§ III. His Birthplace.

An almost universal tradition fixes his birthplace at Dundalk. According to Wadding, the tradition was, that his parents came to Dundalk from the well known territory in the north of Ireland, called Ruta, or the Route. Wood states that almost all writers—auctores pene omnes—make him an Irishman. This tradition is also clearly expressed in the appellation of Richard of Dundalk, by which he was universally known. It was the custom of the age to designate men by the name of their native place. Of this we have an excellent example in the name of John Baconthorpius, or of Baconthorpe, who, as we shall see, was Fitz-Ralph's professor at Oxford. Cotton, in his Fasti, tells us that “it has been contended, with some appearance of truth, that this prelate was born in England”. He here alludes to the opinion maintained by Rev. John Prince,34 who considers it probable that our prelate was born in Devonshire, adding, “some tell us, that he was an Irishman, and born in the town of Dundalk in that kingdom, and hence called by the name of Richard of Dundalk. Whereas, it is possible he might be so denominated, not from his birth, but from his long residence, or his doing some eminent exploit there, or from some other like occasion there. Others say he was an Englishman, which is not improbable, for these reasons: that he had his education at Oxford; that he was chosen commissary of that university; that he was made archdeacon of Lichfield; and that he was encouraged against the friars by English bishops”.

[pg 489]

These are the only arguments alleged to prove that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was born in England. They are of no weight whatever when compared with the mass of testimony on the other side. 1.—The name of Richard of Dundalk could not have arisen from the primate's long residence in that town, for he resided in his diocese only for about nine years, and certainly did not spend all his time in Dundalk. 2.—Nor is it told in history that he performed any eminent exploit here. 3.—It does not make against the Irish origin of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph that he had his education at Oxford. It is well known that at the beginning of the fourteenth century there were very many Irishmen at Oxford. Bale gives the names of several most distinguished Irishmen who flourished there at that period—in 1310, Malachias Minorita; in 1320, David O'Buge of Kildare; in 1330, Gilbert Urgalius, who, consueto Hibernorum hominum more, went to Oxford after completing his rudimentary studies. Besides, among the nations whose contests in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries so often made Oxford anything but a quiet abode of learning, the Irish had their place and generally went with the Southernmen. And the Archbishop himself, in his discourse at Avignon, relates how he had sent to Oxford four priests of the diocese of Armagh. 4.—That the appointment of Richard as chancellor or vice-chancellor of Oxford does not necessarily suppose him to have been an Englishman, will appear from what we have to say farther on concerning this office. 5—Nor was it strange that an Irish ecclesiastic should hold benefices in England. Clement VI., in 1351, granted to John de Briane, Dean of St. Patrick's at Dublin, who held at the same time the parish of Hatfield in Lincoln, permission to retain his benefices during his five years' course at a University.35

Summing up the evidence, we have, on the one hand, the almost universal tradition that our prelate was born in Dundalk; we have an established connexion between the Derbyshire Fitz-Ralphs and Ireland about the time of his birth. On the other hand, against his Irish origin, we have no argument stronger than mere probabilities, which, when examined, are found to have no substance. We conclude, therefore, that Richard Fitz-Ralph was born in Dundalk. This conclusion receives some confirmation from a narrative in Fox,36 where we are told that a copy of the entire Bible, translated into Irish by Archbishop Fitz-Ralph, was found, many years after his death, in the walls of his cathedral. Now, if this story be true, and it is indirectly confirmed by Usher, it is plain that the Archbishop must have been born in Ireland. It is hard to believe that nine years, [pg 490] broken as they were by provincial visitations and other labours, would have been sufficient to make an English prelate master of a language so difficult as the Irish, and that to the degree of perfection requisite for a translation of the sacred text.