is promised in the last volume of the Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum (M.G.H.), but in the meantime Dr. Levison has given not only the results of his researches on the MSS., but also a study of the Life in the important monograph cited above. The compass of the original work, and the subsequent additions, are set out clearly in tabular form on p. 113.

The motive of the Life—its main interest for its author—was to represent Germanus as a miracle-worker; he states as his object (in the letter to Patiens) profectui omnium mirabilium exempla largiri. The Life accordingly is full of miracles, and largely of typical miracles, some of which have a pronounced family likeness to some recorded in the Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus (Levison, pp. 114 sqq.). Constantius forms no exception to the general rule that authors of hagiographies did not condescend to trouble themselves with chronology; there is not a single date in the book. But the main outline of the biography—though there may be inaccuracies in detail (cp. note, p. 297)—seems to be trustworthy, and has sustained the detailed criticism to which it has been subjected by Levison.

II

1. Memoir of Patrick, by Tírechán

The earliest extant document that gives an account of St. Patrick’s life is a memoir written in the second half of the seventh century by Tírechán, a bishop, who had been the alumnus or disciple of Bishop Ultan of Ardbraccan in Meath. He speaks of Ultan as no longer living,[273] so that his work was compiled after A.D. 657, the year of Ultan’s death.[274] The mention of the recent plague (mortalitates novissimae) suggests that Tírechán was engaged on his memoir soon after the disastrous years A.D. 664-668.[275] The presumption is that it was compiled in the late sixties or the seventies; and as there is a presumption that Muirchu’s biography (see below) was composed in the eighties or nineties, there is a presumption that Tírechán’s work is earlier than Muirchu’s. At all events, we may take it as highly probable that it was not later.

Tírechán was attached to some community in north Connaught, probably in Tirawley.[276] His memoir, which is incomplete,[277] is divided into two books, of which the first (after a preliminary summary of Patrick’s early life) deals with the saint’s work in Meath, the second mainly with his work in Connaught.

The first was probably compiled in Meath, the second certainly in Connaught.[278] The author wrote in the interests of the paruchia Patricii (diocese of Patrician communities), of which Armagh claimed to be the head. He speaks of attacks and encroachments made upon that paruchia, and asserts the theory that by divine donation almost the whole island belongs to it.[279] The object of his work is to set forth the circumstances of the foundations of communities of Patrician origin, and for this purpose he collected material. Much of it he may have collected “on the spot,” and he may have travelled to gather local traditions with a view to his work.[280] We know from his own statements that he had visited Armagh, Tara, Alofind, Saeoli, L. Selce, Baslick.[281] We know that he derived information not only from Bishop Ultan but from many seniores[282] whom he consulted, presumably, in different places.

But he used written sources as well as oral traditions.

1. For his prefatory account of Patrick’s early life he refers to a book in the possession of Bishop Ultan,[283] of which I have spoken above (p. 229). It is uncertain whether his reference to the Confession in another place (310₅, in scriptione sua) implies a first-hand acquaintance with that document; the reference might have been derived from the book of Ultan, which contained matter based on the Confession.

2. Certain passages in Tírechán are based on common sources with corresponding passages in Muirchu.[284] These sources were in Irish (see below, p. 258).

3. Two chronological passages imply written sources.[285]

4. Epigraphic source: inscribed stones near L. Selce.[286]

5. The confusion which I have traced in Tírechán (see Appendix C, 13) between different journeys of Patrick in Connaught can be most easily explained by assuming that he had some older written notes before him.

6. In the same paper in which I pointed out the use of Irish poetical sources by Muirchu (“Sources of the Early Patrician Documents,” E.H.R., July 1904) I showed that the story of the conversion of Loigaire’s daughters is a Latin reproduction of an Irish poetical source, the evidence being of the same nature as in the case of the Muirchu passages, namely, graphic indications in the Liber Armachanus, combined with the rhythmic, assonant, quasi-poetical character of the Latin. There is perhaps some room for doubt whether it was Latinised by Tírechán himself or by an intervener.

7. Written sources are implied by the author’s uncertainty as to numerals in three passages (302₃₀, 321₁, 300₂₇ [see next paragraph]).

