Confession, 357₅: qui (may refer either to Calpurnius or to Potitus) fuit [in] uico Bannauem taberniae. uillulam enim prope habuit, ubi ego capturam dedi. We are justified in inferring that the uillula or farmhouse was on the estate of Calpurnius, and that he resided permanently here or in the neighbourhood. The analysis and identification of Bannauemtaberniae (or Bannauemtaberniae[358]) have caused great difficulty. In the first place, the question arises whether it represents the name of the vicus, or is the name of the vicus (in the ablative) followed by a genitive representing the region or district. Now it has been observed (by Mr. Haverfield, Eng. Historical Review, v. 711, and Mr. Nicholson, Academy, May 11, 1895) that in the Itinerarium Antonini Bannaventa appears as the name of a station on Watling Street, probably three or four miles from Daventry. The idea that this Bannaventa is the place designated by Patrick has one considerable difficulty. For the only early evidence we have as to the situation of Bannauemtaberniae is inconsistent with it. Muirchu states that Bannauemtaberniae was haut[359] procul a mari nostro (495₉), and his next words show that in his time a distinct view was current as to its identification: quem uicum constanter indubitanterque comperimus esse uentre.[360] Muirchu’s indication that the place was near the Irish Channel is the less lightly to be neglected, since it would best accord with the circumstances of the capture of Patrick, though of course it is not impossible that the Irish invaders might have penetrated to Northamptonshire. I therefore think that probabilities are distinctly against the Daventry theory unless it can be shown to involve a satisfactory explanation of the mysterious bernie or burnie.[361] But that Bannaventa is the name there can, I think, be no doubt,[362] and there is no objection to supposing that there was another Bannaventa near the sea-coast. The recurrence of place-names needs no illustration. Of the two parts of this compound name, we have more than one Venta in Britain; and Mr. Haverfield has drawn attention to Banna (loc. cit.), “an unidentified spot in the north, probably a dozen miles east of Carlisle, near the Wall.” berniae, however, remains unexplained. It must represent the name of a district (or perhaps river), added to distinguish Bannaventa from other places of the same name.
Muirchu’s statement that the vicus was in or at Nentria (if this is the authentic reading) does not help us. But we can hardly doubt that he means by Nentria the same place which the Hymn of Fíacc means by Nemthur: l. 1, “Patrick was born in Nemthur.” This name might correspond to an old Celtic Nemetoduron (a name preserved in Nanterre near Paris).[363] This British Nemetodurum was, we may presume, in the same region as Bannaventa.
The glossator in the oldest (eleventh century) MS. of the Hymn of Fíacc identified Nemthur with Ail Clúade, the Rock of Clyde, at Dumbarton. We are ignorant of his authority for this statement, which does not appear in any earlier source. The fact, however, that it is not inconsistent with the direct statements of earlier sources has procured credence for it. But it is inconsistent with the probabilities of the case. Patrick’s father was a decurion, and he must have lived in civilised Britain. We have no evidence that there were Roman towns with municipal constitutions in Strathclyde. The truth is that north Britain was little more than a large military frontier. It is generally supposed that Theodosius in A.D. 369 restored Roman rule, which had fallen back in the north as far as the Wall of Antoninus, and that the district which he recovered (recuperata provincia, Ammianus, 28, 3, 7), and which was renamed Valentia (by Valentinian, in compliment to his brother Valens), included the country between the Walls of Hadrian and Antonine. There is, strictly speaking, no direct authority for this conclusion; Ammianus does not indicate the position of Valentia. The supposition that it was in the north, and that Theodosius restored fortresses as far as the line of the northern wall, is, however, not improbable. But there is no probability that it was colonised[364] or became in the last half century of Roman rule anything more than a military district. The Rock of Clyde, at the extreme end of the Northern Wall, is the last place we should expect to find the uillula of a Roman decurion; and the opinion that the home of Calpurnius was in that remote spot cannot be accepted without better evidence than an anonymous statement which we cannot trace to any trustworthy source.
