(2) De Providentia Dei, in Migne, Patr. Gr. lxi. c. 617:—
(3) Ad Uxorem, in Migne, ib. c. 611.
It is possible, but I can find no direct evidence to show that the devastation had extended down the Loire. It might be considered whether the words of Orientius invia non pelago, which imply that the invaders attacked islands, allude to the islands of Noirmoutier, Rhé, etc.
Thus considerable regions of Gaul were a desolate wilderness, according to contemporary, rhetorical and poetical, evidence, from A.D. 408-409 to 416; and therefore, it might be argued, Gaul suits the narrative of St. Patrick in his Confession (362₂₂₋363₃₄). He and his companions reached land three days (post triduum) after they left the coast of Ireland, so that our choice lies between Britain and Gaul. The data do not suit Britain. We cannot imagine what inland part of Britain they could have wished to reach, which would have necessitated a journey of twenty-eight days per disertum. Suppose that the crew disembarked on the south coast of Britain, and that the southern regions had been recently ravaged by the Saxons, yet a journey of a few days would have brought them to Londinium or any other place they could have desired to reach from a south-coast port. Moreover, if they had landed in Britain, Patrick, when he once escaped from their company, could have reached the home of his parents in a few days; whereas he did not return home for a few years (ib. 364). His own words exclude Britain. Having mentioned his final escape from the traders, he proceeds: Et iterum post paucos annos in Britannis eram cum parentibus meis. I believe that post paucos annos has been interpreted by some in the sense “a few years after my capture.” But this is an unnatural explanation. The words naturally refer to what immediately precedes, viz. his escape. The only thing which can be alleged in favour of Britain is the intimation in the dream that he would “quickly come to his native land” (cito iturus ad patriam tuam). This of course represents his expectation at the time of his escape. But the very fact that he fails to say that the promise was literally fulfilled, and glides over intervening years in silence, strongly suggests that his expectation was not realised.
I observe that Mr. T. Olden, in his short history of The Church of Ireland, arrived at the conclusion that Patrick’s disertum must be placed in Gaul. His subject, as a whole, lies outside my knowledge, but his chapters on Patrick would not lead one to form a favourable opinion of his work. His whole argument and narrative are vitiated by his astonishing ignorance of Imperial history. He quotes[391] a passage of Jerome to prove barbarian devastations in Gaul. He quotes it not from the original text, but at second hand from Montalembert’s Les moines d’occident, a book which should be used with extreme caution. The passage cited by Mr. Olden has no bearing on Gaul at the time at which Mr. Olden sets St. Patrick’s escape from his captivity, A.D. 395. The devastations did not begin till A.D. 407. This gross ignorance of the superficial facts of the general history of the period damages Mr. Olden’s credit.
Mr. Olden, however, has made one useful contribution to the question—the only good thing in his account of St. Patrick.[392] He has brought out the significance of the dogs, which are mentioned incidentally in Patrick’s narrative. He has pointed out that the dogs—which, it is implied, were numerous and valuable—must have been part of the merchandise which the traders shipped in Ireland. Celtic hounds were highly valued in the south,[393] and it would be probable a priori that they were exported from Ireland as well as from Britain. The route of this trade would have been overland through Gaul, from the north of the Loire or Garonne to a port on the coast of Provence, or to Italy.[394] Mr. Olden acutely suggests that Patrick, so long the servant of an Irish chieftain, had become skilled in the management of wolf-hounds, and that this consideration may have determined the traders to take him on board.
Thus the cargo of dogs seems to support the conclusion that it was to Gaul, not to Britain, that the traders sailed. They might have landed at either Nantes or Bordeaux. Now the only positive statement that we find anywhere as to the landing-place is in the Life by Probus (see above, Appendix A, ii. 9), where it is said to be Brotgalum. Bordeaux is obviously meant, and the form should probably be Bortgalum, as the Irish was Bordgal. See the instructive passage in Vit. Trip. p. 238, where Patrick, intending to visit Rome, is said to have waited for a ship o Bordgail Letha (from Bordeaux in Gaul). Probus did not invent the statement; the form of the name shows that he got it from a source of Irish origin. He adds, evidently from the same source, that the company then went to Trajectus, but we cannot identify the Gallic “Utrecht” which is intended. It is of course impossible to say whether there was any positive tradition at the back of this statement, or if it was only a deduction from the fact that Bordeaux was a regular port for travellers from Ireland to south Gaul.
Admitting, then, as a conclusion from which we can hardly escape that the landing-place was on the west coast of Gaul, it follows that if the traders marched for four weeks per disertum, they must have designedly avoided the beaten routes and the habitations of men. Aquitaine was at the time in an unsettled condition, on account of the barbarian invasion; but no devastations would account for a month’s wandering in a wilderness, unless such wandering was deliberate.