The work of Tírechán stops abruptly, and is almost certainly incomplete—that is, it was left unfinished by the author.[287] But it has recently received a new accession by the convincing discovery of Dr. Gwynn that an isolated anonymous paragraph which precedes the Memoir in the Lib. Arm. (f. 9, rᵒ a, Patricius uenit—aeclessiae uestrae) is really part of the Memoir. Its place in the text can be approximately determined (it must come in f. 12, vᵒ 2, before the arrival at Selce). For proof and details I must refer to Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction to Book of Armagh, chap. iii. (and see above, p. 229).

The Memoir was put together without any regard to literary style. In this respect it contrasts with the Life by Muirchu, as also by the fact that Tírechán supplies a number of chronological indications, while Muirchu’s work furnishes no dates. In regard to contents, while the two works have a few incidents in common, Tírechán is mainly concerned with Patrick’s work in parts of Ireland, especially Connaught, on which Muirchu does not touch at all. It is also to be observed (a point first emphasised by Dr. Gwynn) that Tírechán assumes on the part of his readers familiarity with the general story of the saint’s life. For instance, he refers to the call of the children of Fochlad as a familiar fact. We infer that the outline of the Patrician story was current in north Ireland in the time of Tírechán.

Though Tírechán had little idea of literary form, he has endeavoured to string together his information as to Patrick’s activity in various places on a geographical thread. Critical examination shows (as I pointed out in a paper on Patrick’s Itinerary,[288] and show more fully in a separate note, Appendix C, 13) that he has thrown the events of several journeys into one circulus or circular journey (setting out from Tara and returning to Meath) through Meath, Connaught, and Ulster.[289] It may be noted that Tírechán conceives all the events related in his Memoir as having happened during the year or two immediately following Patrick’s arrival in Ireland, long before the foundation of Armagh;[290] and the fact that he makes Patrick, starting from Tara, return finito circulo to Loigaire and Conall seems to show that he conceived the bishop making his central quarters in Meath before he set up in Armagh.

An analysis, as well as criticism, of the Memoir will be found in Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction, c. iii.

Additions to Tírechán.—In the Lib. Arm. a few notices are appended to the Memoir of Tírechán (ff. 15 vᵒ 2, 16 rᵒ a). They are the subject of a minute and careful discussion in Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction, chap. vi. The first, on the three Petitions, was probably found in the MS. from which Ferdomnach copied the Memoir. It is separated by the word Dairenne, which has not been explained, from a number of notices which are probably (as Dr. Gwynn shows) due to Ferdomnach himself: (1) Patrick’s age and the periods of his life; (2) comparison with Moses; (3) the contest for his body and Colombcille’s discovery of his grave; (4) Patrick’s mission by Celestine; Palladius also called Patricius; (5) Patrick’s fourfold honour in Ireland; (6) a table of contents to “this breviarium” (I pointed out that this table refers not only to Tírechán’s Memoir, but also to Muirchu’s Life, Eng. Hist. Rev. April 1902, p. 237). Dr. Gwynn has shown in detail that these notes were suggested by passages in the preceding documents in the MS. (Muirchu and Tírechán), to which they may be regarded as editorial observations.

2. Additional Notices in the “Liber Armachanus”

These notices (ff. 16-19) are described by Ferdomnach as serotinis temporibus inuenta, and collected “by the diligence of the heirs”—that is, of Patrick’s successors at Armagh. First comes the foundation of the Church of Trim, in Latin, but with Irish names and phrases; then a few notices, chiefly of grants to Patrick in Connaught, Sligo, and Leitrim, also in Latin strewn with Irish forms; then the text suddenly changes into Irish (338₅), diversified here and there by a Latin sentence, describing ecclesiastical grants, and acts of Patrick, in Connaught and Leinster. Then the scribe concludes with this apology:—

He adds four Latin hexameters (with several false quantities), evidently of his own composition, formally declaring the completion of his task, and asking his readers to pray for him.

