APPENDIX A SOURCES (continued 2)

The character as well as the language of the hagiographical stories, which were doubtless read aloud in the pulpit, was determined by the needs of the public for which they were intended. The excellent remarks of Professor W. Meyer, in the introduction to Die Legende des h. Albanus (1904), apply here. The chief object in these compositions was to produce “a strong impression” on the faithful (ein starker Eindruck auf die Glaubensgenossen). “Die Legenden wurden christliche Unterhaltungsliteratur. Solche Literatur schmiegt sich dem Empfinden des Volkes an und das Volk schafft selbst dabei mit. Die glänzenden Gedanken und die glänzende Darstellung der Caecilialegende entspricht der feinen Kultur Roms im 5. Jahrhundert; die phrasenhafte oder die unbeholfene Darstellung, mit welcher die so verschiedenen Freunde Fortunat und Gregor von Tours platte Kleinigkeiten umhüllen, entspricht ihrer Zeit, wo der Massstab des Schönen gänzlich fehlte” (p. 5).

6. Vita Secunda (V₂) and Vita Quarta (V₄)

The two anonymous Lives, most conveniently distinguished by their order in the Trias Thaumaturga of Colgan, who first published them,[318] are closely related, and taken together have considerable importance for the criticism of Muirchu’s Life. A full comparison between the two documents will be found in my paper on the “Tradition of Muirchu’s Text” (Hermathena, 1902, 186 sqq.). Both follow the order of Muirchu up to the end of the Tara episode, and at this point our text of V₂ stops abruptly. There is a close parallelism throughout. V₄ is rather more prolix, and has some notices which are not in V₂; but V₂ has also notices which are not in V₄, and has some Irish sentences which do not appear, or appear in a Latin equivalent, in V₄.[319] In the parts dependent on Muirchu, V₂ is closer to Muirchu. The comparison shows that neither document depends on the other, but both on a common source which I have designated W, the tenor of which can be, almost mechanically, reconstructed. It can then be shown that W was not simply a MS. of Muirchu, but “a document which was sometimes a free paraphrase, sometimes a close copy” of Muirchu (but derived from a MS. of Muirchu of different lineage from that contained in the Lib. Arm.). But it must have been something more. For there are a number of passages in V₂ and V₄ which are not in Muirchu, and “the close parallelism between V₂ and V₄ throughout, and not merely in the Muirchu portions, makes it practically certain that, in the other portions too, they were both following” the same source, namely W. Thus W was a compilation based on Muirchu and some other source (or sources).

The antiquity of this source is proved by the following facts: (1) Cothraige, the Goidelic form of Patricius, appears in an older form with initial q (Quadriga, Quotirche), which points to a document older than the seventh century (since Tírechán has initial c); (2) this Goidelic name, not Patricius, appears in the part of W which related Patrick’s dealings with Miliucc; (3) the name Succet takes the place of “Quadriga” where his sister Lupita recognises him, as it is the name by which she would have known him: such traits of verisimilitude are not likely to have been introduced by late compilers. It is probable that this source was in Irish. This would account for the Irish bits in W preserved in V₂. And the Irish source, from which W supplemented Muirchu, probably resembled (being based on the same material) the Irish source which Muirchu used for his Life. In this connexion it is to be observed that W and Muirchu give variant renderings of the prophecy of the Druids, pointing to variant versions of the Irish original.

As for the latter part of V₄, where V₂ fails us, it seems probable that W was also a source, though there may have been other sources (cp. Bury, Tradition, etc., p. 195).[320]

7. Vita Tripartita

A Life of Patrick written in Irish (but largely interspersed with Latin passages and clauses) is extant. A Latin translation of it was published by Colgan, who named it the Vita Tripartita because it is divided into three parts. This translation represents a different text from that preserved in the two existing MSS. from which Dr. Stokes published the editio princeps of the Irish text (Rolls Series, 1887). This edition can hardly claim to be critical, as no attempt whatever is made to establish the mutual relations of the MSS.[321] It is clear, even on a superficial examination, that the two extant MSS. imply an archetype representing a tradition different from the text which Colgan followed.