The corroboration of our general conclusion is supplied by Patrick himself. It was inferred above from his Confession that Britain was excluded; one of his Sayings, which we saw reason to believe genuine, points distinctly to Gaul (Dicta, i., see above, Appendix A, i. 3). It is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy” must have been one beset by particular dangers and hardships; and a little reflexion will show that we are justified in identifying it with the journey described in the Confession. It is a case where the argument from silence is valid. The motive of the Confession is to set forth the crises in his life at which the writer conceived that he was conspicuously guided by Heaven. It is clear that the “journey through Gaul and Italy,” in which he used to tell his companions that he had “the fear of God as a guide,” was one of those crises which had made a deep impression upon his mind, and which we should expect to find mentioned in the Confession. It is therefore fair to identify it with his perilous journey in the company of the traders, especially as it is not easy to imagine that at a later period, when he was at Auxerre, a journey which he might have made through Gaul would have been so memorable or exceptional. The Dictum, in conjunction with the other considerations which point to Gaul, justifies the conclusion that, having travelled with the traders through Gaul into Italy, he escaped from them in Italy.
The last words of the Dictum, “in islands in the Mediterranean,” taken in conjunction with Tírechán, 302₂₄, point to his having gone to Lérins after his escape, and a protracted stay at Lérins[395] would account for the few years which elapsed before his return to Britain.
There were two readings in the MSS. of Muirchu as to the place of the death of Palladius: in Britonum finibus and in Pictorum finibus. It seems probable (see my “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text,” p. 205) that the author wrote Britonum (so Lib. Arm.), but that in one copy this was corrected to Pictorum from another source, presumably the same source which supplied W and Vit. Trip. with the details about Palladius. We may conclude, I think, that Pictorum represents the genuine tradition, and that Muirchu, taking it to refer to the Picts of north Britain—as was natural—substituted Britonum. But it seems most extraordinary that Palladius should have sailed off to the Picts of north Britain, seeing that he was ordained bishop for Ireland. I think we should interpret the land of the Picts or Cruithne (V. Trip. loc. cit., hitírib Cruithnech) to mean Dalaradia, the land of the Picts in Ireland. As I have pointed out in cap. iv., the assumption that there were Christian communities in this part of the island makes Patrick’s work there at the beginning of his bishopric more intelligible.[396]
Professor Zimmer’s theory that Palladius and Patrick were one and the same person (a theory which had been already maintained by Schoell and Loofs[397]) is at variance with the distinct tradition, and does not account for the change of name.[398] It is based upon a paragraph which was added, probably by the Armagh scribe Ferdomnach, to his copy of Tírechán (Rolls ed. p. 333), where it is stated that Palladius was also called Patricius. It is also stated that Palladius suffered martyrdom among the Scots, ut tradunt sancti antiqui. This is at variance with W and V. Trip. which state that he died of disease. Muirchu says simply “died.” The same notice says that Patrick was sent by Celestine. This paragraph cannot carry any weight; it is not supported by the earlier sources.
But why, we must ask, should any one have invented the assertion that Palladius was also called Patricius? The answer seems to be that the two dates for Patrick’s death, the true 461 and the false 493, led, in the eighth century, to the belief in a second Patricius. This phantom is called “the other Patrick” in one of the interpolated stanzas in the hymn Genair Patraicc; and he came to be distinguished as senex Patricius (Ann. Ult. and Chron. Scot. 457) or Sen Patraicc (Calendar of Oengus, August 24).[399] One attempt to give this fictitious personage a reality may have been to identify him with Palladius.[400] Many wild and worthless speculations have been founded on this duplication of Patrick (see, for instance, Shearman’s chapter on the “History of the Three Patricks” in Loc. Patr. pp. 395 sqq.; Olden, Church of Ireland, Appendix A, and the article on Patrick in the Dictionary of National Biography, which is vitiated by the Sen Patraicc delusion). Another attempt to place the second Patrick was to connect him with Glastonbury, and thus account for the mediaeval Glastonbury tradition that the true Patrick was an abbot of that monastery (so Ussher, followed by Petrie, Tara Hill, p. 73).[401] But there is no evidence that the Glastonbury story has any foundation or is older than the tenth century. It is to be observed that the date August 24, given in martyrologies as the day of Old Patrick, cannot be alleged as an argument for his existence. In the Mart. of Tallaght (ed. Kelly), p. xxxii, we find two Patricks under this date:
Patricii Abb. ocus Ep. Ruisdela.
Patricii hostiarii ocus Abb. Airdmacha.
It is clear that there was an obscure but historical Patrick, abbot of Rosdela (near Durrow), whose day was August 24; and that his name was the motive for placing “Old Patrick” here. Compare the glosses in the Calendar of Oengus.[402] Armagh also wanted to appropriate “Old Patrick,” and so he appears in some of the lists of its abbots.
