Dr. Gwynn saw that ego is to be construed with sepeliar. It seems best to suppose that quasi—bello is not part of Loigaire’s declaration. As Mr. Stokes points out, odiui can be translated as a perfect (the relative being omitted), but odii proposed by Todd furnishes better sense. The two foes were still to face each other in their tombs, standing in their armour, Loigaire looking southward and the King of Laigin northward.

P. 115.—Dubthach. Muirchu 283₂ Dubthoch maccu-Lugil poetam optimum; Add. Notices 344, Dubthach maccu-Lugair. Material about the Hy Lugair of Leinster is collected in Shearman’s Loca Patriciana. Shearman’s theory that the Killeen Cormac bilingual stone commemorates Dubthach and three of his sons cannot be maintained. The ogam inscription means “(monument) of Ovanus, descendant of Ivacattus,” and the Latin inscription reads Ivvere Drvvides, which Professor Rhŷs interprets “of the Druid of Ivvera (= Ireland).” Thus the stone would commemorate one Ovanus, a Druid. It certainly belongs to the Christian period, and may probably be dated to the sixth century. Professor Rhŷs thinks it is by no means impossible that this Druid was of the race of Dubthach maccu-Lugair (Studies in Early Irish History, p. 7). But there can hardly be much ground for such a supposition, especially as Dubthach was a poet, not a Druid. The inscription illustrates the survival of Druidism.

The presence of Dubthach, a Leinster poet, at Tara, in the legend, is remarkable. Was the incident inserted by Muirchu himself, from Slébte tradition, or is Muirchu only responsible for the reference to Fíacc, Dubthach’s pupil? It seems probable that Dubthach’s presence appeared in the legend in its original form, and was a genuine reminiscence (cp. Appendix A, ii. 5), and if so, it betrays that Patrick’s legendary appearance at Tara was suggested by an actual visit, in very different circumstances, for the purpose of consulting with Loigaire and representatives from various parts of Ireland, one of whom would have been Dubthach, about the status, etc., of Christian communities. For the file, poet and lawyer, cp. D’Arbois de Jubainville, Droit celtique, i. 321 sqq.

P. 117.—For the foundations in Meath, see Tírechán, 307 sqq.

P. 118.—Donaghpatrick. The place is marked by a fine earth-fort of the mote type, with a crescent platform, separated from the mound by a ditch. See Westropp, Trans. of R.I.A. xxxi. p. 714.

P. 119.—Taillte: burning of the first-born offspring. Cp. Book of Leinster, 201 a. 15, and O’Curry, Manners and Customs, vol. i. p. dcxl.

P. 120.—Uisnech. For the plan of this hill-town, see Westropp, ib. p. 688.

P. 123.—The account of Patrick’s visit to Mag Slecht (which was near Ballymagauran in Co. Cavan) is found in later lives (Vita Tertia, c. 46, and Tripartite, p. 90). But there is reason to suppose that an account of the visit has fallen out of Tírechán’s text (p. 311): see Bury, Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught, pp. 154-6.

P. 123.—Cend Cruaich, Tripart.; ceneroth or cencroth (corruption of cencroch?), Vit. Tert.; Cromm Cruach, Book of Leinster, 16 b. 30, and cp. 213 b. 38 sqq.; Crom Cróich, Rennes Dindsenchas (ed. Stokes), in Rev. Celt. 16, 35-6. See Rhŷs, Celtic Religion, pp. 200 sqq. In the Vita Tertia, c. 46, it is said that Loigaire used to adore in Mag Slecht; but we cannot attribute much importance to this statement.

Chapter VII

P. 127.—Amolngaid. The name occurs on a gravestone at Breastagh, north of Killala, in King Amolngaid’s country: maq(i) Corrbri maq(i) Ammllongatt—“(monument of ...) of the son of Corpri, son of Amolngaid” (Rhŷs, Proceedings of R.S.A.I. Part iii. vol. vii. 5th series, p. 235, 1898). The Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach (ed. O’Donovan, p. 11) gives Coirpre as the name of a son of King Amolngaid; likewise a notice in the Book of Lecan (fol. 46, see O’Donovan, ib. p. 12, note a). There is thus ground for supposing that the person commemorated was a descendant of the king.

P. 129.—Mathona was connected with Tamnach. Tírechán calls her sister of Benignus, Patrick’s successor. He probably confounded the famous Benignus with an obscure namesake whom he mentions in another place (319₁₅): Benignus frater Cethiaci de genere Ailello. We should expect Mathona, in Tirerrill, to be de genere Ailello.

P. 134.—For the place of crossing the Shannon (Sinona) indicated by Tírechán, see my Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught, where it is shown that the view which placed it near Clonmacnois is untenable.