A study of the language of the Life, which is full of “Middle-Irish” forms, led Dr. Stokes to conclude that it was compiled in the eleventh century (Introd. pp. lxiv sqq.). The text contains several references to events of the ninth century (ib. p. lxiii); and Joseph, bishop of Armagh, who is mentioned at the end of Part III. (p. 266), is evidently identified rightly by Stokes with the bishop who died A.D. 936.[322] But this passage has further significance. The writer, having enumerated the members of Patrick’s household, says: “and that is the number that should be in Joseph’s company.” It is a clear inference that he was a contemporary of Joseph, and that this appendix (found in the Egerton MS. and in Colgan’s version) was written in the first half of the tenth century. This consideration suggests that, if the linguistic forms prove that the Life could not have assumed its present shape before A.D. 1000, then the work of the eleventh-century compiler was practically confined to “modernising” an older compilation and substituting new for ancient forms. In its older shape the Life existed in the time of Bishop Joseph, when the enumeration of Patrick’s household was appended. But there is nothing to show that the Life as a whole was not put together at an earlier period. The references to events and persons of the ninth century may be significant. There is one passage which especially suggests the second half of the ninth century. “Quod probavimus: Connacán son of Colman came into the land with a host” (p. 174). Connacán’s death fell in A.D. 855; he was killed in Ulster.[323] The expression quod probavimus, instead of “which was fulfilled,” suggests that the event was within the recollection of the writer. This, taken along with the reference to Cenngecán, king of Cashel (ob. 897), may raise a presumption that the Life took shape in the latter part of the ninth century. It may, of course, be argued by those who would ascribe greater antiquity to the work that these references were posterior insertions, not due to the original compiler. I am inclined to think, however, that this involves an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses. The material used by the compiler was older than the ninth century, but there is no positive indication to suggest that the compilation was older.

The tendency of the work is strongly marked. Like Tírechán’s Memoir, it is intended to support the claims of Armagh. Dr. M’Carthy even describes it as, in its present form, “rather a plea for the privileges of the primatial See than a eulogy of the apostle of Ireland.”[324]

It is to be observed, indeed, that the tendency is entirely absent from Part I. This, however, would hardly justify us in assuming a different authorship or date for the composition of Part I.; inasmuch as the subject matter of this part (Patrick’s childhood, youth, arrival in Ireland, and the Tara legend) did not offer opportunities for urging the Armagh claims. It may also be observed that all the references to events later than A.D. 800 occur in Parts II. and III.

The last paragraphs of Part I. (pp. 60-62), which are omitted in the Rawlinson MS., have clearly been inserted here from the end of Part III. (pp. 256-8). The motive of this repetition is, doubtless, supplied by a remark of Dr. M’Carthy: “That upon the recurrence of his festival a sketch of the life and labours of St. Patrick should be delivered in the churches of Ireland would be a procedure in mere conformity with ecclesiastical usage.” The Tripartite Life was practically used as material for sermons, though we may not feel warranted to go so far as to say that it represents sermons reduced to literary form. The particular paragraphs in question were added to Part I. as a “wind-up” for pulpit purposes. There is a similar but shorter wind-up to Part II.

Among these added paragraphs (p. 60 = p. 256) occurs a bibliographical notice:—

“These are the miracles which the elders of Ireland declared and connected with a thread of narration. Colombcille, son of Fedlimid, first declared Patrick’s miracles and composed them. Then Ultan, son of Conchobar’s descendant; Adamnan, grandson of Tinne; Eleran of the wisdom; Ciarán of Belach Duin; Bishop Ermedach of Clochar; Colman Uamach;[325] presbyter Collait of Druim Roilgech” (trans. Stokes).

Of these works we know nothing, though we may suspect that “Ultan” may refer either to the memoir of Tírechán (cp. the lemma in the Lib. Arm.) or to the book which Ultan lent to Tírechán. Observe that no mention is made of Muirchu’s Life. But Muirchu was certainly a source of the Tripartite. If, therefore, this list represents the works which were used in the compilation, the compiler did not use Muirchu’s Life directly, but some later work in which it had been wholly or partly incorporated. This agrees with a conclusion which I had entertained on other grounds, namely, that the compiler used W (the common source of V₂ and V₄) in which the Muirchu narrative had been incorporated with non-Muirchu material. The inference would be that the author of W is to be sought in the list. For instance, Ciarán of Belach Duin, who died A.D. 775,[326] would suit chronologically.

The material of Tírechán appears almost entirely in Parts II. and III. But there are considerations which suggest that it was not derived merely from Tírechán, but from the older written material from which Tírechán himself selected the memoranda which he has recorded. The compiler certainly used Tírechán’s memoir, which was accessible to him if he wrote at Armagh; but he has added supplements which produce the impression of having belonged to the original records and not of being later interpolations. (Cp., for example, the account of the altar in Sliab Húa-n-Ailella, p. 94, and of the inscriptions at Selce, p. 106.) It would, perhaps, be impossible to prove this directly, but there is another fact connected with the sources of the Life which enables us to establish the probability indirectly.

The Life contains a great number of notices of acts of Patrick in various parts of Ireland which are not recorded by Tírechán, but which are closely similar in character and style to the acts which he records. Now we know that this material existed in the eighth century. For in the Additional Notices in the Liber Armachanus (ff. 18 vᵒ b, 19 rᵒ), as we have already seen (above, p. 254), we find the greater part of it indicated by a series of memorial words (names of men and places), most of which (not all) are explained in the Tripartite Life, Parts II. and III.

The Tripartite Life, therefore, contains a considerable body of ancient material, homogeneous with the material which Tírechán worked into his memoir, and not to be found elsewhere. We have a means for controlling it in the collection of jottings in the Liber Armachanus, and an attempt to discriminate later accretions might be successful within certain limits.