Muirchu’s account of the events preceding Patrick’s ordination as bishop has certain difficulties which involve an important question. Patrick, we are told, had left his home in Britain for the purpose of visiting Rome (ad sedem apostolicam uisitandam, etc.), to receive instruction there for his life-work in Ireland. But he halted on his way at Auxerre, and remained there “at the feet” of Germanus. Then when the right time came and new visions warned him: coeptum ingreditur iter ad opus in quod ollim praeparatus fuerat utique aeuangelii (272₁₀). What is the meaning of coeptum iter? The journey which Patrick had begun was the journey to Rome, which had been interrupted at Auxerre.
Germanus sends with him a presbyter, Segitius, as a companion and “witness.” Then comes a notice of the unsuccessful mission of Palladius by Pope Celestine; but the transition to this is curious. Certe enim erat quod Palladius, etc., is the text of the Armagh MS., while it seems probable that other MSS. had certi enim errant[403] which gives sense.
Having heard of the death of Palladius, Patrick and those who were with him declinauerunt iter to be ordained by “Amatorex.” Assuming that they were on their way to Rome, it is clear that Muirchu did not suppose that they ever reached Rome; for, if he did, he could not have failed to say so. Accordingly, on this view, we have to suppose that the decisive news overtook Patrick somewhere between Auxerre and Rome, and that Patrick turned about and retraced his steps, making a divagation for the purpose of being ordained by “Amatorex.” But if we read the whole narrative carefully up to the embarkation, we can hardly fail to see that in the writer’s conception of what happened there was no reversal of direction. The only natural interpretation of Muirchu’s meaning is that, met by the news about Palladius, Patrick turned from his direct route for the sake of ordination, and then resumed it. In other words, he was on his way to Ireland.
But it can be proved definitely that this was Muirchu’s conception. In his table of contents to bk. i. we find a statement which throws light on coeptum iter. We find the items:
De inuentione sancti Germani in Galliis et ideo non exiuit ultra:
De reuersione eius de Galliis et ordinatione Palladii et mox morte eius.
Here it is (1) expressly stated that Patrick did not proceed beyond Gaul (as he had intended), and (2) implied that the journey which he undertook in the company of Segitius was a reuersio to Britain or Ireland.
In the light of these headings, we are compelled to interpret the words coeptum ingreditur iter ... aeuangelii as meaning not the interrupted journey to Rome but the missionary journey to Ireland, which had been begun, in a sense, by the coming to Auxerre and the religious preparation there. With this interpretation, the words certi enim erant (which seems the probable reading: “for they knew,” or “were informed”) are intelligible. This explains the preceding statement that Patrick, although setting forth for Ireland, had not yet received episcopal ordination. They knew at Auxerre that Palladius had been ordained bishop and sent to Ireland by Celestine, and therefore Patrick was not ordained bishop. It was therefore on his way to the mare Britannicum that he received news of the death of Palladius. “Ebmoria,” or whatever may be concealed under this form, must be sought north of Auxerre.
I have elsewhere (in the next Excursus) pointed out that Patrick was consecrated bishop by Germanus, and that Muirchu used inconsistent sources. This note aims only at showing what Muirchu intended to convey. [It may indeed be held that the ambiguity is due to his own misinterpretation of an older document. Coeptum iter may have occurred in his source, and there meant a journey to Rome; and he may have misunderstood the meaning. If it were possible to locate Ebmoria with certainty anywhere between Auxerre and Rome, this, I believe, would be the solution.]
It is, then, quite clear that, according to Muirchu’s information, Patrick intended to visit Rome and study there, but that instead of doing so he was induced to study at Auxerre, and consequently did not go to Rome. It is obvious that such a statement about Patrick’s purposes cannot be accepted without every reserve. Statements about a man’s unfulfilled intentions, unless they can be traced clearly to himself or to an intimate friend, are in quite a different position, as historical evidence, from statements about his acts and deeds. It is equally obvious that if Muirchu had known of any evidence, oral or written, of an actual visit to Rome in A.D. 432, he would not have suppressed it. He would have had every reason to emphasise anything like a mission from the Roman see; for in the Roman controversy of his day he was on the Roman side. The stress he lays upon the unfulfilled intention only sets his silence in a stronger light.
Tírechán records a visit to Rome in later years (see below, Excursus 15), but he knows nothing of a visit in A.D. 432, and evidently did not find any notice of such a visit in the Liber apud Ultanum, from which he drew information about Patrick’s early life. The earliest text which can be quoted for the alleged visit is the note of the ninth-century scribe of the Liber Armachanus (332₁₉), and even that note (a Celestino—mittitur), which, in view of the silence of the seventh-century documents, has no value, does not strictly involve the idea of a journey to Rome.
