Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: C (2)

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.

9. _Patrick’s Consecration_

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).

10. _Evidence for Christianity in Ireland before St. Patrick_

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.

11. _King Loigaire and King Dathi_

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._

Under thee is the king of the men of Fail [Ireland], Dathi son of
Fiachra, the good;
Croghan, you have hidden him from the Galls, from the Goidels.
Under thee is Dungalach the swift who led the king [Dathi] beyond
the sea of seas.

12. _The Senchus Mór_

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:—

Loiguire, Corc, dour Daire,
Patrick, Benén, just Cairnech,
Ross, Dubthach, Fergus with goodness,
Nine props, those of the _Senchus Mór_.

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_.]

13. _Patrick’s Visits to Connaught_

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:—

Et exiit per montem filiorum Ailello et plantavit aeclessiam
liberam hi Tamnuch,

and 328, _et exiit ... cell Senchuae_. See Bury, _loc. cit._ 164-6.

4. In the passage in the _Liber Armachanus_, f. 9, rᵒ (301), which Dr. Gwynn has shown (see above, p. 250) to belong to the work of Tírechán, the baptism of Hercaith and the dedication of his son Feradach = Sachellus to the church are noticed; and it is recorded that Patrick ordained Sachellus at Rome. But immediately afterwards at Selce (319) Sachellus is already a bishop (of Baslic, _Trip._ 108). Thus two visits, separated by an interval of years, are here implied. If the statement is correct that Patrick took Sachellus with him to Rome, then our conjectural chronology for his visit to Rome (see Appendix C, 15) would give a lower limit for one of his journeys to Connaught.

5. An earlier visit to north Sligo is implied—but without inconsistency—in the account of the visit to that region (327), as well as in the presence of _bishop_ Brón at Selce (and cp. 313₈).

6. The notice of the visit to Ardd Senlis seems to imply an earlier foundation there (317).

7. Sanctus Iarnascus in Mag-n-Airniu (320₂₆) is introduced as if Christianity had already been planted there. It may be noticed that in this passage the words _uiris uiiii. aut xii_. show that Tírechán was using a written source; he was doubtful about the reading.

8. Entering Tirawley, Patrick crosses the Moy. This implies that he came from the east, not from the south, as Tírechán’s itinerary would imply.

If we assume as probable the correctness of the statement that Patrick’s work in Connaught belongs to three different visits, we may draw tentatively the following conclusions:—

1. In the first visit, which was prior to A.D. 441, he worked (_a_) in Tirerrill, and (_b_) in north Sligo, where Brón was ordained bishop for his church (Killespugbrone) under Knocknaree. Perhaps he also visited (_c_) the neighbourhood of Elphin. He visited (_d_) Mag Airthic and (_e_) the district of the Ciarrigi, and (_f_) Mag-n-Airniu. In these regions he converted the father of Sachellus.

It is possible that on this occasion he extended his journey to Mount Aigli, and fulfilled the special aim of his missionary ambition by planting a church (Ached Fobuir) near the southern limits of the forest of Fochlad.

2. On another occasion he crossed the Shannon, as described by Tírechán, at Lake Bofin; worked in Mag Glais and Mag Ái; revisited the Elphin district; founded Baslic, proceeded to Lake Tecet, revisited Mag Airthic and the Ciarrigi, etc.

3. On a third occasion, he proceeded straight (from Tara) to Tirawley in the company of Endae and the sons of Amolngaid. After his plantation of his faith in Tirawley he may have revisited other parts of Connaught. The visit falls soon after Amolngaid’s death, which may have been c. 445 A.D.

It seems not at all unlikely that the second and third visits thus distinguished occurred chronologically in reverse order. It must also be borne in mind that he would have probably revisited many places in the course of the two later visits.