For an analysis of the Tripartite Life in connexion with the jottings, see Dr. Gwynn’s Introduction, chap, vi., with Appendix.

8. Vita Tertia

An anonymous Life of Patrick, dating perhaps from the ninth century, is preserved in MSS. representing two different recensions, which I have investigated and attempted to reconstruct in “A Life of St. Patrick” (Transactions of R.I.A. xxxii. C, Part iii.) 1903. A corrupt text, with large accretions at beginning and end, was published by Colgan in the Trias Thaum. as his “Tertia Vita,” and this designation may be conveniently retained. The Life was written in Ireland by an Irishman, but the archetype of our MSS. was written in West Britain, as is shown by Brythonic (Welsh or Cornish) interpolations. One interpolation, which has led to vain speculation, must be noticed here. The passage in c. 21, alleging a visit of Patrick to Martin, can be shown to have been intruded into the context (which otherwise depends on Muirchu) and caused confusion in the sense. The interpolator states that an angel told Martin to go to the insula Tamarensis; modern biographers have supposed that the command was given to Patrick, though it can hardly be held that there is any ambiguity in the Latin, and have conjectured many things about the mysterious island. The island is St. Nicholas at the mouth of the Tamar in Plymouth Sound, as Mr. C. J. Bates discerned. St. Martin was popular in south-west Britain; and this interpolation enables us to connect the archetype specially with south-west Britain. From it was derived a lost Glastonbury copy which is the parent of two of our existing MSS., which contain an interpolation claiming Glastonbury as Patrick’s burial-place.

The author of the Life used the Confession, Muirchu, Tírechán; but he also incorporated a number of stories and incidents not found in any of the documents in the Liber Armachanus. Some of these stories are also found in the Vita Tripartita or the Vita Quarta, but others are not found elsewhere (see my enumeration, op. cit. 221-2).

[The Vita Patricii, in the Sanctilogium of John of Tinmouth (see Text in Horstman’s Nova Legenda Anglie, vol. ii.) is an abridgment of the Vita Tertia; cp. Bury, op. cit. 223-4.]

9. Life by Probus

A Life of St. Patrick, published in the Basel edition of Bede’s works 1563, and reprinted by Colgan as the Vita Quinta, has for author a certain Probus, who compiled the work at the request of a certain Paulinus (Ecce habes, frater Pauline, a me humili Probo, etc. ii. 41). Of Probus we know nothing otherwise. Colgan (p. 219) conjectures that he is to be identified with Cœnachair of Slane, whose death by the Northmen is noticed in the Annals of the Four Masters, sub a. 948. Paulinus, he suggests (p. 64), may be the Mael Póil who is described in the same chronicle as bishop, anchorite, scribe, and abbot of Indedhnen (near Slane), sub a. 920, where his obit is noticed. If these conjectures were right the date of the Life would be prior to 920. But the conjectures have no basis, the identification of Probus resting merely on the possibility that this name might have been chosen as a Latin equivalent of Cœnachair. There is internal evidence that the author was Irish (see Colgan’s note, p. 61), but the only indication of date is the prophecy that Patrick should baptize Scotiam atque Britaniam, Angliam et Normanniam caeterasque gentes insulanorum (i. 10). Colgan supposes that Gallic Normandy is meant, and if so the Life could hardly be much earlier than the middle of the tenth century.

Probus made use of Muirchu’s Life, but reconstructed certain parts of it, introducing matter from other sources. Thus he adopts the two captivities in Ireland from Muirchu, but while he identifies the first with the captivity of the Confession, he connects Miliucc with the second. His story of the second captivity is that Patrick’s parents and family were in Armorica when it was devastated by the sons of Rethmitus (read Sethmiti) king of Britain. Patrick, his brother Ructi, and a sister were carried captive to Ireland, where Patrick served Miliucc. [Ructi was married by another chief to his sister. This incident is obviously the same as Miliucc’s attempt to marry Patrick to his sister, as recounted in the W document (V₂ and V₄); so it may be inferred that Ructi is an error for Sucti, and that Sucat-Patrick has been split by Probus or his source into two brothers.] But Miliucc’s abode is placed near Mount Egli (instead of Mount Miss). On escaping Patrick is taken to Gaul by a man who sells him there into slavery,[327] but at “Trajectus” he is redeemed by Christians.

The story of the fictitious second captivity is thus composed of (1) matter derived from the true story of the first captivity, as told in Muirchu and the Confession; (2) the Armoric legend; (3) the story of the marriage of the brother and sister; and (4) the escape to Gaul, with the mention of two towns: Venit cum Gallis ad Brotgalum, inde Trajectum. Brotgalum, Colgan suggests, is meant to represent Burdigalam, Bordeaux (cp. Appendix C, 6).