The scribe’s explanation as to the language of his material is worthy of attention. It is clear that he had Irish material before him. Part of this material he translated into Latin, including the foundation of Trim, and the following notices up to 338₅; but at this point, coming to a passage in which there were so many irreducible Irish words that there seemed little use in translating the few that could be translated, he simply transcribed his original. And he continued to do this to the end, although the same consideration does not apply to all the remaining text, with the exception of one or two passages which he turned into Latin (340₂₋₁₀, 342₁₋₁₁).

The importance of this lies in the fact that it reflects light on Tírechán. The similarity in character between these notices and those which Tírechán has wrought into his Itinerary is unmistakable, and points to the conclusion that he made use of Irish material, resembling in form and style that which the Armagh scribe partly translated and partly transcribed. The scribe, in fact, performed, though more slavishly, a task similar to that of Tírechán.

The scribe’s own description of his additional material as serotinis temporibus inuenta, “discovered in late times,” naturally suggests a doubt whether these notices were not inuenta in a more pregnant sense than he intended to convey. We cannot control their antiquity, but their character is quite consistent with the supposition that they had escaped Tírechán when he was collecting local material, and had more recently been brought to the knowledge of Armagh, or collected by the care of the abbots. One passage (337₂₂) shows Armagh editing, and the whole collection is, like Tírechán’s Memoir, in the interest of the Paruchia Patricii. But it is wholly different in character from the Armagh (eighth century) fiction, the Liber Angueli, and we can hardly be mistaken in supposing that genuine local records are here transcribed or translated.

(1) The Trim narrative is evidently translated from an Irish document. It contains a list of the lay succession at Trim from Fergus, grandson of Loigaire, and the last name is Sechnassach, tenth in succession from Loigaire. This, Dr. Gwynn observes, points to the later part of the eighth century as the date of Sechnassach, so that “this record was written at (or up to) a date which was almost recent when Ferdomnach used it.” Probably the date of Sechnassach represents the time at which the record was obtained from Trim by an abbot of Armagh.

(2) The series of Connaught records and copies of grants begins a new leaf in the MS., and are evidently copied from a distinct batch of documents. An analysis of them will be found in Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction, chap. vi.

(3) The Leinster records also begin a new leaf, the second half column of the preceding page being left blank. It may be conjectured that these notices were communicated to Armagh by Bishop Aed of Slébte (cp. below, p. 255) towards the close of the seventh century. This is strongly suggested by the circumstance that a notice of Aed’s visit to Armagh immediately follows (346₂₁). The juxtaposition is almost irresistible. Dr. Gwynn (Introduction, chap, vi.) arrived independently at the same conclusion.

It would seem that after finishing his work the Armagh scribe gained access to a collection of Irish material describing St. Patrick’s acts. He did not undertake the task of transcribing or translating it, but simply indexed it. This long list of abbreviated memoranda, which he has appended in small script, consists of names of places and people, associated with acts of St. Patrick, not recorded in the preceding documents. The traditions which these headings represent—they are almost entirely in Irish—are for the most part found in the Vita Tripartita (see below, p. 272); and Dr. Gwynn, who has made a careful study of the material, has pointed out that it is disposed in groups corresponding more or less to geographical regions (see his Introduction, chap. vi.).

Probably, however, he did not index the whole of his document. It may be shown, I think, that the scribe had before him part of the same material which Tírechán used, and that the object was to note those parts of it which Tírechán had not incorporated in his Memoir. The ground for this conclusion is that he has, through inadvertence, inserted references to a few acts which are found in Tírechán. Thus the first two jottings[291] correspond to Tírechán 313₄ and 314₁₃₋₂₂. Dr. Gwynn, however, has made (ib.) the important suggestion that Ferdomnach simply transcribed memoranda which were left among the papers of the Abbot Torbach, under whose direction he undertook the task of copying and putting together the Patrician documents. If he completed the MS., as is probable, after his master’s death, he would feel bound to include the matter, collected by Torbach, as he found it, however obscure. This hypothesis seems very probable. If it is true, my view would still hold, with the substitution of Torbach for Ferdomnach.