There is a difficulty as to the circumstances of Patrick’s ordination as bishop which has a direct bearing on the determination of the chronology of his life. The oldest evidence—and we have no independent source to supplement it—is the account in Muirchu’s Life (pp. 272-3). It is there stated that Patrick, learning at Ebmoria[404] of the death of Palladius, interrupted his journey (northwards) and went to a certain bishop, who conferred upon him episcopal ordination. This bishop is designated aepiscopum Amatho rege, and is described in terms which imply that he was eminent and well known. Now we know of no Gallic bishop called Amathorex, and we know of no Gallic bishop alive in the year 432 whose name at all resembles Amatho regem. But we do know of an eminent Gallic bishop named Amator, whose episcopal seat was at Auxerre, where Patrick received part at least of his ecclesiastical training. Only Amator died in 418,[405] and therefore could not have ordained Patrick bishop in 432.
Nevertheless there can hardly be a doubt that Amator is meant, for he is the only Gallic bishop, of similar name, in Patrick’s time. He could be described as mirabilis homo summus aepiscopus; and he was bishop of Auxerre, with which, under his successor Germanus, we know that Patrick was connected. This high probability was raised into certainty when Zimmer showed that Amatho rege is perfectly intelligible as an Irish form.[406] The Latin colloquial casus communis Amatore was treated in Irish on the analogy of a name like Ainmire, Dat. Acc. Ainmirig; so that Amatorege represents Amatorig, re-Latinised (see above, Appendix A, ii. 3).
Amator, then, is meant. The inconsistency in the chronology can be explained as due to a perfectly intelligible confusion of two different occasions. For when we come to examine closely the narrative of Muirchu we find a statement which is inconsistent with the assertion that Patrick was ordained bishop ab Amatho rege. We are told that when he started from Auxerre for Ireland in the company of Segitius the presbyter, he had “not yet been ordained bishop by Germanus.” This clearly implies that the prelate who ordained him bishop was no other than Germanus.[407] And this is just what we should expect. If Patrick heard of the death of Palladius at some place on the road from Auxerre to the Channel, his natural course was to return to Auxerre and receive ordination from his master Germanus. How came it, then, to be stated categorically that he was ordained ab Amatho rege? This admits of a very simple explanation. We have only to suppose that Muirchu confounded his ordination as bishop with his ordination as deacon. This solution fits in perfectly with the interpretation of Amatho rege as equivalent to Amatore. Amator ordained Patrick deacon before (or in) A.D. 418.
A further criticism of Muirchu’s text supplies a remarkable confirmation of this solution of the inconsistency of his statements. He tells us that not only was Patrick consecrated bishop, but that others, including Auxilius and Iserninus, received lesser orders ab Amatho rege. It is necessarily implied that Auxilius and Iserninus were of Patrick’s company, and were on their way with him to Ireland. But we may ask in the first place why their ordination, whether as deacons or priests, should have been deferred till this occasion—should have depended (like Patrick’s ordination as bishop) on the death of Palladius? In the second place, we have the distinct record in the Irish Annals that Auxilius and Iserninus arrived in Ireland seven years after Patrick’s coming.[408] There is no reason to question that record, and the inference is that they did not accompany Patrick.
This error confirms the truth of the hypothesis that under Muirchu’s account there lies a confusion between Patrick’s ordination to the diaconate and his elevation to the episcopate. The authentic record was that Amator ordained Patrick, Auxilius, and Iserninus (Patrick as deacon, the others perhaps as deacons also). When this was taken to refer to Patrick’s episcopal ordination, the association of Auxilius and Iserninus was still retained, and they were represented as accompanying Patrick.
The result of this criticism is in accordance with the general probability that Patrick had a continued connexion with one church—namely, the church of Auxerre, a connexion begun in the time of Amator and protracted in the time of Amator’s successor Germanus. And it suits the chronological data derived from the Confession (as shown above).
The circumstances which render it antecedently probable that Christianity should have penetrated to Ireland before A.D. 430 have been set forth in the introductory chapter. The positive evidence which shows that this occurred is Prosper’s notice of the mission of Palladius. It is supported by other evidence, but is in itself fully sufficient to establish the fact.
1. Prosper, Chron. s.a., 431:—
Ad Scottos in Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Caelestino Palladius primus episcopus mittitur.
It is important to observe that, if the express words in Christum credentes were absent, this record would establish the existence of Christian communities in Ireland. For neither Rome nor any other church would have ordained a bishop for Ireland unless there had been Christian communities there to be submitted to his authority. If all parts of Ireland had been still as entirely heathen as Scandinavia, a missionary might have been sent, but he would not have been a bishop.