After this Patrick goes through a number of experiences before he comes to sit at the feet of Germanus; or, in other words, Probus, before he resumes the narrative of Muirchu, interjects material derived from other sources. Patrick goes

(1) to St. Martin of Tours, who tonsures him;

(2) to the plebs Dei, who are barefooted hermits;

(3) to an “island between mountains and sea” where a great beast infested a fountain;

(4) to St. Senior, bishop, in monte Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani et vallata est civitas eius septem muris; this bishop ordained Patrick in sacerdotem, and he read with him for a long time; here Patrick heard in a vision the voice of children summoning him to Ireland; then he went with nine men, and held converse with the Lord, who made him three promises;

(5) to Ireland, where he is unsuccessful;

(6) to Rome; whence having received the apostolic blessing reversus est itinere quo venerat illuc (c. 20).

At this point the narrative of Muirchu is resumed most awkwardly. The author might have made Patrick visit Germanus on his way back through Gaul, but, instead, he proceeds: transnavigato vero mari Britannico, following Muirchu literally, without any attempt to make the extraneous matter fit in speciously to Muirchu’s story.

Some of these incidents are also found in the Vita Tertia, namely, the visit to Martin, the visit to Rome, and the visit to Mons Arnon; besides which the visit to a hermit who gives Patrick the staff of Jesus is recorded.

Now the author of the Vita Tertia and Probus undertook the same problem of working these incidents into the main thread of the Muirchu story, and they solved it in different ways. Probus solved it by a single interpolation, grouping all the new matter together and finding a place for it before the sojourn with Germanus. In the Vita Tertia there are three distinct interpolations arranged as follows:—

(Muirchu) Reads with Germanus.

(Interp.) Sojourns with Martin.

(Muirchu) Germanus sends Segitius with him to Rome.

(Interp.) Visits a hermit in quodam loco and receives staff of Jesus.

(Muirchu) Is ordained bishop by Amator.

(Interp.) Visits Rome, and goes thence ad montem Arnon when he salutes the Lord.

It is difficult to say which of the arrangements is the more unskilful. The same matter is found in a more expanded and “advanced” form in the Tripartite Life, where the arrangement is as follows (Rolls ed. p. 25 sqq.):—

(1) Patrick reads with Germanus; (2) is tonsured by Martin; (3) visits a cave, in the Tyrrhenian sea, “between mountain and sea,” where there were three other Patricks, and a beast infested a fountain; (4) Victor bids him go to Ireland, and Germanus sends Segitius with him; (5) Patrick goes to sea, with nine, and visits an island, where he found a young married couple who had lived there since the time of Christ; and (6) goes thence to Mount Hermon, near the island, where the Lord gives him the staff of Jesus and grants him three requests; (7) goes to Rome.

In these three documents we have the same matter differently combined, variously modified and augmented. Probus presents it in a more advanced stage than the Vita Tertia, the Tripartite in a more advanced stage than Probus. The matter, however, is not homogeneous. The visit to Pope Celestine at Rome has no legendary superstructure, and is found in the W document (V₂ and V₄) which does not contain any of the other incidents. The rest of the common material depends on three motives: (1) the association of Patrick with Martin; (2) the staff of Jesus; (3) converse with the Lord. The Vita Tertia presents these motives in their simplest form: (1) it is not stated that Patrick was tonsured by Martin; (2) the staff of Jesus is received from a hermit, not from the Lord; (3) there is no account of the conversation, we are simply told salutavit Dominum ut Moyses. The Tripartite Life brings the second and third motives into the same setting.

In this legendary material the only thing which, for our purpose, requires investigation is the description of the place in or near which Patrick saluted the Lord. In the Vita Tertia it is designated: montem Amon ar mair Lethe supra petram maris Tyrreni in civitate quae vocatur Capua, where the Irish words, ar mair Lethe are equivalent to super mare Latinum, that is, super mare Tyrrhenum. Probus has in monte Hermon in dextro latere maris Oceani et vallata est civitas septem muris. The Tripartite has hisliab Hermóin, “to mount Hermon.”

What was the name of the mountain? The MSS. of the Vita Tertia give Arnon, Probus and Trip. Hermon. As the form Hermon may well have had a scriptural motive, we might suppose that the original name was Arnon. But the description in the Vita Tertia points in another direction. Supra petram maris Tyrrheni is clearly intended to represent the Irish words preceding. But why petram? It points to montem ar maen ar mair Lethe. And so, in view of Hermon, Hermóin in the other sources, it looks as if Arnon is a corruption of Armóin or Armain, which the writer took to mean the Irish ar maen = supra petram.[328]

The account in Probus of Patrick’s visit to this place deserves attention. The city on the mountain is the seat of a bishop, who ordains Patrick priest. While he is there he hears the voices of children in a vision, and the angel bids him go to Ireland. Now here we have happening in the city of the bishop on Mount Hermon exactly what, according to the narrative of Muirchu (271-2), happened at Auxerre, the city of Germanus.