But it is not likely that the identification offered by the glossator was his own invention; it is much more probable that it was an idea of considerably older date, and we cannot avoid asking the question how it could have arisen. It might be conjectured that the idea of connecting Patrick personally with north Britain arose there, naturally enough, as a consequence of the influence of the Irish Church on north Britain. But whether the idea first arose there or in Ireland, a delusive support for it might have been found in Corot. 375₂₃. Patrick’s expression there, civibus meis, in speaking of the soldiers of Coroticus, might have suggested that he belonged to the same place as Coroticus, and it was known that Coroticus was King of Ail (Clúade). Hence a narrow interpretation of Patrick’s expression civibus meis was sufficient to generate the theory that Patrick’s British home was there, and that Nemthur was identical with Ail Clúade.
This is the case against the vulgar view. On the other hand it might be argued that some things in the Letter of Patrick against Coroticus—especially his quotation “a prophet has no honour in his own country”—have more point if he was a native of that part of Britain which the letter concerns, namely, Strathclyde. It might be said that the existence of some small towns, fora or conciliabula, with municipal councils, in the province assumed to be Valentia, is not impossible, and that the existence of “Roman citizens” and Christian communities in Strathclyde is proved by Patrick’s Letter for the middle of the fifth century. And it might be suggested that bernie could be readily explained as a corruption of Berni<ci>e (remembering Bede’s description of Whitern in Galloway as ad provinciam Berniciam pertinens, iii. 4, which, though referring to the political geography of his own time, may correspond to the original extension of this obscure name).
Nevertheless, in the absence of any trace of a Bannaventa (or a Nemthur) in north British regions, we must, I think, give decisive weight to the general probabilities of the case and suppose that Bannaventa was south of the Wall of Hadrian, somewhere in western Britain, not very far from the coast. See further, Preface.
(1) Pacification and fortification of Britain by Theodosius, A.D. 368, 369. Chief source: Ammianus, 27, 8, and 28, 3, who mentions five enemies; Picti and Attacotti; Scotti; Franci and Saxones (27, 8, 5). Two passages in Claudian illustrate the campaigns of Theodosius. In the Panegyric on the Third Consulship of Honorius (A.D. 395) we read, vv. 54-6:—
and in the Panegyric on the Fourth Consulship (A.D. 397), vv. 28 sqq.:—
The first of these passages suggests that Theodosius pursued the Scots across the sea, or at least made a naval demonstration in the Irish Channel, and this is perhaps supported by the passage in Pacatus, Panegyric, c. 5: attritam pedestribus praeliis Britanniam referam? Saxo consumptus bellis naualibus offeretur. redactum ad paludes suas Scotum loquar?
(2) Troubles brought on Britain through the revolt of Maximus, and pacification by Stilicho. Zosimus (source: doubtless Eunapius), 4, 35: the soldiers, having crowned Maximus, παραχρῆμα τὸν Ὠκεανὸν ναυσὶ διαβάντες landed at the mouth of the Rhine. Cp. Orosius 7, 34, 9. (While Zosimus imputes the blame of the insurrection to Maximus, Orosius says that he was created Emperor inuitus propemodum.) The rebellion was brought to an end by the death of Maximus in A.D. 388 (Idatius and Prosper Tiro, ad ann.), so that it cannot have been before that year that the Britannic legions returned to Britain.
Now the only contemporary evidence as to the fortunes of Britain during the fifteen years which followed the revolt of Maximus consists of two passages of Claudian: (1) In Eutropium, i. 393 (composed A.D. 399, June to Sept.)—
where the context implies that this was accomplished during the reign of Honorius (te principe, 391); (2) De Consulatu Stilichonis, ii. 247 sqq. (composed end of A.D. 399):—
The second passage evidently suits the situation in which Britain would have almost inevitably found herself on the departure of Maximus with the legions. Two questions arise. In what year did Stilicho take measures for the defence of Britain? and did he visit the island in person? Keller supposes that the date was A.D. 385 and denies that he went to Britain (Stilicho, p. 17). As to the latter point it is possible that Keller may be right. The phrase illius effectum curis suggests this conclusion; if Stilicho had visited Britain and provided for its security on the spot, Claudian would perhaps have used some more vivid and graphic phrase, leaving the reader in no doubt that his hero had appeared on the scene of danger.