Nothing can shake the inference from this record of Prosper, but some have attempted to weaken it by a statement in a later work of Prosper concerning Christianity in Ireland. In the contra Collatorem, written c. A.D. 437, Prosper, praising Celestine, says, et ordinato Scottis episcopo dum Romanam insulam studet servare catholicam fecit etiam barbaram Christianam (Migne, 51, 274). The expression is obviously rhetorical, and is not inconsistent with the statement in the Chronicle. It is quite possible that it is based on information which had reached Prosper of the progress of Christianity in the years 433-436; and, in a eulogy of Celestine, it was plausible to ascribe this success to his initiative in ordaining the first bishop. To infer that Prosper did not know of the death of Palladius would be unwarranted. Prosper was evidently interested in the mission of Palladius; he probably knew him personally, as there is reason to think that he was at Rome, engaged on ecclesiastical business with the Roman see, in the year 431; and these considerations render it highly improbable that he would not have been aware of his death. But it was not Prosper’s purpose to record the details of missionary work; he was merely concerned to notice, and not to minimise, what Celestine had done. The passage, therefore, must not be used to support the theory that Palladius and Patricius were one and the same person (Zimmer, Early Celtic Church, p. 33). On the other hand, it may be added to the other evidence which shows that Patrick was not ordained by Celestine; for in that case Prosper would not have omitted to notice that the Pope had ordained two bishops.
2. It has been generally overlooked that Patrick’s expression ad plebem nuper uenientem ad credulitatem (Conf. 368₉) suggests, in its most natural interpretation, a spreading of Christianity before his arrival. Otherwise we should expect primum rather than nuper.
3. If Pelagius, as Zimmer holds, was born in Ireland, we might consider it probable, almost certain, that he belonged to a Christian community, and thus we should have a confirmation of the existence of such communities before the end of the fourth century. But the evidence rather points, as I have shown (see note in App. B, p. 296), to Pelagius belonging to one of the Scottic settlements in western Britain. There is, however, another piece of evidence of the same kind. An Irishman, named Fith, better known under his ecclesiastical name of Iserninus, was with Patrick at Auxerre, and was ordained by Amator (see the evidence in App. B, p. 297).
4. Certain linguistic facts are best explained, as Zimmer has ably pointed out, by the unofficial introduction of Christianity from Britain. A number of Irish ecclesiastical loan-words have forms which are “not such as we should expect if they had been borrowed straight from Latin,” but can only be explained by intermediate Brythonic forms.[409] Zimmer says: “It is altogether incredible that the Latin loan-words in Old Irish should have been introduced by Patrick and his Romance-speaking companions from the Continent after A.D. 432. On the other hand, their linguistic form is easily explained if Christianity was gradually spread throughout Ireland in the fourth century by Irish-speaking Britons.” The words, “gradually spread throughout Ireland,” are far too strong, and are not required for the argument; but it is clear that the linguistic facts in question harmonise with the testimony of Prosper, and enable us to draw the further inference that the introduction of Christianity was due to intercourse with Britain. We may go further and conjecture that the transformation of the Brythonic Latin loan-words into Irish equivalents was made in the Irish settlements in western Britain, which must have been the most effective channel for the transmission of the Christian faith to Ireland.
5. The attitude of king Loigaire (see below, Appendix C, 11) to Christianity shows that it had become a force with which he had to come to terms. If it had been first brought by Patrick, he could easily have stopped its spreading in his own kingdom, and would doubtless have done so, since personally he was not well disposed to it, and the Druids were strongly against it. His policy implies that it had already taken root.
6. The circumstance that Patrick’s missionary work was in the north and west of Ireland suggests that Christianity had made considerable progress in the south, and an apostle was not needed there in the same way. As Zimmer says (ib. 18), south-eastern Ireland in the kingdom of Laigin was “the district whence, thanks to the intercourse with the south-west of Britain, the first diffusion of Christianity in Ireland must naturally have taken place.” As for the Lives of alleged pre-Patrician saints (Ailbe, Ibar, Declan, Ciarán), they are so full of contradictions and inconsistencies, as Todd demonstrated, that they are useless for historical purposes. The only hypothesis on which any significance could be ascribed to them is that there was a confusion between earlier and later men of the same name. This hypothesis is too uncertain to build on; but we should have to entertain it if we accepted Zimmer’s remark that the contradictions in the Lives “are the natural result of attempting to varnish facts derived from genuine local tradition with the views universally accepted at the time when the Lives were compiled.”
7. Patrick’s particular interest in west Connaught is probably to be explained by his captivity there; but the appeal which this region made to him suggests that it was a specially benighted part (in a Christian’s view), in contrast with other parts of the island where Christianity was known.