The conclusion is strongly suggested that the sanctus senior episcopus of Mount Hermon is simply a double of Germanus. In the transference of Germanus from Auxerre to the shores of the Mediterranean we have a step in the Tripartite Life where he instructs Patrick in the Aralanensis insula (p. 26 Rolls ed.). That, however, is a conscious combination of known sources; but, if the bishop of Mount Hermon masks Germanus, we have the Germanus episode coming down to us through a different channel of tradition.

Is it possible that this channel was British? There is a place, Llanarman in Wales, which means the church of Germanus. “Pen-arman” would mean the mountain of Germanus; and it is worth considering whether the presumable mons Armain of Vita Tertia, and mons Hermon of Probus, may not be explained as the “mountain of Germanus,” being derived from a British source.

The rest of the work of Probus is based, entirely or almost entirely, on Muirchu and Tírechán.

10. Notice of Patrick in the Historia Brittonum

It is unnecessary to discuss here the complicated question of the gradual evolution of the Historia Brittonum through successive recensions. In its oldest form it seems to have been mainly founded on a lost legendary Life of Germanus of Auxerre, in which the British chief Vortigern played a prominent part. This, the oldest form to which we can get back, though there may have been a still older text behind it, can be fixed to the year 679, and there can be no doubt that it contained the Arthurian chapter (c. 56).[329] In the course of the following century a recension of this, with some additions, was executed, and we possess it in an incomplete form in a MS. preserved at Chartres. Then towards the year 800 the work was rehandled and considerable additions were made to it by Nennius, a native of Wales. All our MSS., except that of Chartres, are derived from the compilation of Nennius, but represent different recensions.

Among the other additions which Nennius, pupil of Elbodug, Bishop of Bangor,[330] made to the Historia Brittonum, was a sketch of the life of St. Patrick (caps. 50-55). It is to be observed that in another interpolation concerning the migrations of the Scotti (c. 15) Nennius refers to oral information which he received from Irish scholars (sic mihi peritissimi Scottorum nuntiauerunt), and it is possible that for the Patrician section also he may have received help from the same source. (1) The account of the mission of Palladius, the ordination of Patrick, and his departure for Ireland, is derived directly from Muirchu, but with some additions.[331] (2) The description of Patrick’s experience on “Cruachan Eile” seems not to be derived directly from Tírechán, but to depend on another source, in which the words ut uideret fructum sui laboris occurred (Hist. Britt. 197₁₈, Tírechán, 323₅), and some other expressions common to both. The date of the fifth year of Loigaire (196₆) might have been, but need not have been, taken from Tírechán. (3) The three petitions of Patrick (197) are identical with and correspond verbally to those which are added in the Liber Armachanus to the incomplete text of Tírechán (331); and the four points of comparison with Moses (198) are also found in the same order among these Additions to Tírechán (332).

The dates in c. 55 do not correspond to the dates in the Additions to Tírechán. The statement that he was ordained in his twenty-fifth year seems to stand alone. But the period of eighty-five years assigned to his preaching in Ireland has arisen, we may surmise, from a confusion of numerals (lxxii. and lxxxu.).

It is unnecessary to deal here with the notices of Patrick in the Chronicles of Marianus Scotus (ob. A.D. 1083: text in Pertz, M.G.H., V., and Migne, P. L. 107, but these are superseded by MacCarthy’s Codex Palatino-Vaticanus, No. 830, 1892 [Todd Lecture Series III.], to which I may refer for a discussion of the dates). Nor need I speak of Jocelin’s biography (twelfth cent.) since it is founded on sources which we possess, and the only value which it may have for Patrician researches is that a minute examination might conceivably show that Jocelin used different recensions of some of our documents. For the purpose of the present biography, such pieces as the Homily on St. Patrick in the Lebar Brecc (printed by Stokes in Vit. Trip. vol. ii.), or the prefaces to the Hymns of Sechnall and Fíacc, do not demand particular notice.

III

1. The Irish Annals

The extant chronicles which supply material for the history in the fifth century are: (1) Annales Ultonienses, or Annals of Ulster, compiled by Cathal MacManus of the island of Shanad (Bellisle) in Lough Erne, who died 1498. The chronicle begins at A.D. 431, and comes down to the compiler’s own time (continued to 1504). For the early Middle Age, at least, it is the most valuable of the extant Irish Annals. Its greatest merit consists in the fact that the compiler did not attempt to solve chronological difficulties, but copied the data which he found. In his introduction to the Rolls series ed. of the work (vol. iv. p. ix.) Dr. MacCarthy says: “The sustained similarity between these and the other native Annals proves that the work of MacManus consisted in selection, mainly with reference to Ulster events, from the chronicles he had collected.... Unlike O’Clery and his associates [the ‘Four Masters’], he neither tampered with the text, vitiated the dating, nor omitted the solar and lunar notation, but, side by side with the chronological errors he was unable to correct, preserved the criteria whereby they can with certainty be rectified.”