P. 136.—On Rathcrochan and the various mounds around it, see O’Donovan’s long note, Annals of Four Masters, s.a. 1223, vol. iii. pp. 204-6; and cp. Westropp, Trans. of R.I.A. xxxi. p. 687. On the red stone: O’Donovan, Hy Fiachrach, pp. 24-5, note (no mention of this stone is found before the seventeenth century).

P. 139.—Baptismal queries. Three questions were put in the Roman usage:—

(Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, p. 313.)

P. 140.—Death of Ethne and Fedelm after their baptism. The same thing is told in Muirchu’s story de Morte Moneisen Saxonissae (p. 496). Monesan, daughter of a king in Britain, cannot be induced by her parents to marry, but persists in asking her mother and her nurse cosmic questions. Her parents, hearing that Patrick received weekly visits from God, took her to Ireland, and besought the saint to allow their daughter to see God. He baptized her, and she immediately committed her spirit to the hands of the angels: moritur ibi et adunatur. She was buried at a church which Muirchu does not name, but her relics were venerated there in his time. Compare also the story of Ros, brother of Dichu, and the instance in the life of St. Brendan, cited by Todd (St. Patrick, p. 459 and note). The other cases which he quotes (p. 125 and note 2) are not so closely parallel.

P. 145.—Inscription at Selce. Tírechán, p. 319; Bury, “Supplementary Notes” in Eng. Hist. Review, October 1902. Bishop Brón MacIcni was consecrated by Patrick (Tír. 305₁₀), and his name appeared as bishop on the Selce inscription (319₇). The inference is that Patrick’s visit to Killespugbrone (327₁₉) was on the first journey; but of course he may have been there twice. Brón is commemorated in the Martyrologies of Tallaght and Donegal at June 8, and in the latter his death is assigned to A.D. 511.

P. 148.—Patrick’s foundations in Tirawley. I may refer to two papers by Bishop Healy in the Irish Eccl. Record, 1889 (673 sqq. and 906 sqq.), giving an account of an antiquarian visit which he made to the neighbourhood of Killala.

Chapter VIII

P. 151.—Relics. For the notices in Tírechán see App. C, 16. The relics at Armagh are also mentioned in Liber Angueli, 354. A ridiculous story was afterwards invented that Patrick threw all the inhabitants of Rome into a miraculous sleep, and then plundered the city of its most precious relics (Vit. Trip. p. 238). It illustrates the moral ideals of medieval Irish ecclesiastics, but hardly proves, as Todd suggests (p. 481), “the unscrupulous manner in which the lives were interpolated to prop up later superstitions.” For the extension of the cult of relics from the seventh century forward see Zimmer, Celtic Church, pp. 119 sqq.; but his thesis that relics were unknown before in Ireland is highly improbable.

P. 155.—Emain, Navan. For a description and plan of the remains see M. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Rev. Celt. xvi. p. 1 sqq.; and cp. Westropp, Trans. of R.I.A. xxxi. p. 684.

Ib.—House of entertainment at Navan: Ann. of Four Masters, s.a. 1387.

Ib.—If Daire was King of Oriel, one is surprised at the way he is introduced by Muirchu (290) as quidam homo dives et honorabilis in regionibus Orientalium (i.e. in Orior = Airthir, the eastern part of Oriel = Oirgialla. This passage proves that Orior extended further westward than the regions comprised in the two modern baronies of Orior). This looks as if he were only an under-king, perhaps King of the Hy-Nialláin (O’Neill-land) cp. Book of Rights, p. 146, for he was a descendant of Niallán, cp. Trip. p. 228, and Todd, p. 481. On the other hand, if the tradition that Daire co-operated with Loigaire and Corc in initiating the Senchus Mór is correct, it looks as if he may have been King of Oriel. In a tract in the Lebor na hUidre (edited by Stokes in his Tripartite Life, pp. 562 sqq.) he is called rí Ulad (p. 564) by an anachronism. It seems that he was in any case chief of the Hy-Nialláin, and probable that he was also King of Oriel. The mere fact that Armagh was chosen by Patrick as his chief seat seems to me (as I have indicated in the text) an argument in favour of this conclusion.

P. 156.—Date of foundation of Armagh, A.D. 444. We must here follow the Annals (see Appendix A, iii. 1). In the story of the foundation of Trim in the Additional Notices, it is stated that Trim was founded immediately on Patrick’s arrival in Ireland, i.e. A.D. 432, “in the twenty-fifth year before the foundation of Armagh.” This would place the foundation of Armagh in 457—a date which is obviously too late, and has been rightly rejected by Todd (St. P. p. 470). Is it possible that there had been a pre-Patrician foundation at Trim, twenty-four years older than Armagh, and that the statement is due to a confusion between this and Patrick’s second founding?