Conclusions very similar to mine have been reached by Dr. Gwynn, who discusses the subject in a “Supplemental Note to Chapter V.” of his Introduction to the _Book of Armagh_. There are in the abbreviated memoranda (which has been described above in Appendix A, ii. 2) vestiges of the material used by Tírechán, and Dr. Gwynn points out that the first group supplies evidence of the existence of a tradition as to Patrick’s work in Tirerrill, independent of the rest of the itinerary which Tírechán sketched. The first group is:—

Ailbe iSenchui. altare ... Machet Cetchen Rodán Mathona ...

Here, Dr. Gwynn observes, is a memorandum combining in continuous form several unconnected passages in Tírechán. “It is reasonable to infer that the tradition condensed into this memorandum was known to Tírechán; that he endeavoured to work it into his history by breaking it up into pieces and inserting them where he judged best.”

14. _King Amolngaid: Date of his Reign_

The death of Amolngaid, king of Connaught, is not noticed in the _Ann. Ult._, but is recorded _s.a._ 449 in the _Annals of the Four Masters_, and must have been derived from older Annals. Probably it was given by Tigernach (this part of his work is not preserved), who generally records the changes in the succession in Connaught. We cannot indeed infer that A.D. 449 was the precise year designated in the source of the Four Masters, because at this period their dates are not very accurate, as can be shown by a comparison with the _Annals of Ulster_. But we can consider it as an approximation to the date assigned by the older Annals.

The extant lists of the kings of Connaught, from Amolngaid to Aed (son of Eochaid Tirmcharna), ob. A.D. 577, are hopelessly confused. The material which I have examined consists of (1) the names and dates in the Annals (_Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach); (2) List in _Book of Leinster_, 41a; (3) List in MS. Laud, 610, f. 116 rᵒ b; (4) (_a_) prose list, (_b_) poetical catalogue by O’Duinn, in _Book of Ballymote_, 57a, 58a. I owe the translation of O’Duinn’s poem to the kindness of Mr. E. J. Gwynn.

These sources generally agree (with the exception of 3, which seems to be worthless) that the three kings following Amolngaid were, in order, Ailill Molt, Duach, and Eogan Bel. It is in regard to Duach that the chief difficulty occurs, for he appears again in the lists as the second (or third) king after Eogan Bel. He was son of Fergus, and is distinguished as Tenga Uma, and is said to have fallen in the battle of Segais. The Annals give the date of the Battle of Segais as A.D. 502 (_Ann. Ult._, _Ann. Inisf._) or 500 (Tigernach); but Tigernach has a notice of Duach Tenga Uma under 550 (p. 139, ed. Stokes), and of his death under 556 (as well as under 500). The list of O’Duinn distinguishes clearly two Duachs: Duach Galach, son of Brian, who succeeded Ailill Molt, and Duach son of Fergus, seventh in the list, who fell at the battle of Segais. (The list in the _Book of Leinster_ also distinguishes the two Duachs, designating the first as Galach and the second as Tenga Uma).[411] This would put the battle of Segais about 550. The earlier date of that battle must be accepted, as Muirchertach MacErca was the victor in it, and the notice of it in the Annals is undoubtedly independent of the lists of Connaught kings. It is also clear that there was a fixed tradition that Duach Tenga Uma fell at Segais, since O’Duinn, placing his reign at a later period, has to transfer the battle of Segais along with him. We may therefore conclude that Duach Tenga Uma preceded Eogan Bel, and fell in the battle of Segais A.D. 500/502. Now all the lists agree in giving to the first Duach, who succeeded Ailill Molt, nineteen or twenty years. This agrees with the circumstance that Ailill Molt fell in the battle of Ocha A.D. 482.

Eogan Bel, the sources consent, fell in the battle of Sligech. The date assigned to this battle in the Annals is A.D. 543 or 547 (both dates in _Ann. Ult._ and Tigernach). The length of his reign is given in the lists as thirty-seven (or thirty-four: the variation is obviously due to confusion of uII and IIII); which is not long enough for either of the obituary dates if he followed Duach in A.D. 500-2. Tigernach, however, _s.a._ 503, gives his regnal years as forty-two; which would be consistent with A.D. 543 for the battle of Sligech.