8. I cannot ascribe much weight to particular passages in Tírechán which Petrie (History of Tara Hill, p. 23) and others have cited as evidence for pre-Patrician Christianity. (1) Tír. 321₂, et fuit quidam spiritu sancto plenus, etc.; (2) 329₆, et in quo loco quidam episcopus venit, etc. We do not know enough of the circumstances to draw any conclusion; we do not know (assuming the records to be correct) that Patrick’s acquaintance with these men began on these occasions. (3) The altare mirabile lapideum in monte nepotum Ailello, 313₅; supposed to be the altar of a pre-Patrician community. To these may be added (4) the signaculum crucis Christi, said to have been found by Patrick in a graveyard in Roscommon (325₃), a story told also by Muirchu (294); and (5) the implied existence of pre-Patrician Irish Christians in the expression, Hiberniae sanctis omnibus praeteritis praesentatis futuris, 323₂. There is also (6) a passage in the Additions to Tírechán, 337, cited by Petrie to prove pre-Patrician bishops (Colman, Bishop of Clonkeen). The story of the cross, common to Tírechán and Muirchu, and evidently a pretty early legend, has, I think, some significance, in so far as it implies that, at the time when it was invented, the existence of Christian crosses and Christian sepultures in Ireland before Patrick’s preaching was taken for granted.
9. If the view put forward below in Excursus 17 as to the Paschal cycles in Ireland is correct, it is further evidence for pre-Patrician Christianity.
10. The prophecy of the Druids, which was probably not post eventum (see above, Chap. iv. ad fin.), suggests the existence of Christian worship in Ireland. If it stood alone, it would not be of much significance; but it fits in with the other evidence.
The view which I have put forward of the significance of king Loigaire’s reign in Irish history, and his claims to the title of statesman, is based on inferences. That his policy was pacific is an inference which may be fairly drawn from the rare mentions, in the Annals, of wars and battles during his reign of thirty-six years. The Ulster Annals record only three battles with Leinster (a victory in 453; the battle of Áth Dara, in which he was captured, in 458; and the engagement in which he met his death, s.a. 462). No expeditions beyond the sea are attributed to him, though the condition of Britain might have been tempting to a monarch ambitious of conquest. The great achievement of his reign was the codification of the laws of Ireland (see Excursus 12 on Senchus Mór), and the other feature for which his reign was remarkable was the spread of Christianity favoured by his attitude towards it. The record of Tírechán (308₃), that he did not personally adopt the new faith (non potuit credere), is obviously true, for it explains the coolness of ecclesiastical tradition in regard to him; and the conflicting statement of Muirchu (285₂₇, credidit, etc.), which is in a legendary context, must be rejected. It bears indeed a mark of internal inconsistency; for if the High King had been converted, it is hardly credible that Patrick would have dwelt only on his previous opposition, and prophesied that no kings of his seed would inherit the kingdom—a prophecy which was not verified. These words ascribed to Patrick in the legend (quia resististi doctrinae meae, etc., 285₂₉) seem to reflect the true tradition that Loigaire remained a pagan. If he had become a Christian, the Irish Church would have been as loud in his praises as the Roman Church in the praises of Constantine. The legend told by Muirchu represents him finally converted through fear (melius est me credere quam mort), as the crown and culmination of Patrick’s triumphs at Slane and Tara; but at the same time it refutes itself by the cold indifference which it manifests towards the converted king.
The statesmanlike policy of Loigaire in coming to terms with Christianity is proved by the official recognition of it in the Senchus Mór (see Excursus 12), and by the toleration of it in his kingdom: see the record in Tírechán, which seems trustworthy (308₂), apud illum [Loigairium] foedus pepigit [Patricius] ut non occideretur in regno illius. (We can hardly attach much credit to the story that Patrick acted along with Loigaire in adjudicating on the inheritance of Amolngaid; Tír. 309₂₈. This might have been an invention for the purpose of magnifying Patrick’s importance.) The circumstance that members of Loigaire’s family were baptized (see the conversion of Fedilmid and Fortchernn, Add. Notices, 334-5) was an element in the situation.