P. 159.—Northern Church at Armagh. The church which Patrick founded on the hill is called by Muirchu “northern church,” sinistralis aeclessia; hence Reeves supposes it “to have stood somewhere near the extremity of the north transept of the present cathedral” (p. 15). On the other hand, it has been suggested that the adjective means that the church was built north and south (cp. Todd, St. P. p. 412, and Stokes, note on Muirchu, p. 292). The argument for this interpretation is that the church was called the sabhall, and that the other church which bore the same name (at Saul) lay north and south (transverse) according to the Vita Tertia, c. 31; hence it is suggested that churches with this peculiarity were called sabhalls. Reeves had taken this view in an earlier work, Antiquities of Down and Connor, pp. 220-1.

P. 159.—Graveyard. Vit. Trip. 228, “the place where is the ferta to-day” (Stokes), not as Colgan (so Reeves and Todd), “the place where are the two graves, da ferta.”

P. 162.—Clogher (in Tyrone). No connexion of Patrick with Clochar is mentioned in the Lib. Arm., but there is a good deal about it in the Vit. Trip. 174 sqq. The Bishop of Clochar, macc Cairthinn, is described as Patrick’s champion. (It is not clear that he is the same as filius Cairthin in Add. Notices, 338₃). The Domnach Airgit was preserved at Clochar, at the time when the Part III. of the Vit. Trip. was compiled (p. 176), and afterwards transferred to Clones. It is now in the Dublin Museum, and its history will be found in the papers of Dr. Petrie (Trans. of R.I.A. vol. xviii. 1838), and Dr. Bernard (ib. vol. xxx. Pt. vii., 1893). An inner box of yew is protected by a silver-plated copper cover, which is enclosed in an outer case of gold-plated silver, richly ornamented. It contained, but not originally, a copy of the Latin gospels, of which mutilated fragments are preserved. It used to be thought that this MS. dated from the fifth century, and belonged to Patrick, but Dr. Bernard’s careful examination proves that it can hardly be earlier than the eighth century. As for the box, which was probably meant for relics, not for a MS., it may be identified with the Domnach Airgit of the Vita Trip., and is therefore at least as old as the tenth century; but more cannot be said.

It may be observed that Clochar is called Clochar macc nDoimni (Vit. Trip. p. 178), and one of the bishops whose consecration Tírechán notices (304) is Iustianus mac hu Daiméne.

Ib.—Ardpatrick. The tradition that Patrick founded Ard Patric east of Louth, though not in the Lib. Arm., deserves mention, because Mochtae, whom Patrick established there according to Vit. Trip. 226-8, is mentioned in Adamnan’s Vita Columbae in the only passage where Adamnan refers to Patrick (Preface):—

According to Ann. Ult. Maucteus died in A.D. 535 or 537. If he was a pupil of Patrick, he must have been very old when he died. A work by Mochtae was quoted in the Liber Cuanach: Ann. Ult., s.a. 471; and the opening words of a letter of his are given s.a. 535: Maucteus peccator prespiter sancti Patricii discipulus in Domino salutem.

P. 163.—Patrick in Leinster. Sources: Tírechán 330-1; Add. Notices, 342-6 and 349-50 (with corresponding passages in Vit. Trip.). For Munster and Ossory, see Tír. 331. The Muskerry of Co. Cork is indicated in Add. Notices, p. 351₂ = Vit. Trip. 220. For North Munster (Thomond) see 350₃₁ = Vit. Trip. 200. Tírechán notices the foundation of Domus Martyrum (Martortech) at Druimm Urchaille (in Co. Kildare). For its site compare Shearman’s conjectures, Loc. Patr. p. 112.

Ib.—Consecration of Auxilius and Iserninus.—The evidence for their consecration by Patrick is Tírechán, 331₃: et ordinarit Auxilium puerum Patricii exorcistam et Eserninum et Mactaleum in Cellola Cuilinn. It may be questioned whether the text is sound; there is certainly some mistake about Auxilius, who could not be described as puer Patricii exorcista, and it is not stated to what order they were ordained. In Tírechán’s list of bishops ordained by Patrick (304), Auxilius and Mactaleus appear, but not Iserninus. In the corresponding passage in the Vit. Trip. (186) nothing is said of ordaining (“he left Auxilius in Killossy, and Iserninus and MaccTail in Kilcullen”). In the Add. Notices in Lib. Arm. (p. 342) it seems to be implied that Iserninus was already a bishop. See above, p. 310.