Ailill, the Womanly, Eogan Bel’s son and successor, was slain in the battle of Cuil Conaire, which is noticed in the Annals _s.a._ 550.

The remaining years up to A.D. 577, the year of Aed’s death, would be just accounted for by Eochaid Tirmcharna’s reign of one year and Aed’s reign of twenty-five years (twenty-two years in lists 2 and 4; a confusion here too of II and u). But at this point, after Ailill, occurs the repetition of Duach Tenga Uma: he appears in Tigernach as well as in the lists (except 4); and seven years are assigned to him. Further, the catalogue of O’Duinn inserts Eogan Srem between this second Duach and Eochaid Tirmcharna, and gives him twenty-seven years. Eogan Srem also appears in the prose list in the _Book of Ballymote_, but before Ailill.

If we take as fixed points the death of Ailill in 550 and that of Aed in 577, it is obvious that, even if Aed reigned only twenty-two years, there is no room for a second Duach and Eogan Srem in this period.

On the other hand, if we take the sum total of all the regnal years as given in O’Duinn’s poem up to Aed’s death, and reckon back from A.D. 577, we find that we are taken back to the neighbourhood of the death of king Dathi. It will be best to give O’Duinn’s list:—

Amolngaid reigned 20 years
Ailill Molt ” 11 ”
Duach, son of Brian ” 20 ”
Eogan ” 37 ”
Ailill ” 5 ”
Eogan Srem ” 27 ”
Duach, son of Fergus ” 7 ”
Eochaid ” 1 ”
Aed ” 25 ”
---------
Total 153 ”

Reckoning back 153 years from A.D. 577, we reach A.D. 424. The date of Dathi’s death was A.D. 428, but if we take into account the conditions of such a calculation, where incomplete years may be set down as full years, the divergence might be consistent with the conclusion that the list was constructed on the initial assumption that Amolngaid succeeded Dathi in 428—which implies that Dathi was king of Connaught (but see below).

We can now see how the chronology was constructed in O’Duinn’s source. It will be simplest, for the purpose of criticism, to tabulate the dates (approximately) implied by that construction:—

Amolngaid ceased to reign 444
Ailill I. ” 455
Duach I. ” 475
Eogan I. ” 512
Ailill II. ” 517
Eogan II. ” 544
Duach II. ” 551
Eochaid ” 552
Aed ” 577

These dates are entirely at variance with the chronology of the Annals. We are entitled to criticise them on the assumption that the dates of the Annals for the battles of Segais, Sligech, and Cuil Conaire are approximately correct. O’Duinn’s figures would place Segais _c._ 475 instead of 502 (or 500), Sligech _c._ 512 instead of 543 (or 547), Cuil Conaire _c._ 517 instead of 550. But if we omit from his list Eogan II. and Duach II., and then reckon back from 577, we get approximately dates assigned in the Annals to the second and third of these three battles, namely, 551 for Cuil Conaire, 546 for Sligech; while the contradiction between the duration of Eogan Bel’s reign and the date of Segais is the same here as in the other sources. If Segais was fought in 502 and Sligech in 546/7, and Eogan Bel reigned thirty-seven years, then seven or eight years are left unaccounted for, and the reign of the second Duach serves to fill this interval. But there is no room for Eogan Srem between the battle of Segais and the death of Aed.

Again, if we take Duach I.’s death at Segais in 502 as a fixed point, and reckon backward with O’Duinn’s figures, we find 482 for the accession of Duach I., 471 for the accession of Ailill Molt, and 451 for the accession of Amolngaid. If Amolngaid followed Dathi in 428, this would imply an error of about twenty-four years.

We have now the clue to the construction of O’Duinn’s list. A period of _c._ 153 years from the accession of Amolngaid to the death of Aed had to be accounted for. The recorded regnal years were insufficient, and the defect was supplied by an impossible interpolation in the sixth century, whereas it was in the fifth century, in the period anterior to Duach, that the supplement was chiefly needed. Having established this point, we need not consider further the succession of kings subsequent to Duach Tenga Uma.

