Chapter IX

P. 187.—Bishop Nynias, generally called Ninian, see Bede, _H. E._ iii. 4. This passage in Bede furnishes the only trustworthy tradition about Nynias. His expression _ut perhibent_ shows that his information was oral. Bede does not fix the date of Nynias further than by the vague _multo tempore_ before St. Columba, and by the statement that the church which Nynias built was dedicated to St. Martin. The usually accepted date, _c._ 400 A.D., depends on the statement in Ailred’s _Vita Niniani_, c. 2, that Nynias visited St. Martin (and obtained at Tours masons to build his stone church). There is no evidence that the _Life_ composed by Ailred, abbot of Rievaulx in the twelfth century, was based on any ancient documents unknown to Bede; Ailred seems to have drawn his material, mainly legendary, from traditions in Galloway, and, with the exception of the visit to Martin, he adds nothing that can pretend to be a historical fact to the brief notice of Bede. The personal contact of Nynias with Martin, however, may be a genuine tradition; and it furnishes the most probable explanation of the connexion of Martin’s name with Candida Casa. But we have an independent testimony that the conversion of the Picts of Galloway must have been at least early in the fifth century—namely, their description as _apostatae_ in Patrick’s _Letter against Coroticus_, which shows that they had been converted and fallen away before the middle of the fifth century. [The fullest collection of everything bearing on Nynias is Forbes’s _Lives of St. Ninian and St. Kentigern_, 1874. A more recent edition of Ailred’s _Vita_ will be found in Pinkerton’s _Lives of the Scottish Saints_, revised by W. M. Metcalfe, vol. i. 1889. For a criticism on Ailred, see J. Mackinnon, _Ninian und sein Einfluss auf die Ausbreitung der Christenthums in Nord-Britannien_, 1891. See also Plummer’s note on Bede, _H.E._ iii. 4.]

_Ib._—Candida Casa, Whitern, was known in Ireland in the sixth century as Magnum Monasterium or Rosnat, and had a high reputation as a monastic school: see passages in Colgan, _Acta Sanctorum Hib._ i. p. 438. This reputation led to the rise of a legend that Nynias founded a church in Ireland and died there. A lost Irish life, known to Ussher (_Brit. Eccl._ vi. 209) contained this story, and Nynias appears in Irish Martyrologies under the name of Moinenn “my Nynias” (_Mart. of Tallaght_, ed. Kelly, p. xxxiv.; _Mart. Dung._ ed. Todd, p. 249).

P. 190.—Ceretic or Coroticus. The only source for the following events is Patrick’s _Letter_ (see below); but the identification of Coroticus, who is the subject of the _Letter_, depends on other considerations which seem quite conclusive. The Table of Contents to Muirchu’s Life describes the section which Muirchu devoted to him as _de conflictu sancti Patricii adversum Coirthech regem Aloo_[351] (p. 271; in Muirchu’s text he is simply described as _cuiusdam regis Britannici_, p. 498). _Aloo_ at once suggests the Rock (_Ail_) of Clyde, Bede’s _Alcluith_ (ciuitas Brettonum munitissima usque hodie quae uocatur Alcluith, _H.E._ i. 1), Adamnan’s _Petra Cloithe_; and this identification agrees with the close association of Patrick’s Coroticus with the Picts and Scots, which shows that he must have ruled in Northern Britain. But the determination of Coroticus as ruling at Alcluith is demonstrated (as has been most clearly shown by Zimmer, _Celtic Church_, p. 54, cp. Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, i. 158, note) by a genealogy of the kings of that place, preserved in a Welsh source. In the last quarter of the sixth century, in the time of Columba, Rodercus, or Rhydderch, reigned at Alcluith (Adamnan, _V. Col._ i. 15: Rodercus filius Tothail qui in petra Cloithe regnavit), and we find him also as Riderch hen (Rhydderch the Old) in the _Historia Brittonum_ (ed. Mommsen, p. 206). Now the pedigree of this Rhydderch is found in a Welsh genealogy (ed. Phillimore, in _Y Cymmrodor_, 9, 173): he was son of Tutagual (cp. Adamnan, _filius Tothail_), who was son of Clinoch, who was son of Dumngnal, who was son of Cinuit, who was son of Ceretic _guletic_. It is evident that Ceretic, from whom Rhydderch was sixth, corresponds chronologically to Coroticus, the contemporary of St. Patrick, reckoning a generation—thirty years—to each king. The identification so completely fits with all the data that we can have no doubt of its truth. Thus Zimmer fixes the date of Ceretic or Coroticus as 420-450 A.D. But it is better to say that the reigns of Ceretic and his son Cinuit probably fell more or less between 420 and 480.