P. 164.—Birth of Iserninus in Cliu (Add. Notices, p. 342). For the locality see Shearman, Loca Patriciana, p. 141 note.

P. 165.—Fíacc. Memoranda in Lib. Arm. (Trip. 344); cp. Muirchu, 283. The story represents Fíacc as consecrated bishop per saltum. This may be an error. It is possible that he did not become a bishop till he went to Slébte, and that at Domnach Féicc he was in inferior orders.

Ib.—Domnach Féicc. Shearman, 186-8; the argument is at least plausible, that it lay in the region between Clonmore and Aghowle. He would fix it more precisely in the townland of Kilabeg.

P. 170.—The liturgy used by Patrick. Compare Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, 3rd ed. (1903), chap. iii. p. 88 sqq. The Antiphonary of Bangor is an example of a Gallican liturgy unmodified by Roman influence, and according to Dr. MacCarthy we have another in the oldest part of the Stowe missal (see above Appendix A, i. 3, ad fin.). For Celtic liturgies see Warren, Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church (1881), the chief book on the subject. A missa Patricii (mass of Patrick) is mentioned in Tírechán (322₁₉). I cannot say what attention should be paid to the statements about the Scottic liturgy in the Cursus Romanus printed in Warren 77 sqq. (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 138). Cp. Ussher, Brit. eccl. ant. (Works, vi. p. 480).

P. 176.—It is worth while to collect the notices of grants to Patrick and free churches mentioned in the Liber Armachanus. Muirchu, 291₃₁, (Armagh) partem illam agri—do tibi nunc quantum habeo.

Tírechán, 320₂₁ (Drummut Cerrigi) immolauerunt agrum et bona patris eorum Patricio. Ib. 309₃₀ (Endeus).

Ib. 321₇, aeclessiam liberam; 330₂₉, sed libere semper.

Add. Notices 338 (offering of Caichán’s fifth: note liberauit Deo et Patricio).

Ib. 337, (sons of Conlaid offered) octo campi pondera id est uaccas campi octo (8 ballyboes) in hereditate sua ... Deo et Patricio in sempiterna saecula.

Ib. 340₃₋₁₀;344₁.

Ib. 335₂₋₆ (Trim.).

P. 184.—Alphabets (abgitoria or elementa): Tír. 308₁₃, 320₂₈, 322₁₅, 326₃₀, 327₂₀, 328₂₈. The suggestion that these were figurative alphabets, “the A B C of the Christian doctrine” (tentatively put forward by Stokes, Vit. Trip. p. cliii.), can hardly be entertained, unless it is shown that abgitir was used in this sense without the addition of crabaith (= fidei). Tírechán saw a psalter written by Patrick for Sachall—doubtless at Baslick (301₈). Justus, a deacon of Patrick, is said to have possessed a baptismal liturgy which Patrick gave him, libros baptismatis (ib. 318). He gave Mucneus libros legis septem, which seems to mean the Heptateuch? ib. 326₁₇.

Tírechán has a story that in a district of Connaught Patrick and his companions had tablets, written more Mosaico, in their hands, and that pagans took them for swords, saying that they seemed to be wooden in the day-time, but were really of iron for shedding blood. It is inferred that these tablets were wooden staves, roughly resembling in shape the short swords of the ancient Irish: compare Graves, Hermathena, iii. 237 and 228 sqq., and Todd, St. Patrick, 509. [It may be noted that in this passage of Tírechán cum uiii aut uiiii uiris points to the use of a written source; the numeral was not clear in the MS.]

P. 185.—The ogam alphabet. A word must be said on its structure, as it bears upon my contention that Latin letters must have been used in Ireland before the fifth century. The twenty-one ogam scores form four groups of five, with one letter (p) as a supernumerary. The vowels form one group; the other groups are (2) h d t c q; (3) b l v s n; (4) m g ng f r. It has been suggested with great probability that the elements of the second group were selected as being the initials of the first five Irish numerals; but the principle of arrangement in groups 3 and 4 has not been discovered. The choice of p as the letter to be excluded from the groups and treated separately must have depended on that principle. The supposition that the inventor of the cipher contemplated only twenty symbols, and that the symbol for p was subsequently added when found indispensable, is in itself unlikely (for why should he have fixed the number twenty?), and breaks down on the fact that, while ng might have been treated by a shift, p was required for the archaic word poi, which occurs on several of the extant sepulchral inscriptions.[350] Including p, and excluding ng, which was clearly a native invention, we have simply a cipher of the Latin alphabet up to u, with a single modification. The symbol u, which did double duty in Latin as both consonant and vowel, is represented by two symbols, one for each function. The fact that only the last three letters (x y z) of the Latin alphabet are discarded, and that all the others are represented, renders this explanation of the ogam cipher very much simpler than a derivation from Greek or Iberian (or Runic, which has been suggested).