An interesting proof of the antiquity of this material has been discovered by the acuteness of Dr. MacCarthy. Patrick’s dealings with the sons of Forat in Múscraige Tíre are described in Vit. Trip. 210, and indicated in Lib. Arm. f. 19 rᵒ b (351₃: Fuirg Muindech Mechar, f. Forat). Patrick is alleged to have given a lasting blessing to Mechar, who believed, whereas Fuirg, who did not believe in him, is “to be in misery till doom.” Dr. MacCarthy has pointed out that these prophecies are inconsistent with the history of the descendants of both brothers. The seed of Mechar did not survive. We learn this from the Genealogy of Múscraige Tíre (in Book of Ballymote, 141 b, and Book of Leinster, 323 f.; extracts in MacCarthy’s paper).[292] Dr. MacCarthy thinks that the extinction of the line is to be placed about the middle of the sixth century. On the other hand, the descendants of Fuirg prospered; they were a distinguished and important clan in the ninth and tenth centuries (see the evidence which Dr. MacCarthy has collected from the Annals, Note D.).

The inference is that the record of Patrick’s dealings with the sons of Forat had taken shape before the respective destinies of the posterities of Mechar and Fuirg could be foreseen.

3. Life of Patrick, by Muirchu

The first formal biography that we possess, perhaps the first formal biography that was written, was composed by Muirchu towards the end of the seventh century. Muirchu is designated as maccu Machtheni, son or descendant of Machthene. He refers to his father Coguitosus,[293] and there may be room for doubt whether a natural or spiritual father is meant. If the suggestion[294] that Coguitosus is a Latin rendering of Machthene (as connected with machtnaigim, “I consider with wonder”) is correct, Cogitosus was Muirchu’s father in the flesh.

There can be no doubt that Muirchu lived in North Laigin, and perhaps he may be specially associated with Co. Wicklow. The evidence is (1) his close association with Bishop Aed of Slébte (on the borders of Co. Carlow), to whom he dedicated his book, addressing him mi domine Aido, and from whom he derived material for it; (2) the existence of Kilmurchon “Church of Muirchu” in Co. Wicklow;[295] and, we may add (3), the connexion of Muirchu’s “father” Cogitosus with this part of Ireland, a connexion fairly to be inferred from his writing a Life of Brigit of Kildare.

The fact that Muirchu lived and wrote in the latter part of the seventh century is established by the date of his friend Bishop Aed’s death, which is recorded in the Annals as A.D. 700,[296] and by the circumstance that he as well as Aed attended the Synod known as “Adamnan’s,” which met shortly before that date (A.D. 697, Ann. Ult.).[297] As Muirchu’s book is dedicated to Aed (as still living), A.D. 699 is the lower limit for its composition.

Or perhaps more strictly for the composition of Book I. For Muirchu has divided his work into two Books. The ground of the division is not quite evident. One might have thought that Book I. would naturally have terminated with the episode of Loigaire, where the chronological order ceases. Now at the end of the Table of Contents to Book I. there occurs a notice (of which more will be said below) that Aed helped him; and it might be held that the distinction between Book I. and Book II. was based on the fact that he had Aed’s co-operation in Book I. and not in Book II. In that case Book I. might have been composed before, and Book II. after, Aed’s death.[298] If so, the Preface was written before Book II.

In this interesting dedicatory preface, written in a most turgid style, and partly modelled on the opening verses of St. Luke’s Gospel, Muirchu declares, or seems to declare, that he is venturing upon a novel experiment, which had been tried before (in Ireland) only by his father Cogitosus. It is of considerable importance to know on Muirchu’s authority that the Life of Brigit by Cogitosus[299] was a new departure in hagiography in Ireland. As Cogitosus must have written in the seventh century, it follows that before the seventh century hagiographical literature in Ireland must have differed materially in character from the works of Cogitosus and his son. One difference possibly was that the earlier writings, some of which Muirchu used (see below), consisted of acta and memorabilia, and were not regular biographies; but there are grounds, as will be shown, for inferring a more important difference, namely, that they were written in Irish.