The years are distinguished by the ferial incidence, and the lunar epact, of January 1, as well as by the A.D. and the Annus Mundi. Up to the year 486 the A.D. corresponds correctly to the other criteria, but from this point on up to A.D. 1014, it lags one year behind. Dr. MacCarthy was the first to fix the precise point at which the error arises and to explain its cause. It was due to the accidental omission of a blank year, corresponding to A.D. 486, before the A.D. numeration was inserted. The Kal. which represented 486 having fallen out, 486 was annexed to the Kal. which really represented 487, (Introduction, pp. xcvi.-ix.). Thus it is only the A.D. data that are wrong; the ferial, lunar, and mundane data are right.

(2) Annals of Inisfallen (in Kerry). The entries in this chronicle are much fewer than in the Ann. Ult., and the ferial and lunar data have been very imperfectly preserved in the only extant copy. Dr. MacCarthy, who has shown how the fifth-century portion can be reconstructed (Cod. Pal.-Vat. 830, pp. 352-3), regards it as “the most ancient body of chronicles we possess” (p. 369). He has shown that the early part was based on the Victorian cycle.

(3) Tigernach (ob. 1088) composed a chronicle at Clonmacnois, beginning in the remotest ages, of which only portions are preserved. They have been published by Dr. W. Stokes in the Revue celtique (vols. v. and vi.). The second fragment ends at A.D. 361, and the third begins at A.D. 489, so that his record of the Patrician period is lost. His incompetence in chronology has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy.[332] He drew mainly from the same sources as the compiler of Ann. Ult., but as he was not influenced in his selection by the same Ultonian interest, his work contains many additional records.

(a) The Chronicon Scotorum is an abridgment of Tigernach. This was disputed by its editor (Hennessy, Rolls series), but has been established by Dr. MacCarthy,[333] who has at the same time shown the incompetence of the abbreviator (MacFirbis). For the fifth century its value consists in showing what entries were to be found in Tigernach.

(4) The Annals of the Four Masters, a chronicle in Irish from the earliest times, compiled in Donegal by O’Clery and three others in the seventeenth century, has some value for the early Middle Ages, because it preserves notices derived from older chronicles that are not extant. But its dates are untrustworthy because the compilers had no skill in chronological computation. This has been shown by Dr. MacCarthy (op. cit. p. 370 sqq.). One of their sources was the Annals of Ulster, which supplies a means of correcting their mistakes. Among their other authorities were the Book of Clonmacnois (Tigernach?) and the Book of the Island of Saints (in Lake Ree).

From these compilations it might be possible to reconstruct the common annalistic structure on which they are based; with the help of the chronological tracts and poems which are contained in the Book of Leinster, the Book of Ballymote, etc. It is clear that for such a reconstruction the Annals of Ulster would supply the clearest traces of the plan.

The Irish seem to have had a special taste and faculty for chronological computations,[334] and in the early part of the seventh century, if not sooner, they were laying the foundations for national Annals on the model of the Roman Annals. In the Annals of Ulster a number of entries, ranging from A.D. 467 to A.D. 628, are justified by references to the Liber Cuanach. Zimmer, with great probability, identifies Cuana, the author of this lost work, with Cuana mac Ailcene, a king of Fermoy, whose death is noted in Chron. Scot. and in Annals of F. M. under A.D. 640.[335] The references under the year 482 show that the Book of Cuana dealt with (the chronology at least of) the pre-Christian period. The authorship of a south Irish prince is consistent with the circumstance that many of the entries in question relate to the affairs of South Ireland.[336] For chronological studies I may refer also to the evidence of Tírechán, on which I have dwelt in Eng. Hist. Rev. April 1902, 244-5.

The Annals of Ulster (and Tigernach) have some entries in Latin and others in Irish. Of the Latin entries, some relate to Roman history, others to native history. So far as the fifth and sixth centuries are concerned, it is reasonable to conjecture that the Latin entries represent an early and generally accepted synchronistic reconstruction, which had been made with the help of Roman annals, and especially the Chronicle of Marcellinus. It has been proved by Dr. MacCarthy, from the synchronistic treatises which he has studied in connexion with Tigernach, that the chronology of pre-Patrician history was based on Jerome’s edition of the Chronicle of Eusebius. For the fifth and sixth centuries Isidore and Bede are referred to, as well as Marcellinus; but most of the foreign entries are taken verbally from Marcellinus. The difficulties and uncertainties of the synchronisers seem to be reflected in the alternative dates of the Annals of Ulster, where an event given under one year often appears in another place, with the addition hic alii dicunt, or something of the kind.