Zimmer thinks that the description of Ceretic as _guletic_ in the Welsh source points to his position as claiming to be a successor of the Roman _dux Britanniarum_. I do not feel certain that we can go so far, but I have no doubt that Ceretic and his _milites_ represented the Roman defence of North Britain. That these _milites_ were Roman citizens is clear from Patrick’s words (_Letter_, p. 375₂₃, _militibus—non dico ciuibus meis atque ciuibus sanctorum Romanorum sed ciuibus demoniorum_—the sting of this reproach is that they professed to be Roman). Coroticus was a _tyrannus_ for Patrick (_per tirannidem Corotici_, p. 376₁₉). It is not clear whether the _reges_ and _tyranni_ who arose in various parts of Britain in the fifth century (for example, Vortigern) bore Roman official titles: the fact that there were also generals who were not _reges_ and who seem to correspond to the Roman commanders (Ambrosius Aurelianus; Arthurius) cannot be considered decisive. For the continuance of Roman civilisation in Britain after the rescript of Honorius (A.D. 410), see Mr. Haverfield’s observations in “Early British Christianity” in _Eng. Hist. Rev._, July 1896, pp. 428-30; and on the other hand for a Celtic revival, his paper on “The Last Days of Silchester,” _ib._ Oct. 1904, pp. 628-9.

[It is hardly necessary to mention the old view in Rees, _Welsh Saints_, p. 135, followed by Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 352, that Coroticus was Caredig, of Cardigan, son of the Welsh chief Cynedda.]

P. 192.—That the scene of the outrage was in North Ireland, in Down or Antrim, is only a probable conjecture: (1) these coasts were the most likely destination of an expedition from Strathclyde; and (2) the circumstance that Patrick _happened_ at the time to be close to the place suggests Ulster. Zimmer says nothing as to this; but his theory would evidently compel him to assume that the outrage was committed in South Ireland, for otherwise the _Letter_ of St. Patrick would imply that his activity was not confined, as Zimmer contends that it was, to North Leinster. For a conjecture that the date may have been A.D. 459, see above, App. B, p. 303.

_Ib._—Heathen Scots. _Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum_ (Patrick, _Letter_, p. 375₂₆). The Picts, not the Scots, are apostates (cp. p. 379₇); the natural inference is that the Scots (of Britain) were still heathen. Zimmer’s inference that they were Christians (p. 55) seems extraordinarily perverse. He asks us to observe that the Scots “are not reproached with paganism.” The implication is inadmissible. Their paganism is taken for granted; in fact, it is their excuse. If they had been professing Christians their guilt would have been greater even than that of the Picts, who had fallen away from Christianity. The fact that it is on the Picts, not on the Scots, that Patrick’s reproaches fell, proves that the Scots were heathen and therefore might not be expected to know better.

The mention of the Scots in this document is important, because it proves that Scottish settlements in North-Western Britain had begun before the middle of the fifth century. This must be taken into account in criticising the notice in Bede, _H.E._ i. 1, of the origin of the British Dalriada.

P. 193.—The outrage on the neophytes: _Letter against Coroticus_, 375₂₂₋₃₂. The language of Patrick implies that it was the Scots and Picts, not the _milites Corotici_, who slaughtered some of the Christians:

socii Scottorum atque Pictorum apostatarum quasi sanguine
uolentes saginari [see White’s ed.] sanguine innocentium
Christianorum quos ego innumerum [? _leg._ innumerum numerum;
_Boll._ innumeros] Deo genui atque in Christo confirmaui.