Before criticising Keller’s date, A.D. 385, it will be well to define the reference in the other passage, which distinctly states that the defeat of the Picts which is mentioned, was accomplished while Honorius was Emperor. This might mean one of two things. It might mean: since Honorius succeeded his father as sole Augustus in the west (Jan. A.D. 395); or it might mean: since Honorius was created Augustus (Jan. A.D. 393). The words cannot assuredly be interpreted of the Caesarship of Honorius (he appears with the title Caesar in his first consulship, A.D. 386). In the absence of any other counter-indication, we are, I think, fully entitled to assume that te principe bears its most obvious and natural meaning, and that the defeat of the Picts occurred while Honorius (and not his father Theodosius) was solely responsible for the government of the west. We may therefore assign as limits to the date of this event, Jan. 395-June 399 A.D..
Now Keller has made the mistake of associating these two passages of Claudian closely together. While the first emphasises a defeat of the Picts and does not refer to the other foes of Britain, the second describes the serious dangers which beset the island on three sides, and states that measures of defence were taken by Stilicho, but makes no mention of an actual defeat of the Picts, or indeed of any other enemy. There is therefore no reason for supposing that both passages refer precisely to the same events; and it may be argued with some force that if Claudian was thinking of the same achievements he would not have omitted, in rehearsing the military successes in the reign of Honorius, to mention the Scot and the Saxon as well as the Pict, especially as his description in the second passage conveys the idea that the Scot and the Saxon were the most formidable.
We may therefore refer the events mentioned in the poem “On Stilicho’s Second Consulship” to a date prior to A.D. 395, and may return to consider and reject Keller’s suggestion of A.D. 385. It does not need much consideration, for it is wholly inconsistent with the political situation. After Gratian’s death in A.D. 383 Maximus was recognised as Augustus by Theodosius (A.D. 384 or 385, cp. Schiller, Gesch. der röm. Kaiserzeit, ii. 405), who was not then in a position to advance against the usurper (Zosimus, 4, 37). From that time until he marched upon Italy in A.D. 387, there were no hostile dealings between Maximus and Theodosius. Maximus ruled over Britain, Gaul, and Spain from his headquarters at Trier, and it cannot for a moment be supposed that Theodosius or any general of his interfered in the administration of those provinces. Stilicho was a general of Theodosius,[365] and he cannot possibly have had to do with Britain till after Theodosius came to the rescue of the young Valentinian in A.D. 388. Thus Keller’s date is excluded.
The true date can easily be surmised. After the execution of Maximus in summer A.D. 388 Theodosius remained in Italy, ordering the affairs of the west for the young Valentinian, and did not return to Constantinople till summer A.D. 391. No part of the Gallic Prefecture probably demanded his attention more than Britain, and we cannot be far wrong in supposing that the measures of Stilicho, recorded by Claudian, belong to these three years. As was observed, the words of Claudian rather suggest that Stilicho did not himself pass into Britain. But we may assume that Theodosius sent him into Gaul, and that from there he ordered what was necessary to be done.
It seems probable that Maximus retained in Gaul a considerable part of the Britannic army; and if so, it was doubtless one of the cares of Stilicho to restore to Britain these contingents. We may assume that from A.D. 390 two legions (IInd and VIth), if not the XXth also, were in Britain.
(3) At the end of 401 Alaric entered Italy (for the chronology see Appendix 17 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.), and a legion was summoned for the defence of Italy. Claudian is again our source, De Bello Gothico, 416-8:—
This description of a legion which might be called upon to act against both Irish and Pict certainly suggests the legion which was stationed in the northern military district, of which the headquarters was York.[366] Now in the Notitia Dignitatum, which represents the state of the civil and military service in the Empire in the first years of the fifth century, we find two legions in Britain, the VIth in the northern districts under the dux Britanniarum, the IInd in the south-eastern district under the comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias. No legion appears in the western district under the comes Britanniae. It has therefore been supposed that it was the XXth legion, stationed in the west, which was summoned to Italy; and the fact that this legion does not appear in the Notitia at all has suggested that this document was drawn up after it had left Britain, but before it had been permanently assigned to any other station. Claudian’s words need not be fatal to this theory, for the legion whose headquarters was at Chester would have to defend Britain against the Scots, and might have to defend it against Picts if they broke through the wall; and in any case the words of the poet in such a matter could not be precisely pressed. But the argument cannot be regarded as conclusive. It is perfectly possible that the XXth legion had been broken up before this time, that there were only two legions in Britain, and that it was the VIth which went to Italy. Its departure, it should be remembered, did not leave north Britain defenceless; there were large forces, cohorts, and alae, distinct from the legion. It is, moreover, possible that the British section of the Not. is of much older date.