In connexion with the conclusion that Loigaire was influenced by the prestige of the Empire, I referred to his predecessor Dathi’s expedition to Gaul. Dathi, son of Fiachra, and nephew of king Niall, succeeded Niall as king of Ireland in 405, and was killed by lightning near the Alps, according to the Irish Annals, in 428 (see Ann. Ult. s.a. 445: through some error the entry has been inserted under a wrong year). There is a notice of his death in the Lebor na hUidre, p. 38, where he is said to have been killed in Gaul, while besieging a town of king Fermenus (rí Tracia), whose name suggests (as others have pointed out) the Faramund of the Merovingian genealogy.[410] Zimmer (Nennius Vindicatus, p. 85) dismisses the story as a reminiscence of the death of an Attacottic chief in Roman service. But this does not account for the data, and for the consistent tradition that Dathi met his death on the continent; I can see no reason to doubt the tradition, there was no motive for its invention. Accepting it, we are obliged to infer that Dathi went, with Irish troops, by the invitation of the Romans. The date of the Annals for Dathi’s death and Loigaire’s succession, A.D. 428, harmonises with the inference; for just in this year the General Aetius, on whom the defence of Gaul at this time rested, was engaged in war with the Franks. Prosper, s.a. 428, pars Galliarum propinqua Rheno quam Franci possidendam occupaverant Aetii armis recepta. The name Fermenus supplies a remarkable confirmation. As has been said, it seems to represent Faramund, the father and predecessor of Chlojo, according to Merovingian tradition. Chlojo, who appears a year or two later on the scene, is the first Merovingian monarch who has a clear place in history. Faramund has always been regarded as shadowy. The independent survival of his name in Irish tradition in connection with an event of 428, shortly before the first appearance of his son Chlojo, may be fairly brought forward as a piece of evidence for his historical reality. The transference of the scene from the lower Rhine to the regions of the Alps (due originally to vague knowledge of Gallic geography) makes the evidence more valuable, as it shows that the name Fermenus was not introduced into the story from Merovingian sources; the Alps would not have suggested to any antiquarian a connexion with a war against the Franks in north-eastern Gaul.
It is said that the corpse of Dathi was brought back by his companions to Ireland and buried in the cemetery of Rathcrochan. See the poem of Torna-Éices on the famous men and women who lay there, published by M. d’Arbois de Jubainville in Revue Celtique, 17, 280 sqq.
The Irish code of law, entitled the Senchus Mór, preserved only in late MSS., is a work which contains a very ancient code embedded in glosses, commentaries, and accretions. Passages are quoted from it in Cormac’s glossary, a work of the tenth century, and these quotations appear to be the earliest testimonia.
In the tenth century it was believed that the original code was drawn up in the reign of king Loigaire in the fifth century. Here is the note in Cormac’s glossary, in Dr. W. Stokes’s translation (Trip. p. 570).
Nós (customary law), the knowledge of nine [nofis], to wit three kings and three bishops and three sages, namely, a sage of poetry and a sage of literature and a sage of the language of the Féni. All these were composing the Senchus Mór. Thence it is said:—
The same account is found in the Introduction which was prefixed in late times to the Senchus, and professes to record the circumstances of its compilation.
Was this tradition, which was current in the tenth century, genuine, or was it an invention made for the purpose of enhancing the prestige of Patrick? In deciding this question, there are two considerations which seem to me important. (1) If the code, which evidently held such a high place in public esteem in the tenth century, had been drawn up in the seventh or eighth centuries, it is inconceivable that an event of such interest and importance as its publication should not have been recorded in the Annals. In my opinion this argument applies also to the sixth century. But in any case, if it be admitted that the silence of the Annals forbids a date later than A.D. 600 at the latest, all the probabilities are in favour of the correctness of the tradition. The entries in the Annals for the fifth century are extremely meagre, so that the omission of a notice of the Senchus Mór would not be surprising.
It may be said, however, that as a matter of fact, the Annals do notice the composition of the Senchus Mór. Under A.D. 438 we find: Senchus mor do scribunn, “the Senchus Mór was written.” But in the first place, this entry is in Irish; if it had been a contemporary record, it would have been preserved in Latin; it is clearly an addition, and perhaps a comparatively late addition. In the second place, the date is suspicious. The year A.D. 438 is the very year in which the Theodosian Code was issued; and therefore we can hardly doubt that the motive of the insertion of the Irish entry under this year was a desire to synchronise the issue of the native with that of the great Roman Code. These considerations force us to reject the entry in the Annals as evidence of independent value.
(2) If the story of the compilation of the Senchus in the reign of Loigaire had been a deliberate invention, say of the ninth century, it could hardly have assumed its actual shape. The persons alleged to have taken part in the compilation would naturally be those who play a prominent or well-marked part in the Patrician story. Now, leaving out Patrick and Loigaire, of the other seven only three, Daire, Benignus, and Dubthach, are conspicuous in the lives and legends of Patrick. Of the other four, Ros appears indeed, but not so conspicuously as his brother Dichu, while Corc, Cairnech, and Fergus are not mentioned at all. The case of Corc, king of Munster, is particularly to be noted, because Oengus (Corc’s second successor) comes into the Patrician story, and would naturally have been selected as Patrick’s colleague if the record were a pure invention.
The record, I therefore conclude, has a genuine and ancient basis. It would be rash to be confident that the number nine, and the arrangement in three classes, may not be an improvement upon the original record; in other words, some names (e.g. Benignus and Daire) may conceivably be additions. The number nine was considered a number of virtue by the Gaels; and it is conceivable that a savant of a later age might have added to the tradition in order to make up that number. But the argument is double-edged. For it is equally likely that, for just the same reason, the number of the real commission should have been fixed at nine.