The text of the _Letter_ is full of corruptions, some of which may be easily corrected. In the following sentence we should perhaps read:

Postera die <quam> qua crismati neophiti in ueste candida, dum
flagrabat in fronte ipsorum <crux>, crudeliter trucidati atque
mactati gladio <a> supradictis, <..> et misi epistolam, etc.

_Crux_ or _crucis signum_ may have fallen out before _crudeliter_. For the sign of the cross and white chrism at baptism, see Warren, _Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church_, p. 65; cp. p. 217. It was laid down by Innocent I. (_Ep._ xxv., Migne, _P.L._ xx. 555) that chrism _in pectore_ might be performed by presbyters, chrism _in fronte_ only by bishops. For the Roman and Gallican baptismal ceremonies see Duchesne, _Origines du culte chrétien_, cap. ix.

P. 194.—There is a difficulty, perhaps only superficial, in Patrick’s narrative in his _Letter_. He makes Coroticus fully responsible for the outrage, but his language suggests that the message which he had sent to demand the captives before the plunderers left Ireland was not addressed to Coroticus personally; the ruler’s name is not mentioned, and the plural is used (_cachinnos fecerunt de illis_, 376₄). It is possible, however, that something has fallen out (see last note) before the words _et misi epistolam_.

_Ib._—The persons in Strathclyde to whom the _Letter against Coroticus_ was transmitted and who were asked to excommunicate the tyrant are not designated by a more precise expression than _sancti et humiles corde_ (376₂₃). They were, no doubt, the whole Christian community; but there is no indication who was to receive the letter in the first instance. There is apparently a reference to the contemplated transmission of the letter from one place to another in Britain (certainly from Ireland to Britain) by the hands of some _famulus Dei_ in 380₁₉, and the writer is afraid that it might possibly be abstracted. The inference seems to be that it was not to go direct to Alcluith, but to some other place (could it possibly have been Whitern?).

P. 194.—The reference to the redemption of captives from the Franks is an illustration from Patrick’s own writings of his knowledge of Gaul. An untenable inference has been drawn from this passage by Sir S. Ferguson and Dr. Stokes, namely, that it must have been written before the Franks “crossed the Rhine and settled in Gaul, _i.e._ before A.D. 428” (Introduction to _Tripartite Life_, p. ci). The argument is based on ignorance of Frank history. The Salian Franks in question had been settled west of the Rhine since the time of Julian. Consequently if there was any validity in the argument it would prove that the _Letter_ must have been written before 358 A.D. But the reasoning is invalid. It is not clear whether the Salians are meant; but if they are meant, as they well may be, there is no reason in the world why they should not have carried off captives to their territory in Lower Germany, on the Gallic side of the Rhine, early in the fifth century, whether in the days of Chlojo or before; in fact it is what we should expect in those troubled years from 407 to the campaigns of Aetius in the late twenties. The argument that the Franks must have carried their captives _beyond the Rhine_ is to me unintelligible.

_Ib._—Legend of the transformation of Ceretic into a fox: Muirchu, p. 498: _ilico uulpeculi_ (sic legendum) _miserabiliter arrepta forma_. The curious expression (_ib._₁₉), _ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus aquae transiens nusquam comparuit_, may possibly have been suggested by the words in the _Letter_ 380₇ referring to Coroticus: _miserum regnum temporale quod utique in momento transeat sicut nubes uel fumus qui utique uento dispergitur: ita peccatores et fraudulenti a facie Domini peribunt_. Muirchu found that story in an Irish written source (see above, App. A, ii. 3).

P. 195.—Bitter phrases and self-justification in the _Letter_: see 375₂₀₋₂₁; 376₁₆ (_non usurpo aliena_); 377₁₄₋378₂; 379₁₂₋₁₈. For similar phrases in the _Confession_ and the _Letter_, cp. Mr. White’s list of recurrent phrases (_Proc. of R.I.A._ 1905, p. 299), to which may be added the use of _utique_.