Muirchu aspired to do for Patrick what his father had done for Brigit. But in venturing into what he calls the “deep and perilous sea of sacred story,” he may have been helped by Aed. From the lemma[300] which is found at the end of the Table of Contents to Book I., one might think that Aed has even more claim to be considered the author than Muirchu. Haec ... Muirchu ... dictante Aiduo ... conscripsit. Taken by itself, this might almost suggest that Muirchu’s share in the work was little more than that of a scribe. But such an inference is completely contradicted by the dedicatory preface, in which Muirchu takes upon himself the whole responsibility, though he acknowledges that he had undertaken the work in obedience to a wish of Aed.[301] If, then, the lemma has any good authority,—it may be doubted whether it is due to the author himself,[302]—we must interpret it to mean that Aed furnished Muirchu with some of the material. But it is possible that the note has no good authority, and merely expresses the misconception of a copyist.

Muirchu used written sources. He refers to them in his Preface in the phrase incertis auctoribus, which seems rather to imply that the documents were anonymous than that he was sceptical about their statements. In regard to the character of the sources, it is important to observe that there is a strongly marked contrast between the early portion of the biography up to Patrick’s arrival in Ireland and the rest of the book. The early portion is free from the mythical element; whereas the narrative of Patrick’s work in Ireland is characterised by its legendary setting. These two parts must therefore be carefully distinguished.

In the first part, the best of all authorities, the Confession, is followed (though not without errors in interpretation[303]) so far as it goes; then another source succeeds, dealing with Patrick’s studies on the Continent and his ordination, and including a notice of Palladius. It seems, however, not unlikely that for Muirchu these two sources may have been one; that he may not have used the Confession itself, but a document in which the Confession and the other source had been already condensed. In any case, that other source is marked by the absence of mythical elements and stamps itself as dependent on early and credible records.[304] Nor are other possible traces of this source entirely lacking. It may well be that it was also utilised by the author of the liber apud Ultanum which was consulted by Tírechán.

But when Muirchu’s story passes to Ireland it assumes a different complexion. We enter a world beset by legends. But here too Muirchu used written sources. A legendary narrative had been shaped and written down before his time. The evidence that he used written material here is as follows:—

(1) He refers to writings himself (295₁₆): miracula tanta quae alibi scripta sunt et quae ore fideli mundus celebrat. This seems to imply some stories that were known to him only by oral tradition.

(2) The accounts given by Muirchu and Tírechán of the destruction of the magician who was shot into the air depend on a common written source;[305] and their notices of the angel’s footsteps at Scirte point in the same direction.[306] A comparison of these passages suggests that they are independent translations of a common Irish original.

(3) I have shown[307] that the Lives which are known as Vita Secunda and Vita Quarta depend on a document (W), whose compiler probably used not only Muirchu but Muirchu’s source, which must have been written in Irish.

(4) This conclusion is confirmed by the evidence which I collected in a paper on “Sources of the Early Patrician Documents” (Eng. Hist. Review, July 1904). It is there shown that (a) the prophecy of the magicians (p. 274), and (b) the description of MacCuill’s character (p. 286) reproduce Irish poetical sources. The proof lies in the tabular (columnar) arrangement of these passages in the Liber Armachanus, combined with their rhythmic and assonant character. In that article I also pointed out that the Irish material used by Muirchu began with the account of Patrick’s ordination (if not at an earlier point), the proof being the form Amathorege for Amator of Auxerre. “Muirchu’s Amatorege represents Amathorig and betrays that his source was in Irish.” (On the form compare Zimmer, Nennius Vindicatus, p. 123 note).

The question arises whether part of the written material used by Muirchu, under Aed’s guidance, originated at Sletty (Slébte). There is nothing decisive on this point in the text of Muirchu; for the notice of Fíacc’s presence at Tara may have been inserted by him, from Sletty tradition, in a narrative which did not otherwise depend on Sletty tradition. That this was really the case seems to me to be shown by the fact that (as mentioned above) Tírechán used the same source as Muirchu for an incident in the Tara episode. This fact makes it difficult to suppose that Muirchu’s account of that episode was based on Sletty tradition derived from Fíacc. The legend naturally arose in the regions of Tara and Slane.

There is, however, another fact which must be considered. There is a presumption that the hymn Genair Patraicc, ascribed to Fíacc, was composed at Sletty, and this presumption is strengthened by the remarkable correspondence of the argument of the hymn with the argument of Muirchu’s biography. The hymn will be discussed below, and it will be pointed out that its author used either Muirchu or (part of) Muirchu’s material. In the latter case it would follow that this material existed at Sletty. But even then it need not have been derived from Fíacc or Sletty traditions contemporary with Patrick. Sletty might in the meantime have obtained copies of records existing at Armagh or elsewhere.