In regard to the few and brief entries relating to Patrick, the internal evidence testifies to the antiquity of the tradition, and excludes any suspicion of fabrication on the part of the annalistic compilers. While the legendary date of Patrick’s death, which had become vulgar in the seventh century, was admitted and emphasised, the true date, notwithstanding the inconsistency, was allowed to remain; and in the second place, not a single notice based on the assumption that Patrick was still alive appears in the interval between the true date and the false date. A fabricator who was concerned to invent notices about Patrick would not have been likely to leave thirty years a complete blank. Thus if the few Patrician entries prior to A.D. 461 were fabrications, it would seem that they must have been invented before the legendary date of his death in A.D. 493 had become current. This consideration establishes a strong presumption of their antiquity; if they are not genuine, they must have been very early inventions. But intrinsically they offer nothing to arouse suspicion; on the contrary, it is incredible that a fabricator, producing annalistic records in the interest of a “Patrician legend,” would have confined himself to the interpolation of just these slender notices. These entries will be found under the years 432, 439, 441, 443, 444, 461; the notices of the deaths of Secundinus, 447 (Ann. Inisf. 448), and Auxilius, 459, may perhaps be added.

Dr. MacCarthy has made it highly probable that the Paschal Table formed the nucleus or framework of the early (from A.D. 432) portion of the original Annals (loc. cit. p. c. sqq.). On this hypothesis he is able to give so satisfactory an explanation of the notice of Patrick’s advent, that the truth of the hypothesis may almost be said to be demonstrated. The mission of Palladius is recorded, in the words of Prosper, under A.D. 431, with which the Inisfallen and Ulster Annals begin. But it is assigned to the wrong consuls in Ann. Ult.; A.D. 431 was the year of Bassus and Antiochus; but it is here described as the year of Aetius and Valerius, who were consuls in A.D. 432. Obviously, therefore, the words Aetio et Valerio consulibus have been erroneously transferred from the notice s.a. 432 to the preceding year; as is borne out by a passage in a chronological tract in the Book of Ballymote, where we read: “The year after that [the sending of Palladius], Patrick went to preach the gospel to Ireland. Etius and Valerianus were the two consuls of that year” (loc. cit. p. cix. note). Now, seeing that the advent of Patrick is not recorded in any Roman chronicle, and that Irish events are not dated in the Irish Annals by consular years, the question arises how the advent of Patrick came to be associated with the consuls of the year. Dr. MacCarthy solves the problem, simply and I think convincingly, by pointing out that Patrick drew up (before he left Gaul) and took with him to Ireland a prospective Paschal Table, which, like other western Paschal tables, would have had its initial year distinguished by the consuls. Even if we had no definite testimony that Patrick took with him a Paschal Table, we could have no doubt that he must have done so;[337] it was an inevitable precaution. But we have the definite testimony of Cummian, who mentions the 84 Paschal cycle, “quem sanctus Patricius, papa noster, tulit et fecit.”[338] The initial year in this table would naturally be the year in which Patrick started for Ireland, A.D. 432; and thus the year of his advent was recorded with a consular date.

As for the other Patrician notices in the Annals enumerated above, the most probable origin seems to be that they were derived from brief entries made in the margin of this or another Paschal Table dating from the fifth century.[339] This view best accords with the paucity and the nature of the notices, which were certainly not composed by any one wishing to work the incidents of St. Patrick’s life into existing Annals.

The old Welsh Annals (Annales Cambriae: the edition in the Rolls series has been superseded by that of Mr. E. Phillimore in Y Cymmrodor, ix. p. 141 sqq. 1888) contain a few notices of Irish ecclesiastical history. This chronicle extends from A.D. 444 to 977, but the first entry is under 453 and the last under 954, the preceding and the following years being respectively blank. Mr. Phillimore gives reasons for supposing that the Annals in their present form were finished in 954 or 955 (p. 144).

Now it is to be observed that before the year 516 (to which the battle of Badon is falsely assigned) there is no entry bearing on British history. Before this year there are only five entries, of which four relate to Ireland, and the fifth to the celebration of Easter. They are as follows:—

an’ [A.D. 453] Pasca commutatur super diem dominicum cum[340] papa leone episcopo rome.

an’ [A.D. 454] Brigida sancta nascitur.

an’ [A.D. 457] Sanctus Patricius ad dominum migratur.

an’ [A.D. 468] quies benigni episcopi.

an’ [A.D. 501] Episcopus ebur pausat in christo anno. cccl. etatis suae.

The Irish dates do not coincide exactly with those of the Irish Annals. In Ann. Ult. 452 and 456 are given as alternative dates for the birth of Brigit; 467 for the death of Benignus; and the death of Ibar appears under three years, 500, 501, and 504. Tigernach gives 502, and adds the legendary age (cuius etas ccciii. annorum erat). The date of Patrick’s death corresponds to the entry in Ann. Ult. A.D. 457. Quies senis Patricii ut alii libri dicunt.