That the cipher implies that the alphabet for which its symbols are substituted was in use can hardly be questioned. As the date of the oldest ogam stones cannot be determined, we cannot fix a date for the introduction of Roman writing. But there can be no question that the older stones are pagan, and the inference is clear that this writing was introduced independently of Christianity.

Chapter IX

P. 187.—Bishop Nynias, generally called Ninian, see Bede, H. E. iii. 4. This passage in Bede furnishes the only trustworthy tradition about Nynias. His expression ut perhibent shows that his information was oral. Bede does not fix the date of Nynias further than by the vague multo tempore before St. Columba, and by the statement that the church which Nynias built was dedicated to St. Martin. The usually accepted date, c. 400 A.D., depends on the statement in Ailred’s Vita Niniani, c. 2, that Nynias visited St. Martin (and obtained at Tours masons to build his stone church). There is no evidence that the Life composed by Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx in the twelfth century, was based on any ancient documents unknown to Bede; Ailred seems to have drawn his material, mainly legendary, from traditions in Galloway, and, with the exception of the visit to Martin, he adds nothing that can pretend to be a historical fact to the brief notice of Bede. The personal contact of Nynias with Martin, however, may be a genuine tradition; and it furnishes the most probable explanation of the connexion of Martin’s name with Candida Casa. But we have an independent testimony that the conversion of the Picts of Galloway must have been at least early in the fifth century—namely, their description as apostatae in Patrick’s Letter against Coroticus, which shows that they had been converted and fallen away before the middle of the fifth century. [The fullest collection of everything bearing on Nynias is Forbes’s Lives of St. Ninian and St. Kentigern, 1874. A more recent edition of Ailred’s Vita will be found in Pinkerton’s Lives of the Scottish Saints, revised by W. M. Metcalfe, vol. i. 1889. For a criticism on Ailred, see J. Mackinnon, Ninian und sein Einfluss auf die Ausbreitung der Christenthums in Nord-Britannien, 1891. See also Plummer’s note on Bede, H.E. iii. 4.]

Ib.—Candida Casa, Whitern, was known in Ireland in the sixth century as Magnum Monasterium or Rosnat, and had a high reputation as a monastic school: see passages in Colgan, Acta Sanctorum Hib. i. p. 438. This reputation led to the rise of a legend that Nynias founded a church in Ireland and died there. A lost Irish life, known to Ussher (Brit. Eccl. vi. 209) contained this story, and Nynias appears in Irish Martyrologies under the name of Moinenn “my Nynias” (Mart. of Tallaght, ed. Kelly, p. xxxiv.; Mart. Dung. ed. Todd, p. 249).

P. 190.—Ceretic or Coroticus. The only source for the following events is Patrick’s Letter (see below); but the identification of Coroticus, who is the subject of the Letter, depends on other considerations which seem quite conclusive. The Table of Contents to Muirchu’s Life describes the section which Muirchu devoted to him as de conflictu sancti Patricii adversum Coirthech regem Aloo[351] (p. 271; in Muirchu’s text he is simply described as cuiusdam regis Britannici, p. 498). Aloo at once suggests the Rock (Ail) of Clyde, Bede’s Alcluith (ciuitas Brettonum munitissima usque hodie quae uocatur Alcluith, H.E. i. 1), Adamnan’s Petra Cloithe; and this identification agrees with the close association of Patrick’s Coroticus with the Picts and Scots, which shows that he must have ruled in Northern Britain. But the determination of Coroticus as ruling at Alcluith is demonstrated (as has been most clearly shown by Zimmer, Celtic Church, p. 54, cp. Skene, Celtic Scotland, i. 158, note) by a genealogy of the kings of that place, preserved in a Welsh source. In the last quarter of the sixth century, in the time of Columba, Rodercus, or Rhydderch, reigned at Alcluith (Adamnan, V. Col. i. 15: Rodercus filius Tothail qui in petra Cloithe regnavit), and we find him also as Riderch hen (Rhydderch the Old) in the Historia Brittonum (ed. Mommsen, p. 206). Now the pedigree of this Rhydderch is found in a Welsh genealogy (ed. Phillimore, in Y Cymmrodor, 9, 173): he was son of Tutagual (cp. Adamnan, filius Tothail), who was son of Clinoch, who was son of Dumngnal, who was son of Cinuit, who was son of Ceretic guletic. It is evident that Ceretic, from whom Rhydderch was sixth, corresponds chronologically to Coroticus, the contemporary of St. Patrick, reckoning a generation—thirty years—to each king. The identification so completely fits with all the data that we can have no doubt of its truth. Thus Zimmer fixes the date of Ceretic or Coroticus as 420-450 A.D. But it is better to say that the reigns of Ceretic and his son Cinuit probably fell more or less between 420 and 480.