It is clear that there was a definite tradition assigning to Amolngaid twenty years, to Ailill Molt eleven years, and Duach twenty years; and that the chronologer, whom O’Duinn followed, did not venture to tamper with these numbers in order to account for the missing years. As for Ailill Molt, twenty years are assigned to him in the list in the _Book of Leinster_. But this may be at once rejected; for twenty years represent the duration of his reign as king of Ireland (462-482), and it is highly improbable that the throne of Connaught became vacant at the same moment as the throne of Ireland. Accepting then eleven years as the genuine tradition, he must have succeeded to Connaught _c._ 471, as he died in 482, and there is no reason to suppose that he resigned the kingship of Connaught before his death. The interval from 482 to 502 is exactly covered by the twenty years assigned to Duach Tenga Uma. If Amolngaid followed Dathi in 428 and reigned for twenty years, the end of his reign would fall _c._ 448, which would correspond to the record in the _Annals of the Four Masters_ (449). Thus we should arrive at an interval of about twenty-four years between Amolngaid’s death and Ailill Molt’s succession (448-471), which is unaccounted for. [The confusion of Ailill Molt’s regnal years in Connaught with his twenty regnal years in Ireland served to shorten this period by nine years; and in the list of the _Book of Leinster_ the residue of the chronological error is “corrected” by adding fourteen years to the reign of Amolngaid, to whom thirty-four years are assigned.]

The question therefore is, who reigned in Connaught between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt? Now I think it can hardly be insignificant that in the Annals as well as in the lists Duach Tenga Uma is reduplicated. This must have had some motive, and the most probable explanation seems to be that two Duachs did reign in Connaught, and that O’Duinn is right in distinguishing Duach son of Brian from Duach son of Fergus, though he confuses the order and chronology. For it is clear that he had knowledge of Duach Galach son of Brian, whom he describes as falling in battle with the Cinel Eogain. His notice of this king is as follows (I use the text and translation furnished by Mr. E. J. Gwynn):—

Duach mac Briain abus | Duach son of Brian next
XX bliadan a flaithus, | was sovereign 20 years;
fuair a brath, ba tennel tair, | he met his betrayal—he was a prince
| in the east—in
’sa cath re ceinel Eogain. | battle with the cinel Eogain.

Ced ri cloindi Briain na mbladh | The first of the family of Brian the
| famed
Duach galach gargg dargiallsad, | was Duach valiant (_Galach_) fierce
| to whom men gave obedience;
bladh don duine os gach dine | fame the man had beyond all
| generations
gurgab uile in airdrige. | so that he took the entire
| overkingship.

secht oshein rochuala | 77 years from thence I have heard
secht ndeich da bliadan buadha | years of victory
co Seagais in Coraind cain | to Segais of fair Corand
co har Conaill is Eogain. | to the battle of Conall and Eogan.

The last stanza presents a difficulty. The battle of Segais was not the “battle of Conall and Eogan,” so that the preposition _co_ “to” either in v. 3 or in v. 4 must be a mistake for _ó_ “from.” O’Curry, in his _Manuscript Material_, refers to this poem, and evidently assumes that _ó_ should be read in v. 4; for he infers that the battle in which Duach son of Brian was killed was fought 79 [sic] years before the battle of Segais (which he dates A.D. 504 after the Four Masters), thus obtaining 425 for Duach’s death, and placing his reign before Amolngaid.

Now it is to be observed that the 77 years exactly correspond to the sum total of the regnal years between the death of the first Duach and that of the second Duach, according to O’Duinn’s own incorrect arrangement (37 + 5 + 27 + 7 = 76). The question therefore arises: is the statement as to the period of 77 years an inference from the arrangement, or is the arrangement determined by an independent record that 77 years elapsed between the two battles in question? The former alternative seems less probable; for it does not appear why this particular interval, if it were only an inference from the arrangement, should be selected for special mention. It seems much more probable that (as is suggested by the expression “I have heard”) the stanza embodies a tradition independent of this particular reconstruction of the regnal list. If so, O’Curry’s inference was correct, and we get (502 - 77 =) 425 as the date of the battle in which Duach MacBriain fell. There would be no difficulty in this date for Duach’s death; his father, Brian, was son of Eochaid and brother of Niall; he was himself cousin of Loigaire and Amolngaid.[412] In this case, one of the causes of the contradictions in the Connaught succession was a confusion of the Duach who reigned towards the beginning of the fifth century with the Duach who reigned at the end.