(4) The elevation of the tyrant Constantine and his crossing into Gaul would seem to have happened in the first half of A.D. 407. This seems to follow from the account in Olympiodorus (fr. 12, ed. Müller). The second half of A.D. 406 is filled by the episodes of Constantine’s predecessors, Marcus and Gratian. Zosimus (who, in regard to the dating, misunderstood Olympiodorus, as was pointed out by Freeman[367]) says that the invasion of Gaul by the Vandals and their fellows was one of the causes of the rebellion in Britain (vi. 3, 1). This cannot be true, if the text is sound in the entry of Prosper Tiro, which states that the Vandals and Alans crossed the Rhine at the end of December A.D. 406.[368] On the other hand, two considerations might tempt us to suspect this notice, namely, the unlikelihood of a migration in the middle of winter, and the existence of two edicts for a levée of provincials contra hostiles impetus dated April 18 and 20 at Ravenna (cp. Hodgkin, i. 739). But neither of these considerations is weighty enough to justify us in assuming without further evidence anything inconsistent with the testimony of Prosper’s MSS. In any case, the crossing of Constantine into Gaul will fall in the year A.D. 407.[369] We can have no doubt that most of the soldiers in Britain accompanied Constantine when he departed to secure Gaul. But he must have left garrisons; it was important for him to retain his hold on the island if, as is probable, his corn supply depended on it. Mr. Freeman has summed up the event thus in its consequences for Britain: “Britain might be saved by a campaign in Gaul. But if this was the motive, the thought of saving Britain must soon have passed away from the minds of Constantine and his soldiers. Whether they cared for such an object or not, the course of things on the mainland soon made it hopeless for them to think of keeping up any relations with the great island. The crossing of Constantine into Gaul thus became the end of the Roman power in Britain” (p. 56).
It is possible that Constantine, before he departed, may have set up a colleague, named Carausius, to safeguard his interests in Britain. This at least is the inference drawn by Mr. A. J. Evans from a coin found at Richborough (see Numismatic Chronicle, third series, vii. 191 sqq. 1887, and App. 19 to Bury’s edition of Gibbon, vol. iii.).
(5) We may now briefly consider the account of this last period of Roman domination which is given in the Epistle of Gildas, De excidio et conquestu Britanniae. Gildas, a native of west Britain, wrote in the first half of the sixth century, and his description in cc. 13-20 represents the confused memories of that troubled time, surviving in his own day. As Mommsen[370] says: “haec ut in universum rerum statum in Britannia qui tum fuit recte repraesentare videntur, sic ut narrantur magis famam incertam reddunt quam sinceram rerum gestarum narrationem.”
In this account three great devastations are distinguished, and each is attributed to the withdrawal of the Roman garrison. The first was caused by the revolt of Maximus (cc. 13, 14); the island was devastated by Scots and Picts;[371] and it was not until the islanders sent an embassy with letters to Rome that “a legion,” praeteriti mali (the disloyalty of Britain) immemor, was sent to Britain, defeated the enemy, and built a wall across the island. The details are of course inaccurate, but the general fact that the rebellion of Maximus brought invasion upon Britain, and after his fall measures were taken (by Stilicho) for fortifying it, is correct.
But Gildas conceived that the “legion” when it had done its work did not remain in the island, but returned triumphantly to Rome; and then the old foes began their ravages anew (c. 16). Again an embassy repairs to Rome and begs aid; aid is again given, and the invaders are punished. The soldiers, having given good advice to the timid natives and erected new fortifications, valedicunt tamquam ultra non reversuri. Then follows the third devastation, and the famous futile message of the “groans of the Britons” is sent to Aetius.