Zimmer thinks that the description of Ceretic as guletic in the Welsh source points to his position as claiming to be a successor of the Roman dux Britanniarum. I do not feel certain that we can go so far, but I have no doubt that Ceretic and his milites represented the Roman defence of North Britain. That these milites were Roman citizens is clear from Patrick’s words (Letter, p. 375₂₃, militibus—non dico ciuibus meis atque ciuibus sanctorum Romanorum sed ciuibus demoniorum—the sting of this reproach is that they professed to be Roman). Coroticus was a tyrannus for Patrick (per tirannidem Corotici, p. 376₁₉). It is not clear whether the reges and tyranni who arose in various parts of Britain in the fifth century (for example, Vortigern) bore Roman official titles: the fact that there were also generals who were not reges and who seem to correspond to the Roman commanders (Ambrosius Aurelianus; Arthurius) cannot be considered decisive. For the continuance of Roman civilisation in Britain after the rescript of Honorius (A.D. 410), see Mr. Haverfield’s observations in “Early British Christianity” in Eng. Hist. Rev., July 1896, pp. 428-30; and on the other hand for a Celtic revival, his paper on “The Last Days of Silchester,” ib. Oct. 1904, pp. 628-9.

[It is hardly necessary to mention the old view in Rees, Welsh Saints, p. 135, followed by Todd, St. Patrick, p. 352, that Coroticus was Caredig, of Cardigan, son of the Welsh chief Cynedda.]

P. 192.—That the scene of the outrage was in North Ireland, in Down or Antrim, is only a probable conjecture: (1) these coasts were the most likely destination of an expedition from Strathclyde; and (2) the circumstance that Patrick happened at the time to be close to the place suggests Ulster. Zimmer says nothing as to this; but his theory would evidently compel him to assume that the outrage was committed in South Ireland, for otherwise the Letter of St. Patrick would imply that his activity was not confined, as Zimmer contends that it was, to North Leinster. For a conjecture that the date may have been A.D. 459, see above, App. B, p. 303.

Ib.—Heathen Scots. Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum (Patrick, Letter, p. 375₂₆). The Picts, not the Scots, are apostates (cp. p. 379₇); the natural inference is that the Scots (of Britain) were still heathen. Zimmer’s inference that they were Christians (p. 55) seems extraordinarily perverse. He asks us to observe that the Scots “are not reproached with paganism.” The implication is inadmissible. Their paganism is taken for granted; in fact, it is their excuse. If they had been professing Christians their guilt would have been greater even than that of the Picts, who had fallen away from Christianity. The fact that it is on the Picts, not on the Scots, that Patrick’s reproaches fell, proves that the Scots were heathen and therefore might not be expected to know better.

The mention of the Scots in this document is important, because it proves that Scottish settlements in North-Western Britain had begun before the middle of the fifth century. This must be taken into account in criticising the notice in Bede, H.E. i. 1, of the origin of the British Dalriada.

P. 193.—The outrage on the neophytes: Letter against Coroticus, 375₂₂₋₃₂. The language of Patrick implies that it was the Scots and Picts, not the milites Corotici, who slaughtered some of the Christians:

The text of the Letter is full of corruptions, some of which may be easily corrected. In the following sentence we should perhaps read:

Crux or crucis signum may have fallen out before crudeliter. For the sign of the cross and white chrism at baptism, see Warren, Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, p. 65; cp. p. 217. It was laid down by Innocent I. (Ep. xxv., Migne, P.L. xx. 555) that chrism in pectore might be performed by presbyters, chrism in fronte only by bishops. For the Roman and Gallican baptismal ceremonies see Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien, cap. ix.

P. 194.—There is a difficulty, perhaps only superficial, in Patrick’s narrative in his Letter. He makes Coroticus fully responsible for the outrage, but his language suggests that the message which he had sent to demand the captives before the plunderers left Ireland was not addressed to Coroticus personally; the ruler’s name is not mentioned, and the plural is used (cachinnos fecerunt de illis, 376₄). It is possible, however, that something has fallen out (see last note) before the words et misi epistolam.

Ib.—The persons in Strathclyde to whom the Letter against Coroticus was transmitted and who were asked to excommunicate the tyrant are not designated by a more precise expression than sancti et humiles corde (376₂₃). They were, no doubt, the whole Christian community; but there is no indication who was to receive the letter in the first instance. There is apparently a reference to the contemplated transmission of the letter from one place to another in Britain (certainly from Ireland to Britain) by the hands of some famulus Dei in 380₁₉, and the writer is afraid that it might possibly be abstracted. The inference seems to be that it was not to go direct to Alcluith, but to some other place (could it possibly have been Whitern?).