For these reasons I do not feel able to speak of a Sletty tradition with as much confidence as Dr. Gwynn. He traces this, or at least Leinster, tradition, not only in the narrative of Slane and Tara, but also in the Gallic portion.[308]

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the Ulidian portions of Muirchu depend on a Ulidian or Down tradition. This has been set forth fully and lucidly by Dr. Gwynn. I think, however, that it must remain an open question whether Muirchu, as Dr. Gwynn is disposed to believe, visited Down and collected information on the spot. The local colouring might have been taken from a written source. In any case he used a written source (also used by Tírechán) for the Slemish episode.

For a full running analysis of Muirchu’s work I may refer to Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction (chaps, ii. and iii.); but I must indicate the remarkable construction of Book II., which he was the first to explain. The theme with which it opens is Patrick’s diligence in prayer (sect. 1), which is illustrated (sect. 2) by the story of the dead man and the cross, which leads to another story (sect. 3) told on the authority of the auriga of Patrick. Then the narrative passes to the circumstances connected with Patrick’s death and burial; after which there is a final section in which the author (with the words Iterum recurrat oratio) recurs to the initial subject, De diligentia orationis.[309] The sections which recount the saint’s death and burial form a separate unity within the framework, and there is external evidence which Dr. Gwynn has with great probability interpreted as showing that this narrative was a distinct document which Muirchu incorporated. The evidence consists in two numerals (ui and uiii) which occur in the MS. (fol. 8, rᵒ b), and must be explained as two of an original series of numbers which occurred in the exemplar which the scribe Ferdomnach had before him. These numbers could not have represented the numbers of the sections of the whole Book (as given in the Table of Contents), but they correspond exactly to the sections of the narrative of the death and burial. This will be best shown by a tabular arrangement.

This incorporated document, however, with its signs of distinct numbering of its chapters, was composed (as the style testifies) by Muirchu himself; it was not a mere transcription. I therefore think that the sectional numberings did not belong to Muirchu’s source; but rather that this narrative was compiled first by Muirchu with the intention that it should form Book II. and that he numbered its sections accordingly; so that its opening words, Post uero miracula tanta, etc., were the transition from Book I. to Book II. Afterwards he changed his arrangement, by the introduction of the three chapters, which he made the beginning of Book II.; this altered the numbering of the chapters, and in transcribing his narrative of the death and burial he was obliged to leave out the numbers; but he transcribed two of them by inadvertence, and they were faithfully retranscribed by Ferdomnach.

In regard to the Tables of Contents, it might perhaps be suggested that they may have been added by an editor, and not drawn up by Muirchu himself. It is important to show that such a suggestion is untenable. A definite proof that Muirchu is responsible may be found in the last heading of the Table of Book I. There we read aduersum Coirthech regem Aloo, whereas in the text of the corresponding section, though the Irish form of the name Coroticus (MS. Corictic) occurs, he is not described as rex Aloo. Obviously the title is not due to an editor summarising the contents of the Latin text, but to Muirchu himself, who had before him an Irish document containing the legend of the metamorphosis of Coroticus. This is sufficient to establish Muirchu’s authorship for the Tables.

Muirchu belonged to that part of Ireland which had conformed to Roman usage since c. A.D. 634, and in this interest he took part in Adamnan’s Synod which brought about the conformity of the north. It would indeed be erroneous to suppose that these facts are required to explain the expression which he uses of the Roman see (caput omnium ecclesiarum totius mundi)—an expression which he might readily have used even if he had been an adherent of the Celtic celebration of Easter. But it may be asked whether the Life which Muirchu wrote at the wish of Aed had any tendency beyond its mere hagiographical interest. There is, I think, some reason for supposing that it had a particular motive. When Muirchu wrote, the church of Slébte had just been brought into close connexion with Armagh. The record stands thus in the Liber Armachanus (fol. 18, rᵒ b; p. 346 Rolls ed.), as translated by Stokes:—