Now this narrative does not correspond to the course of events as we gather it from the scanty contemporary sources, but we can see how it is based on actual occurrences. The third devastation, from A.D. 407, when the army finally departed, to A.D. 446 (the third consulship of Aetius), must represent truly enough the situation of Britain in those years. The circumstance that one legion was withdrawn in A.D. 402, and that the rest departed five years later, in A.D. 407, may have been the historical motive for distinguishing a second period of devastation, which would have to fall before A.D. 407.
But a further fact may underlie this tradition of a second devastation. There is no reason to reject the statement in the Irish Annals that King Niall was slain by the Ictian Sea (Sea of Wight), that is, the English Channel, while he was invading Britain, nor is there any reason to question the date assigned to his death, A.D. 405. And if the date is right, even within a year or so, then his last incursion into Britain may be regarded as the historical foundation of the “second devastation” of Gildas.
For the legend of the Slaying of Niall of the Nine Hostages (orcuin Néill nóigíallaig) see the version edited by Professor Kuno Meyer (in Otia Merseiana, ii. 84 sqq.).
The High Kings of Ireland who may have been concerned in the “Scotic” invasions of Britain from the middle of the fourth century to the year A.D. 427 were as follows, according to the Irish tradition:—
The chronological framework of Patrick’s life is determined by two certain dates: the year of his coming to Ireland, which rests upon clear and unvarying tradition, A.D. 432, and the year of his death, A.D. 461. This last date is supplied by the earliest source we have (excepting Patrick’s own writings), Tírechán (302₂₉), and it is supported by the independent evidence of the Annals. For although the false, vulgar date (A.D. 493) established itself in the Annals, the true date remained inconsistently side by side with it. I must refer the reader to my discussion of the passage of Tírechán in the English Historical Review, xvii. p. 239 sqq. (1902), where I have shown that the date there given, A.D. 461, is supported by the Annals of Ulster,[372] the Annals of Inisfallen,[373] and probably by a chronological notice in the Historia Brittonum.[374]
But though these data are decisive, the vulgar date 493 has become so generally current that it may not be amiss to point to one or two further considerations which make against it; especially as it is possible to dissociate it from the tradition that Patrick died at an age which is, to use a moderate expression, unusual—120, by supposing that he was born in the first years of the fifth century, was ordained bishop at the age of 30, and lived to the age of 90. This view would involve a forced explanation of the dates (see below) supplied by the Confession. It is to be observed (1) that the Annals and older sources do not furnish a single notice of any event in Patrick’s life between 461 and 493; these thirty-two years are a blank. (2) Negative evidence is also furnished by the oldest Life of St. Brigit (by Cogitosus), which does not mention Patrick, or make any attempt to bring Brigit into connexion with him (as the latter Lives do, on the ground of the supposed date of his death in 493). Further (3), Benignus, Patrick’s successor at Armagh, died in 467 (Ann. Ult. sub a.; Annals in the Book of Leinster, f. 12, vᵒ A, see my extract in English Historical Review, xvii. pp. 700-1, 1902); and it will be allowed to be supremely improbable that Patrick should have resigned his bishopric when he was 60 years old or thereabouts, and survived his resignation 30 years. The question of the origin of the date 493, and of the two fabulous ages of Patrick (120 and 132) are treated in a separate Excursus.
