Chapter VIII

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

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

_Ib._—House of entertainment at Navan: _Ann. of Four Masters, s.a._ 1387.

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

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

P. 159.—Northern Church at Armagh. The church which Patrick founded on the hill is called by Muirchu “northern church,” _sinistralis aeclessia_; hence Reeves supposes it “to have stood somewhere near the extremity of the north transept of the present cathedral” (p. 15). On the other hand, it has been suggested that the adjective means that the church was built _north and south_ (cp. Todd, _St. P._ p. 412, and Stokes, note on Muirchu, p. 292). The argument for this interpretation is that the church was called the _sabhall_, and that the other church which bore the same name (at Saul) lay north and south (_transverse_) according to the _Vita Tertia_, c. 31; hence it is suggested that churches with this peculiarity were called _sabhalls_. Reeves had taken this view in an earlier work, _Antiquities of Down and Connor_, pp. 220-1.

P. 159.—Graveyard. _Vit. Trip._ 228, “the place where is the _ferta_ to-day” (Stokes), _not_ as Colgan (so Reeves and Todd), “the place where are the two graves, _da ferta_.”

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

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

_Ib._—Ardpatrick. The tradition that Patrick founded Ard Patric east of Louth, though not in the _Lib. Arm._, deserves mention, because Mochtae, whom Patrick established there according to _Vit. Trip._ 226-8, is mentioned in Adamnan’s _Vita Columbae_ in the only passage where Adamnan refers to Patrick (_Preface_):—

quidam proselytus Brito, homo sanctus, sancti Patricii episcopi
discipulus, Maucteus nomine.

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

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

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

P. 164.—Birth of Iserninus in Cliu (_Add. Notices_, p. 342). For the locality see Shearman, _Loca Patriciana_, p. 141 _note_.

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

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

P. 170.—The liturgy used by Patrick. Compare Duchesne, _Origines du culte chrétien_, 3rd ed. (1903), chap. iii. p. 88 _sqq._ The _Antiphonary_ of Bangor is an example of a Gallican liturgy unmodified by Roman influence, and according to Dr. MacCarthy we have another in the oldest part of the Stowe missal (see above Appendix A, i. 3, _ad fin._). For Celtic liturgies see Warren, _Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church_ (1881), the chief book on the subject. A _missa Patricii_ (mass of Patrick) is mentioned in Tírechán (322₁₉). I cannot say what attention should be paid to the statements about the Scottic liturgy in the _Cursus Romanus_ printed in Warren 77 _sqq._ (Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils_, i. 138). Cp. Ussher, _Brit. eccl. ant._ (_Works_, vi. p. 480).

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

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

_Ib._ 321₇, aeclessiam liberam; 330₂₉, sed libere semper.

_Add. Notices_ 338 (offering of Caichán’s fifth: note _liberauit_ Deo et Patricio).

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

_Ib._ 340₃₋₁₀;344₁.

_Ib._ 335₂₋₆ (Trim.).

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

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

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

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