The story that the occasion of the composition of the Senchus was the slaying of Odhran, Patrick’s charioteer, in order to test Patrick’s doctrine of forgiveness, is told in the Introduction to the Senchus (pp. 4 sqq.) and in the Lehor na hUidre (text and translation, in Stokes, Tripartite, 562 sqq.). A different story of the death of Odhran at the hands of Foilge is told in Vita Quarta, c. 77, and Vita Tertia, c. 59 (where the charioteer’s name is not mentioned): according to this version the missile was aimed at Patrick. This version, but without reference to Foilge, is likewise noticed in the Introduction to the Senchus (p. 6).
The simplest explanation maybe that a driver of Patrick was slain by an enemy, and that the incident was used by Patrick for raising the question of criminal justice; mythopoeic instinct then attributed the murder to a deliberate intention of raising the question.
The story as told in the Introduction seems to preserve a tradition that an attempt was made by Patrick to change the penalty of eric fine for murder into a penalty for death. This is the motive of the poem which is fathered upon Dubthach: “I pronounce the judgment of death, of death for his crime to every one who kills” (p. 13). This is to be reconciled with the Christian doctrine of perfect forgiveness by considering that the body only is killed, the soul is forgiven: the “murderer is adjudged to heaven, and it is not to death he is adjudged” (ib.). The commentator notices the disagreement between this principle, which in the story Patrick is assumed to have established, and the custom of eric fine which actually prevailed, and explains it on the ground that Patrick’s successors had no power of bestowing heaven, hence the death penalty was discontinued, and “no one is put to death for his intentional crimes, as long as ‘eric’-fine is obtained.”
The historical fact underlying this story is, I submit, that the Church in Patrick’s day attempted, unsuccessfully, to supersede the system of composition for manslaughter and private retaliation by making the act a public offence punishable by death.
[The questions connected with the material of the laws, and the Feine, lie quite outside my competence, and do not concern the scope of this book. I may refer to Atkinson’s article “Feine,” in his glossary (Ancient Laws, vol. vi.); Rhŷs, Studies in Early Irish History, pp. 52-55 (Proc, of Brit. Acad. vol. i.). For the legal processes and customs, the chief work is M. d’Arbois de Jubainville’s Études sur le droit celtique, 2 vols. 1895; see also the Prefaces to the volumes of the Ancient Laws, and Sir H. Maine’s Early Institutions.]
An analysis of the itinerary which Tírechán has traced for Patrick through Connaught shows that he compressed into a single journey events which must have belonged to different visits. I pointed this out in a paper on the “Itinerary of Patrick in Connaught” (Proc. of R.I.A. xxiv. c. 2, 1903). It was remembered that Patrick visited Connaught three times (Tír. 329₁₂), and we may probably suppose that on the two later occasions he would have not only worked in new fields, but revisited the scenes of his earlier work. Tírechán, who used written material as well as oral information, worked all his records into the compass of a single journey. This is betrayed by a number of inconsistencies in the narrative, and it is possible to show that certain events which he ascribes to the same journey must have happened on different occasions.
1. It is clear that the expedition to Tirawley with the sons of Amolngaid was the principal motive of one visit, and that Patrick must have proceeded direct from Tara to Tirawley. Tírechán’s naive reconstruction implies that having left Tara for this purpose he engaged in a round of missionary activity, not only in Connaught, but in Meath—performing labours which would have occupied years—before he finally reached Tirawley. I have pointed out at length the absurdities involved in the story, op. cit. 166-7.
2. The description of the visit to Elphin implies earlier work in the same district: (a) perhaps the previous foundation of Senella Cella; (b) the presence of Assicus and Betheus, who had been settled there (loc. cit. 163-4).
As to Senella Cella, however, Dr. Gwynn has made a very plausible suggestion, that Tírechán confused it with Senchua = Shancough, in Sligo. The information which he gives about Senella Cella—its location in the land of the Hy Ailella, its association with Mathona, and connexion with Tawnagh—suits Senchua much better. And this comparison would account for the introduction of the statement et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello, etc., in 314₁₈, as well as in 328₁. If this view is right, it is another illustration of Tírechán’s use of written sources. The difficulty is that we should expect Tírechán to have been sufficiently acquainted with the geography of Connaught as to know whether Senella Cella was in the land of the Hy Ailella or not. Can Senella Cella Dumiche be distinct from both Shankill at Elphin and Shancough?
3. An earlier visit to Tirerrill is implied by (a) Patrick’s knowledge of the stone altar (Tír. 313₅); and (b) the fact that Tamnach had already been founded (314₁₅). Here indeed we can extricate a piece of Tírechán’s written material, relating to Patrick’s work in Tirerrill, and showing that he entered that territory from Leitrim, crossing the Bralieve hills, 314₁₈:—