In these (and one or two other Irish dates in the sixth century) there is nothing to suggest a British chronological tradition independent of the Irish Annals. The dates were clearly taken from Irish books, just like the Irish dates in the Historia Brittonum; and throw no additional light on the chronology.[341]

Leaving out the Irish dates, which were certainly inserted at a late period in the growth of the chronicle,[342] we have a long and empty enumeration of years, unrelieved except by the notice of Pope Leo’s decision as to the celebration of Easter in 455. This notice, which appears under 453, properly belongs either to 454 or 455. (It might appear under 454, because in that year Leo notified his decision to the bishops of the west).[343] This blank table of years, with one Paschal notice, seems a confirmation of Dr. MacCarthy’s theory, and suggests that the original basis of the Cambrian Annals was a Paschal Table.

If this be so, the circumstance that the initial year is A.D. 444 should have some significance. I hazard the guess that it may have some connexion with the second visit of Germanus to Britain. In A.D. 444 Germanus was at Arles, where he took part in the deposition of Bishop Celidonius.[344] The investigation of Levison shows that the second visit probably occurred between this year and the death of Germanus, which happened before A.D. 450.[345] If, as is possible, 445 is the date, a Paschal Table with 444 as initial year might have been brought to Britain by Germanus.

2. The Catalogus Sanctorum

The Catalogus sanctorum Hiberniae secundum diversa tempora is a very brief sketch of the ecclesiastical history of Ireland from the time of St. Patrick to the year 665 A.D. Its composition may belong to the first half of the eighth century, but is generally admitted not to be later. The text has been printed by Ussher, Brit. Eccl. Ant., 913 sqq. ed. 1639 = Works, vi. 477 sqq. (from two MSS.), and by Fleming, Collectanea, 430-1 (from a MS. which is supposed to be a Codex Salmanticensis at Brussels). From these two texts it has been printed by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ii. 292-4. There is a translation in Todd’s St. Patrick, 88-9.

The framework of this sketch is patently artificial. Three definite periods are distinguished, and to each is assigned a different category of saints. The chronology is marked by the reigns of the kings of Ireland, and the three periods are as follows:—(1) 432-544 A.D. ordo sanctissimus; (2) 544-598 A.D. ordo sanctior or sanctus sanctorum; (3) 598-665 A.D. ordo sanctus. There is thus a decline in saintliness in the second order of saints, and a further decline in the third.

The distinctive features of the first period, which includes the time of St. Patrick, are noted as follows:—(1) All the saints were bishops; (2) There was unity in the Church, one liturgy, one tonsure (the Celtic), one mode of observing Easter, and all obeyed the guidance of Patrick; (3) The saints did not disdain the ministration and society of women.

The second period differed in all three respects from the first: (1) This order of saints consisted chiefly of presbyters, there were few bishops; (2) The unity of the Church was not wholly maintained; it was maintained in regard to the tonsure and the Paschal cycle, but different liturgies were introduced, and different monastic rules; it could no longer be said that unum ducem Patricium habebant; (3) Women were separated from the monasteries.

The third order consisted of presbyters and only few bishops. The conversion of the south of Ireland to Roman usages falls into this period, so that it is marked by still more diversity than the second, since two different modes of tonsure and of the determination of Easter prevailed in Ireland. There was, moreover, a tendency among the saints to betake themselves to the solitary life of hermits.

The artificiality of this arrangement is emphasised by the circumstance that the author conceives each period to be coincident with exactly four reigns. This is contrary to fact in the case of periods 1 and 3. In period 1 the reign of Muirchertach, which lasted twenty years, is omitted; in period 3, three reigns are omitted.

Thus historical accuracy has been sacrificed to symmetry. But there is also a fundamental chronological error. The author’s date for the beginning of his second period is too late, for the activity of some of the leading saints whom he places in it, such as Ciarán of Clonmacnois and Finian of Clonard, began earlier than A.D. 544.[346]

These examples of looseness do not predispose us to accept the author’s particular statements without further evidence. But the most important point in his conception of the development, namely, the decline from uniformity and the rise of individualism after the Patrician period (though he puts the beginning of this movement too late), is in consonance with probability and with other evidence.

3. Liber Angueli

This document, contained in the Liber Armachanus (printed in Rolls ed., 352 sqq.), is a clumsy invention, fabricated at Armagh, probably early in the eighth century, in the interests of the Armagh jurisdiction. It has importance for the ecclesiastical history of Ireland, but none for the acts of Patrick. Its motive, however, illustrates the confessed motive of Tírechán’s Memoir, the interest of the Paruchia Patricii. It has been, for the first time, critically treated by Dr. Gwynn, who makes it highly probable that it consists of two different compositions: (1) the Colloquy with the angel, and (2) Decrees concerning the rights of Armagh. These parts are separated by a space in the MS. at the top of fol. 21 rᵒ a (Part ii. begins de speciali reuerantia), and Dr. Gwynn shows by a careful comparison that they are probably of distinct origin, the Decrees being the older, and the Colloquy being composed as a sort of introduction to them with the view of supporting their validity by divine authority (see Gwynn, Introduction to the Book of Armagh, chap. vi.).

For the mention of the appeal to the Roman see in last instance, see App. C, 16.