Our other data depend upon the Confession. He had committed some fault when he was about 15 years old;[375] he had confessed it to a friend before he was ordained deacon;[376] and through the treachery of his friend[377] it was afterwards urged against him. These machinations against him occurred post annos triginta,[378] which has been generally interpreted to mean 30 years after the commission of the fault.[379] It is also generally assumed that the hostile machinations of which Patrick complains occurred in connexion with his consecration as bishop. I will show that the first of these two assumptions is not certain, and that the second is erroneous; but, as they are usually accepted, I may first explain the chronological reconstruction which could be based on them. If Patrick’s fault committed at the age of 15 was urged against him 30 years later when he was consecrated bishop in A.D. 432, we at once get his age in that year as 45, and the date of his birth as A.D. 387, and the date of his captivity (= 387 + 16/17) as A.D. 403/4. This would follow, if we took the two numbers mentioned by Patrick as strictly precise. But it is to be observed that he gives the number 15 as approximate (nescio, Deus scit, si habebam tunc annos quindecim), and that 30 may be a round number. When he says that he does not think he was more than 15 when the delinquency was committed, we may presume that he was at least 15; on the other hand, we may take it that the number 30 is more likely to be slightly an over-statement than an under-statement. We should have, therefore, to consider it quite possible that the two numbers taken together might represent a period of somewhat less than 45 years—43 or 44; and it would not be safe to draw a more precise inference than that the birth date fell between 387 and 390, and the captivity between 403/4 and 406/7.
But the basis on which this reconstruction is built is unsound. (1) So far from its being clear that the 30 years are reckoned from the date of the fault, the words suggest a different view. Occasionem post annos triginta inuenerunt[380] et aduersus uerbum quod confessus fueram antequam essem diaconus. These words seem naturally to imply 30 years, not after the fault (which has not been yet mentioned), but after the confession of the fault.[381] (2) It is quite clear that the occasion on which the fault was urged against him by aliquanti seniores was not the occasion of his consecration, but later, probably much later. The writer’s language so obviously implies this that I find it difficult to conceive how it could have been otherwise interpreted. He says:—
Et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui uenerunt et peccata mea contra laboriosum episcopatum meum, etc. ... sed Dominus pepercit proselito et peregrino (365₂₋₇).
The significant word laboriosum shows conclusively that the intervention of the seniores did not occur till Patrick had already been working in Ireland long enough to describe his bishopric as “laborious”; and the words proselito et peregrino, describing his position in Ireland, manifestly confirm this interpretation. If the seniores had intervened at the time of his consecration, it would be quite inappropriate and pointless to describe their action as aimed contra laboriosum episcopatum meum.
Hence the chronological reconstruction falls to the ground, being based on an erroneous determination of the limits of the period of 30 years. The anterior limit most probably corresponds to the date of the confession of the fault before ordination, while the posterior limit is certainly subsequent to A.D. 432.
It follows that these data of the Confession furnish us with no precise dates, as we have no fixed year to reckon from. They may, however, give an approximate indication. The words quod confessus fueram antequam essem diaconus strongly suggest that the confession was made not long before Patrick’s ordination as deacon. In another Excursus (9) it is shown that he was probably ordained before A.D. 418. Hence we should infer that the intervention of the seniores occurred before the year A.D. 448. More than this we are not entitled to infer. We have no means of determining precisely Patrick’s age at the date of his consecration.
There are nevertheless two indications which suggest that 389 may have been the year of Patrick’s birth: (1) the conjecture that he was taken captive on the occasion of King Niall’s invasion in A.D. 405 is in harmony with our data; it is a value of x which satisfies our indeterminate equation, though it is not the only value. It implies A.D. 389 as the birth date. (2) I show in another Excursus (20) that one of the traditions as to Patrick’s age at his death can be accounted for by supposing that he died at the age of 72; but 461 - 72 = 389.
Speaking, then, with every reserve, I think we may say that 389 is the only year which is particularly indicated by any data we possess, and that if we assume it hypothetically as our starting-point we obtain a framework into which our data fit consistently, and without constraint. More than this cannot be said.
Confession, 367₂₄, in siluis et monte; 362₃, inter-missi hominem cum quo fueram ui annis; 364₁₀₋₁₃, putabam—audire uocem ipsorum qui erant iuxta siluam Focluti quae est prope mare occidentals, et sic exclamauerunt quasi ex uno ore Rogamus te, sancte puer, ut uenias et adhuc ambulas inter nos. The last passage shows indisputably that Patrick, during his captivity, had “walked” near the wood of Fochlad; and otherwise it would be difficult to understand why he should have been so specially moved by thoughts of the people of Fochlad if he had known nothing of them personally. The obvious conclusion from the Confession, if we had no other data, would be that he spent six years of captivity with the master to whom he refers in western Connaught.