P. 194.—The reference to the redemption of captives from the Franks is an illustration from Patrick’s own writings of his knowledge of Gaul. An untenable inference has been drawn from this passage by Sir S. Ferguson and Dr. Stokes, namely, that it must have been written before the Franks “crossed the Rhine and settled in Gaul, i.e. before A.D. 428” (Introduction to Tripartite Life, p. ci). The argument is based on ignorance of Frank history. The Salian Franks in question had been settled west of the Rhine since the time of Julian. Consequently if there was any validity in the argument it would prove that the Letter must have been written before 358 A.D. But the reasoning is invalid. It is not clear whether the Salians are meant; but if they are meant, as they well may be, there is no reason in the world why they should not have carried off captives to their territory in Lower Germany, on the Gallic side of the Rhine, early in the fifth century, whether in the days of Chlojo or before; in fact it is what we should expect in those troubled years from 407 to the campaigns of Aetius in the late twenties. The argument that the Franks must have carried their captives beyond the Rhine is to me unintelligible.

Ib.—Legend of the transformation of Ceretic into a fox: Muirchu, p. 498: ilico uulpeculi (sic legendum) miserabiliter arrepta forma. The curious expression (ib.₁₉), ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus aquae transiens nusquam comparuit, may possibly have been suggested by the words in the Letter 380₇ referring to Coroticus: miserum regnum temporale quod utique in momento transeat sicut nubes uel fumus qui utique uento dispergitur: ita peccatores et fraudulenti a facie Domini peribunt. Muirchu found that story in an Irish written source (see above, App. A, ii. 3).

P. 195.—Bitter phrases and self-justification in the Letter: see 375₂₀₋₂₁; 376₁₆ (non usurpo aliena); 377₁₄₋378₂; 379₁₂₋₁₈. For similar phrases in the Confession and the Letter, cp. Mr. White’s list of recurrent phrases (Proc. of R.I.A. 1905, p. 299), to which may be added the use of utique.

P. 197.—“Confession.” What Patrick meant by confessio is made clear by the last sentences of the work (374₂₈₋375₅), and borne out by the general tenor. Compare esp. 358₄₋₁₀ (confiteremur), 361₁₇, 366₂₀, 370₃₄.

P. 202.—The attack on Patrick, on account of the youthful fault (Conf. 365₂, etc.):

It is clear that the attack was made in Ireland (cp. App. C, 5). It seems probable that the persons described as seniores mei were ecclesiastics in Ireland, and this view has been adopted in the text. But in another passage we read that aliquanti de senioribus meis were offended by his persistence in the determination to go to Ireland (367₂₉), and this might suggest the view that they came from Britain (uenerunt) for the purpose of attacking him. It seems impossible to decide. The vision which Patrick saw the night after an interview with the seniores has caused some difficulty; he tells it so badly. “That night I saw in a vision of the night a writing which had been written against me,[352] dishonouring me.[353] And at the same time I heard the answer of God saying to me, ‘We have seen with displeasure the face of’ the person aforesaid [viz. the friend], revealing his name.”[354] The passage immediately following deserves attention. The writer gives thanks for two things:

Here he designates as two great crises the attempts to dissuade him from his missionary purpose, and the attack afterwards made upon him, to which ex eo refers.

P. 206.—Patrick regrets his want of education (Conf. 359₂₆):

P. 206.—Scriptural quotations in the Confession and Letter. A full conspectus of these has been furnished by Rev. N. J. D. White in his edition. His results as to the text used by Patrick may be summed up as follows. For the Old Testament there is no evidence that he used the Vulgate (cp. above, p. 293 ad fin.), while there are distinctively Old Latin citations. The New Testament citations are not so clear: some passages seem certainly to imply the Vulgate; others have Old Latin support. As there can be little doubt that Patrick quoted largely from memory, I am inclined to conjecture that he had been trained on an Old Latin version in Gaul, but that he possessed in Ireland a copy of the New Testament Vulgate, in which he looked up some of his references. This would explain the twofold character of the New Testament quotations, but I put forward the conjecture with great diffidence.

Ib.—Succession of Armagh bishops. See the four lists in Todd, St. Patrick, p. 174 sqq. All these lists interpolate Sechnall, and three of them the fictitious Sen Patraic, between Patrick and Benignus. But the breviarium in the Book of Leinster (f. 12, vᵒ A; see my paper in E.H.R., October 1902) recognises that Iarlathus (the successor of Benignus) was the third bishop. I cannot, however, consider it certain that Benignus succeeded Patrick before his death in 461, because the ten years which the lists assign to Benignus may have been based on the Sen Patraic interpolation, “Sen Patraic” being supposed to have died in 457, and ten years (467-457) being thus obtained for Benignus.