P. 197.—“Confession.” What Patrick meant by _confessio_ is made clear by the last sentences of the work (374₂₈₋375₅), and borne out by the general tenor. Compare esp. 358₄₋₁₀ (_confiteremur_), 361₁₇, 366₂₀, 370₃₄.

P. 202.—The attack on Patrick, on account of the youthful fault (_Conf._ 365₂, etc.):

et quando temptatus sum ab aliquantis senioribus meis qui
uenerunt et peccata mea contra laboriosum episcopatum meum
<..>, utique in illo die fortiter impulsus sum ut caderem [cp.
Ps. 118, 38] hic et in aeternum, sed Dominus pepercit proselito
et peregrino, etc.

It is clear that the attack was made in Ireland (cp. App. C, 5). It seems probable that the persons described as _seniores mei_ were ecclesiastics in Ireland, and this view has been adopted in the text. But in another passage we read that _aliquanti de senioribus meis_ were offended by his persistence in the determination to go to Ireland (367₂₉), and this might suggest the view that they came from Britain (_uenerunt_) for the purpose of attacking him. It seems impossible to decide. The vision which Patrick saw the night after an interview with the _seniores_ has caused some difficulty; he tells it so badly. “That night I saw in a vision of the night a writing which had been written against me,[352] dishonouring me.[353] And at the same time I heard the answer of God saying to me, ‘We have seen with displeasure the face of’ the person aforesaid [viz. the friend], revealing his name.”[354] The passage immediately following deserves attention. The writer gives thanks for two things:

[1] ut non me (sc. Deus) inpediret a profectione quam
statueram, et [2] de mea quoque opera quod a Christo Domino meo
dediceram, sed magis ex eo sensi in me uirtutem non paruam.

Here he designates as two great crises the attempts to dissuade him from his missionary purpose, and the attack afterwards made upon him, to which _ex eo_ refers.

P. 206.—Patrick regrets his want of education (_Conf._ 359₂₆):

quatinus modo ipse adpeto in senectute mea quod in iuuentute
non conparaui; quod obstiterunt peccata mea ut confirmarem quod
antea perlegeram (_sc._ the rudiments he had learned before his
captivity).

P. 206.—Scriptural quotations in the _Confession_ and _Letter_. A full conspectus of these has been furnished by Rev. N. J. D. White in his edition. His results as to the text used by Patrick may be summed up as follows. For the Old Testament there is no evidence that he used the Vulgate (cp. above, p. 293 _ad fin._), while there are distinctively Old Latin citations. The New Testament citations are not so clear: some passages seem certainly to imply the Vulgate; others have Old Latin support. As there can be little doubt that Patrick quoted largely from memory, I am inclined to conjecture that he had been trained on an Old Latin version in Gaul, but that he possessed in Ireland a copy of the New Testament Vulgate, in which he looked up some of his references. This would explain the twofold character of the New Testament quotations, but I put forward the conjecture with great diffidence.

_Ib._—Succession of Armagh bishops. See the four lists in Todd, _St. Patrick_, p. 174 _sqq._ All these lists interpolate Sechnall, and three of them the fictitious Sen Patraic, between Patrick and Benignus. But the breviarium in the Book of Leinster (f. 12, vᵒ A; see my paper in _E.H.R._, October 1902) recognises that Iarlathus (the successor of Benignus) was the third bishop. I cannot, however, consider it certain that Benignus succeeded Patrick before his death in 461, because the ten years which the lists assign to Benignus may have been based on the Sen Patraic interpolation, “Sen Patraic” being supposed to have died in 457, and ten years (467-457) being thus obtained for Benignus.

P. 207.—Day of St. Patrick’s death. It is recorded in the Calendar of Luxeuil (Martene et Durand, _Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum_, iii. c. 1592 (1717); Stokes, _Tripartite Life_, ii. 493).