The authorities for the association of Patrick’s captivity with north Dalaradia and Mount Miss are Tírechán, 329₂₈-330₁₉, 311₁,₂, and Muirchu, 275₁₅₋₁₉, 276₆₋277₆, 300₁₀₋₁₃. I have pointed out that parts of these passages of Tírechán and Muirchu depend on a common source (see above, p. 258). It is to be observed that, in these our earliest sources (1), the identification of Patrick’s master with Miliucc of Mount Miss is introduced, not in connexion with the story of the captivity, but à propos of visits to that region after he had come as a missionary; and (2) the notices in both writers are characterised by legends—Miliucc’s self-immolation, the footsteps of the angel, the flames from Patrick’s mouth.
The rejection of Mount Miss as the scene of Patrick’s servitude involves the rejection of Miliucc as his master; for the passage in Tírechán makes it clear that Miliucc was really connected with that region (ascendit autem ad montem Miss Boonrigi quia nutriuit ibi filium Milcon Maccu-Buain, 329₂₈; the region was called from the name of Búan, Miliucc’s ancestor).
That the forest of Fochlad was not confined to north-western Mayo, the barony of Tirawley, but extended southward to Murrisk, is, I think, a probable conclusion from the passage in Tírechán, 310₃₋₁₂, where Crochan Aigli (Croagh Patrick) is closely connected with the Silua Fochlithi. It seems highly probable that Crochan Aigli, which has always been associated with Patrick in living tradition, is the mountain of the Confession. And in one document we have a distinct statement that this was so. It is remarkable that Probus, though he follows the narrative of Muirchu, nevertheless substitutes Crochan Aigli for Mount Miss (see above, p. 274). He must have had some motive for doing so; he must have had another tradition before him.
The question arises, what was the origin of the error (which evidently prevailed before the seventh century) that Patrick spent his captivity in north Dalaradia. Tírechán has a notice that a certain Gosactus (Guasacht),[382] whom Patrick ordained near Granard, was son of Miliucc (311), and his tomb was shown at Granard in later days, Vita Secunda, c. 15. This seems to bring Miliucc into touch with reality. He further states that Patrick, when a captive, had “nurtured Gosactus.” Our first idea would be that this was an inference from the Miliucc legend; but it seems just possible that it might account for the rise of the legend, in the way explained above, p. 123 (cap. vi.).
There are two ways in which an attempt might be made to reconcile the tradition of the captivity near Mount Miss with the passage in the Confession. (1) It might be held that Patrick changed masters, and served as a slave in both regions. But the passage in which he describes his captivity seems incompatible with such a conjecture. He says that he had been six years with the man from whom he escaped, and his narrative distinctly conveys the impression that he had been in the same place since his arrival in Ireland. (2) It might be suggested that he escaped from Antrim to a port in Mayo, near the wood of Fochlad, and thus became acquainted with that district, though he could not have been very long there (cp. White, Proc. of R.I.A. 1905, p. 224). But the words of the dream et adhuc[383] ambulas inter nos are not satisfied by this hypothesis. “We beg you to come and continue to walk amongst us”; this implies a previous sojourning far more protracted than the day or two spent at the port in waiting for the vessel to sail. It may be added that a flight from the west to an eastern port is what we should rather expect than a flight from the east coast to a western harbour.
[The following discussion is founded on the working hypothesis (see Excursus 3) that Patrick was born c. A.D. 389, and carried captive c. A.D. 405.]
In the twenty years intervening between Patrick’s escape, c. A.D. 411-412, and his consecration as bishop, A.D. 432, we know that he visited Britain, that he was attached to the church of Auxerre and studied there, and that he sojourned for some time in the monastery of Lérins. But our data do not permit us to arrange this part of his life with certainty, and various reconstructions are possible. The two indications which we possess are:—
(1) His own statement that he was again in Britain, post paucos annos (after his escape), Confession, 364₁.
(2) His association with Bishop Amator of Auxerre, who probably ordained him deacon (the grounds of this probability will be shown in Excursus 9); the death of Amator probably happened in A.D. 418.