If then the first Duach died _c._ 425, it seems probable that he was succeeded by Amolngaid. There seems to be no clear evidence that Dathi was king of Connaught while he was king of Ireland. It is stated in the _Genealogy of the Hy Fiachrach_ (p. 90) that he ruled Connaught and Ireland. It is quite conceivable that he was king of Connaught before 405, and that in that year he secured the succession to the throne of Ireland by agreeing to transfer the kingship of Connaught to his cousin Duach. The hypothesis that Amolngaid immediately followed Duach _c._ 425 is supported by two considerations.

1. Provisionally assuming, for the purpose of the argument, that Amolngaid might have succeeded Dathi, I pointed out that the sum total of regnal years in O’Duinn’s list, from Amolngaid’s accession to Aed’s death, would take us back to the close neighbourhood of Dathi’s death in 428. But there is actually a difference of four years (577 - 153 = 424). If Amolngaid succeeded Duach in 424/5, we may say that the agreement of this date with the total of years in O’Duinn’s reckoning is precise.

2. On this hypothesis we are able to solve the main problem—the interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt.

For if Amolngaid succeeded in 424/5, and reigned 20 years, his death would fall in 444/5. There would consequently be an interval of 26 or 27 years between his death and the accession of Ailill Molt in 471. Now if Duach mac Briain had a son, we might expect to find him elected to the throne. The prose list in the Book of Ballymote designates Eogan Srem as the son of Duach Galach (that is, Duach mac Briain); and the regnal years assigned to Eogan Srem in O’Duinn’s poem are precisely the number required to fill up the interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt. The inference therefore would be that Amolngaid was followed by Eogan, Duach’s son, _c._ 444/5.

In order to show the force of the argument, I may say, at the risk of tautology, that it consists of three converging considerations. (_a_) Eogan Srem is introduced, in the lists in the Book of Ballymote, among the Kings of Connaught in the sixth century in defiance of chronology. His appearance in these lists has to be explained, and is most naturally explained by supposing that he was at one time King of Connaught, though not at the time implied in the lists. If the conclusion is right that Duach mac Briain died in 425, then his son Eogan Srem must be moved back into the fifth century. (_b_) The 27 regnal years assigned to Eogan Srem exactly occupy the vacant interval between Amolngaid and Ailill Molt. (_c_) The succession of Eogan Srem, son of Amolngaid’s predecessor, is just what we might expect; it is exactly parallel to the successions in the fifth century to the throne of Ireland. Thus: Niall, Dathi, Loigaire son of Niall; Dathi, Loigaire, Ailill son of Dathi; Loigaire, Ailill, Lugaid son of Loigaire.

These considerations seem to me to outweigh the circumstance that Amolngaid’s death is assigned in the Annals of the Four Masters to A.D. 449. It would be otherwise if the date were recorded in the Annals of Ulster. But a comparison of the Four Masters with the other Annals shows that the former compilation constantly deviates by several years, and, for the early period at least, a date which is found only in it, cannot be accepted as accurate with any confidence.

* * * * *

I have presented this investigation so as to show the steps by which I reached the conclusion, as I believe that thus it will be easier to criticise it. The reconstruction which I propose seems at least to satisfy the conditions of the problem. It may be convenient to tabulate the list of the kings, in accordance with these results, as follows:—

Duach Galach, mac Briain _d._ 424/5
Amolngaid _d._ 444/5.
Eogan Srem, son of Duach _d._ 471.
Ailill Molt _d._ 482.
Duach Tenga Uma _d._ 502.

15. _Patrick at Rome_