P. 207.—Day of St. Patrick’s death. It is recorded in the Calendar of Luxeuil (Martene et Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, iii. c. 1592 (1717); Stokes, Tripartite Life, ii. 493).

Ib.—Two distinct sets of petitiones granted to Patrick are recorded, one in Muirchu, the other in the Lib. Arm. at the end of Tírechán’s Memoir. (1) Of the four petitions mentioned by Muirchu as granted by the angel before Patrick’s death, two have obvious motives: one (a) is of Ulidian origin, and the other (b) is in the interest of Armagh (see above, p. 207). The other two are: (c) that whoever sings the hymn concerning St. Patrick (Sechnall’s hymn) on the day of his death shall be saved; and (d) that Patrick shall himself judge all the Irish on the day of judgment. One wonders what Patrick would have thought of such petitions, especially of the latter. It seems clear that (c) and (d) were first invented, and had become current before (a) and (b) were added.[355] (2) The other set consists of three (tres petitiones ut nobis traditae sunt Hibernensibus, p. 331, Rolls ed.), and the Vita Tertia (c. 85) connects them with the sojourn for prayer on Mount Crochan. They are (a) that none of the Irish who repents, even on his death-bed, shall be shut up in hell; (b) that barbarous peoples shall not rule the Irish for ever; (c) that seven years before the last day Ireland shall be overwhelmed by the sea, and none of the Irish survive. These petitions are given in the Historia Brittonum, and must have been current in the eighth century.[356] The point of the second petition is not clear. Possibly it refers to invasions from Britain.

We may conjecture that the stories of the petitions grew out of an early legend that, through their saint’s intercession, the men of Ireland were to have a privileged position at the Last Judgment.

P. 211.—St. Patrick’s crozier. The history of the crozier known as baculus Iesu, which existed in Armagh in the eleventh century (see the obscure notices in Tighernach, s.a. 1027 and 1030), was transferred in the latter half of the twelfth century to the Cathedral Church of Dublin, and was publicly burnt as an object of superstition in 1538, will be found set out in Todd’s Introduction (pp. viii. sqq.) to the Book of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, ed. by J. C. Crosthwaite, 1844. The veneration with which it was regarded in the eleventh century shows that it was an ancient relic, and it can hardly be doubted that it was the existence of this relic at Armagh which occasioned the story that Jesus gave a staff to Patrick. This story occurs in the Vita Tertia, c. 23, which probably goes back to the ninth century; and even if the story was not invented till that period, the object which suggested it must have been older. It seems very probable that the staff was one of the insignia consecrata mentioned in the Liber Angueli (355₂₉, 356₄), and this would take us back to the eighth century. There is therefore reason for thinking that the crozier which perished in 1538 may have been extremely ancient, but there is no positive proof that the tradition which assigned it to Patrick is correct, or that it was as old as the fifth century.

Ib.—St. Patrick’s bell. In Ann. Ult. s.a. 553, there is a notice, derived from the Book of Cuana, to the effect that in that year St. Columba placed the relics of Patrick in a shrine. Three relics had been found in Patrick’s tomb, “the cup, the gospel of the angel, and the bell of the will,” and an angel instructed Columba how to distribute them: the cup was to go to Down, the bell to Armagh, and he was to keep the gospel himself.[357] If this notice stood in the Book of Cuana, it would show that early in the seventh century the “bell of the will” existed at Armagh, and was believed to belong to Patrick. The bell has been described, and its history traced, by Bishop Reeves in Transactions of the R.I.A. xxvii. pp. 1 sqq. (1877). It is a four-sided bell, weighing 3 lbs. 8 oz., made “of two plates of sheet-iron, which are bent over so as to meet, and are fastened by large-headed iron rivets.” The handle is of iron. A shrine, which is also preserved in the Dublin Museum, was made for it, c. A.D. 1100. Bishop Reeves believed that the tradition which ascribed the bell to Patrick is sound. He seems to have thought that there is no room for reasonable doubt. But it is to be observed that the statement cited from the Liber Cuana opens the door to possibilities of fraud. We may infer from it with certainty that for nearly a century after Patrick’s death this bell was not at Armagh. Its genuineness therefore depends on the truth of the story of the opening of Patrick’s tomb (at Saul), and the discovery of the bell in the tomb. But if the relic was a forgery, just such a story might have been invented.

Chapter X

P. 218.—Latin the ecclesiastical language in the west. Since these remarks were written, I came across two short but valuable papers on the subject: P. Frédéricq, “Les conséquences de l’évangélisation par Rome et par Byzance sur le développement de la langue maternelle des peuples convertis” in the Bull. de l’Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres, 1903, n. 11, 738-751; F. Cumont, “Pourquoi le latin fut la seule langue liturgique de l’occident?” in Mélanges Paul Frédéricq, 1904, 63-66.