Our view will partly depend on the latitude we may feel justified in giving to the expression post paucos annos. It might be held that his ordination by Amator preceded his return to Britain; or it might be held that he was not ordained at Auxerre till after his visit to Britain, so that he would have returned to Gaul before A.D. 418. The second alternative seems the more probable,[384] and it agrees with the tradition (Muirchu) that he went to Auxerre to study after his visit to Britain. His choice of Auxerre, combined with the circumstance that it was a bishop of Auxerre who afterwards took a prominent part in helping the orthodox British against Pelagianism, suggests that relations of some intimacy were maintained between Auxerre and some of the British sees. When Patrick, in Britain, made up his mind as to the destination of his life, he would have gone to Auxerre with recommendations from his friends. It seems most likely that his connexion with Auxerre should have originated in this way.
The tradition as embodied in Muirchu represents him as remaining at Auxerre till his departure for Ireland, and though it might easily be erroneous, it is, so far as it goes, against the possible theory that Patrick’s sojourn at Lérins is to be placed after his visit to Britain. But we have another piece of evidence which seems to me decisive, namely, one of the so-called Dicta Patricii. See Excursus 6, ad fin.
The argument for placing the sojourn at Lérins before the return to Britain may be summed up thus: (1) the reminiscence of Patrick’s wanderings almost certainly refers to his wanderings after his escape, and there can hardly be any doubt that the “islands in the Tyrrhenian Sea” mean the islands of Lérins, in view of the definite tradition (Tírechán, 302₂₄) that he stayed in the insola Aralanensis; (2) this date for the retreat to Lérins supplies the much-needed explanation of his delay in returning home.
The following chronology, then, may be a rough approximation:—
A.D. 411/2 escape from his ship-companions;
A.D. 411/2-414/5 at Lérins;
A.D. 414/5 returns to Britain;
A.D. 415/6 goes to Auxerre;
A.D. 416-8 is ordained by Amator;
A.D. 418 death of Amator, who is succeeded by Germanus;
A.D. 418-432 Patrick remains at Auxerre, as deacon;
A.D. 429 Germanus goes to Britain to suppress the Pelagian heresy;
A.D. 431 Palladius consecrated bishop for the Irish Church;
A.D. 432 Patrick consecrated bishop by Germanus.
The Vandals, Sueves, and Alans, who entered Gaul at the end of A.D. 406, remained in the land, devastating, slaying, and burning until A.D. 409, in which year they crossed the Pyrenees, to find homes in Spain. The extent of their ravages is indicated by Jerome, in a letter of A.D. 411, in which he mentions the devastation of Aquitania, Lugdunensis, and Narbonensis, and the destruction of Mainz, Rheims, and Speyer.[385] It is also described by Salvian, writing at a much later date,[386] in the De Gubernatione Dei, who tells[387] how the Vandals, gens ignavissima, de loco ad locum pergens de urbe in urbem transiens laid all things waste. Arsit regio Belgarum deinde opes Aquitanorum luxuriantium et posthaec corpus omnium Galliarum. But more valuable as genuine pictures by eye-witnesses, men who had themselves suffered with the sufferings of Gaul, are the Commonitorium of Orientius, and an anonymous poem entitled De Providentia Divina. Both these poems can be approximately dated to A.D. 415-416, and they describe the condition of the country at the time, enabling us to realise the long misery and desolation produced by the scourge of the years A.D. 407-409 Nor had Gaul, at least southern Gaul, been allowed a respite of peace to recover from the effects of that scourge, for the provincials had hardly become conscious that the Vandals had passed into Spain when Athaulf and his Visigoths entered Gaul. Moreover, a large body of Alans had remained behind, instead of accompanying their fellows across the Pyrenees. We derive a vivid picture of the unsettled state of Aquitaine from the Eucharisticon of Paulinus of Pella.[388]
Some passages in Orientius, the De Providentia Divina, and another anonymous poem Ad Uxorem, of the same period, illustrate the condition of the Gallic provinces.[389]
(1) Orientius (ed. Ellis, in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum), ii. 165 sqq.:—