_Ib._—Two distinct sets of _petitiones_ granted to Patrick are recorded, one in Muirchu, the other in the _Lib. Arm._ at the end of Tírechán’s Memoir. (1) Of the four petitions mentioned by Muirchu as granted by the angel before Patrick’s death, two have obvious motives: one (_a_) is of Ulidian origin, and the other (_b_) is in the interest of Armagh (see above, p. 207). The other two are: (_c_) that whoever sings the hymn concerning St. Patrick (Sechnall’s hymn) on the day of his death shall be saved; and (_d_) that Patrick shall himself judge all the Irish on the day of judgment. One wonders what Patrick would have thought of such petitions, especially of the latter. It seems clear that (_c_) and (_d_) were first invented, and had become current before (_a_) and (_b_) were added.[355] (2) The other set consists of three (_tres petitiones ut nobis traditae sunt Hibernensibus_, p. 331, Rolls ed.), and the _Vita Tertia_ (c. 85) connects them with the sojourn for prayer on Mount Crochan. They are (_a_) that none of the Irish who repents, even on his death-bed, shall be shut up in hell; (_b_) that barbarous peoples shall not rule the Irish for ever; (_c_) that seven years before the last day Ireland shall be overwhelmed by the sea, and none of the Irish survive. These petitions are given in the _Historia Brittonum_, and must have been current in the eighth century.[356] The point of the second petition is not clear. Possibly it refers to invasions from Britain.

We may conjecture that the stories of the petitions grew out of an early legend that, through their saint’s intercession, the men of Ireland were to have a privileged position at the Last Judgment.

P. 211.—St. Patrick’s crozier. The history of the crozier known as _baculus Iesu_, which existed in Armagh in the eleventh century (see the obscure notices in Tighernach, _s.a._ 1027 and 1030), was transferred in the latter half of the twelfth century to the Cathedral Church of Dublin, and was publicly burnt as an object of superstition in 1538, will be found set out in Todd’s _Introduction_ (pp. viii. _sqq._) to the _Book of Obits and Martyrology of the Cathedral Church of the Holy Trinity, Dublin_, ed. by J. C. Crosthwaite, 1844. The veneration with which it was regarded in the eleventh century shows that it was an ancient relic, and it can hardly be doubted that it was the existence of this relic at Armagh which occasioned the story that Jesus gave a staff to Patrick. This story occurs in the _Vita Tertia_, c. 23, which probably goes back to the ninth century; and even if the story was not invented till that period, the object which suggested it must have been older. It seems very probable that the staff was one of the _insignia consecrata_ mentioned in the _Liber Angueli_ (355₂₉, 356₄), and this would take us back to the eighth century. There is therefore reason for thinking that the crozier which perished in 1538 may have been extremely ancient, but there is no positive proof that the tradition which assigned it to Patrick is correct, or that it was as old as the fifth century.

_Ib._—St. Patrick’s bell. In _Ann. Ult. s.a._ 553, there is a notice, derived from the Book of Cuana, to the effect that in that year St. Columba placed the relics of Patrick in a shrine. Three relics had been found in Patrick’s tomb, “the cup, the gospel of the angel, and the bell of the will,” and an angel instructed Columba how to distribute them: the cup was to go to Down, the bell to Armagh, and he was to keep the gospel himself.[357] If this notice stood in the Book of Cuana, it would show that early in the seventh century the “bell of the will” existed at Armagh, and was believed to belong to Patrick. The bell has been described, and its history traced, by Bishop Reeves in _Transactions of the R.I.A._ xxvii. pp. 1 _sqq._ (1877). It is a four-sided bell, weighing 3 lbs. 8 oz., made “of two plates of sheet-iron, which are bent over so as to meet, and are fastened by large-headed iron rivets.” The handle is of iron. A shrine, which is also preserved in the Dublin Museum, was made for it, _c._ A.D. 1100. Bishop Reeves believed that the tradition which ascribed the bell to Patrick is sound. He seems to have thought that there is no room for reasonable doubt. But it is to be observed that the statement cited from the _Liber Cuana_ opens the door to possibilities of fraud. We may infer from it with certainty that for nearly a century after Patrick’s death this bell was not at Armagh. Its genuineness therefore depends on the truth of the story of the opening of Patrick’s tomb (at Saul), and the discovery of the bell in the tomb. But if the relic was a forgery, just such a story might have been invented.