^{page 2 note 1} First published in 433, with two successive continuations coming down to 455.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 2} Grosjean, P., AB 63 (1945) 80–81.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 3} Life of St. Patrick (1905) 343 n. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 4} Grosjean 77–78.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 5} Paris 1904.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 6} Grosjean, 78.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 7} Prosper’s words are repeated under the same year in AU and AI, but with the significant alteration: ‘ut Christum credere potuissent.’ Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 8} O’Rahilly 15. These sources will have to be examined in detail at a later stage of our investigation.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} p. 898f. (2 ed. 466). As an instance of this confusion Ussher quotes the Annals of Peterborough, where the missionary of 430 (i.e. 431) is called Patricius. With this entry may be compared the note in the Martyrology of Bede under March 17: ‘In Scotia natalis sancti Patricii episcopi … qui primus ibidem Christum evangelizavit.’ Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} O'Rahilly 10.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} In the latter, Patrici Patrici can perhaps be explained as a form of emphasis; see Rev. Barden, W. O.P. in Studies 32 (Dublin 1943) 297 n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 4} Cf. O’Rahilly, , History 505–6.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 5} Irish Antiquarian Researches II.243–322. A similar attempt was made in recent times (1931) by Ardill, J. R., St. Patrick A.D. 180 (2 ed.: The Date of St. Patrick, 1932); but he was convincingly refuted by Dr. Newport J. D. White (The Date of St. Patrick, 1932).Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 6} St. Patrick, , Apostle of Ireland (1864) 305–10.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 7} De ecclesiae Brittonum Scotorumque historiae fontibus (1851) 76f.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 8} De antiqua Britonum Scotorumque ecclesia (1882) 42–44, 51–53.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 9} Ir. Eccl. Record 1887, pp. 723–31.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 10} Ibid. 1891, 800–809; cf. 1889, 121–33; 1893, 944f. 1050–54.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 11} Keltische Kirche (1901) 217.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 12} Neues Archiv für ältere deutsche Geschichtsforschung 29 (1903) 167–72.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 13} ‘St. Patrick and the Patrick Legend,’ Thought 8 (1933) 29–34.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 14} Loca Patriciana (1879) 395–454.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 15} Cf. Robert, B., Etude critique sur la vie et l’oeuvre de Saint Patrick (1883) 81–83, 108–9.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 16} Revue Celtique 9 (1888) 111–117; cf. 22 (1901) 335f.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 17} Life of St. Patrick, 343f. 382–4.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} See the edition by Stokes, Whitley (Henry Bradshaw Society 29, 1905) 178, and O’Rahilly 57. In a list of St. Patrick’s household in the Book of Lecan (36r, a8), Sen-Phátric is styled cend a sruithi senórach ‘head of all his [Patrick’s] wise seniors’ (Malone, S., Ir. Eccl. Record 1891, 801). In my opinion it is not wise to speculate on this basis.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} ed. Best, R. I. and Lawlor, H. J. (Henry Bradshaw Society 68, 1931) 65.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 3} See above, II n. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} The Burgundian archetype of the text dates from the end of the sixth century; for its reception into Ireland we have a terminus ad quem only in the Martyrology of Tallaght (early ninth century): see Delehaye, H., Commentarius perpetuus in Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Acta Sanctorum Novembris II 2, 1931) xii f. Even if the Irish were acquainted with the Roman Martyrology early in the seventh century, there was little time for the tradition of Two Patricks to develop, which appears to have been well established by the mid-century.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} There may have been even more than two Patricii among the early Irish clergy. The two entries in the Martyrology of Tallaght under August 24, neither of which, in my opinion, can mean the author of the Confessio, may be regarded as two alternative guesses concerning the saint of that day.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 6} O’Rahilly, , History 410.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 7} Verses, 65–66.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 8} See MacNeill, , Studies 32 (1943) 308.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 9} MacNeill, 311.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 10} O’Rahilly, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 11} O’Rahilly, 12; id. History 237.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 12} The details can be found in The Two Patricks 23–26, 68–75, and History, chapter 13 passim. Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 13} Alius is a common ‘hibernicism’ for aliqui, in the Annals as elsewhere.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 14} From 486, at the latest, to 1013 the Annals of Ulster are dating back by one year; see B. MacCarthy’s introduction to Hennessy’s edition of AU (Rolls Series) IV (1901) xcviii-xcix; O’Rahilly, , History 241–3.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 15} 457 is the date in the Annales Cambriae. For this alternative O’Rahilly offers a plausible explanation: there was a tradition that Patrick died thirty years after his coming, and these years were reckoned erroneously from the beginning of the reign of Laogaire, the ‘first king after the faith.’ (An accurate subtraction of 432 [according to O’Rahilly the date of the arrival of Palladius] from 461 gives 29 years, which, however, might easily be rounded off.)—The source from which this entry came into the Annals of Ulster appears to have contained already two obits, 457 and (ca.) 492; this is suggested by the apposition senis in the first place, which must have been added to the original entry by a compiler who knew a later obit relating to a different person.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 16} This pedantic scheme was evolved from Ultán’s testimony to the effect that Patrick so-journed in the insula Aralanensis for thirty years: Grosjean, P., AB 63 (1945) 93–94.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 17} O'Rahilly, 70–72.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 18} O’Rahilly, 57.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 19} Ibid. 69; or was Marianus under the influence of the ‘sixty years’ teaching’? Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 20} See above, II n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 21} Haddan-Stubbs, , Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents Relating to Great Britain and Ireland II 1, 328.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 22} Ibid. 292; see O’Rahilly, 22–23. We are, of course, free to question either the authenticity of the ‘Patrician’ canon (the Circular Letter is suspect of interpolation) or the correctness of the Catalogue of Irish Saints. Since the author of the Confessio definitely had connection with Gaul, the Roman tonsure could be introduced by him as naturally as by Palladius.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 23} O’Rahilly, 75–76. The fact that these sets of obits are separated by a period of twenty years makes it doubtful whether the later group can, with Rev. Ryan, J. (Ir. Eccl. Record 5 Ser. 60 [1942] 251–2) be explained by reference to the pueri Patricii: see Murphy, G., Studies 32 (1943) 299.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} See my article: ‘Was Palladius surnamed Patricius?’ Studies 32 (1943) 323–6. A brief summary of my views will be found in the text.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 2} Patrick is said to have come to Ireland in the (13th or) 14th year of Theodosius. Only now I find that my explanation (mistake of the consulates of Theodosius for imperial years) was anticipated by Bury in 1902: Engl. Hist. Review 17, 242 n. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 3} This last statement comes from a different source, cf. V₂ and V₄; it will be commented upon later.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Two Patricks 12f.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 5} In support of this view, Kenny, (Thought 8 [1933] 30–34) remarks that, if the accepted chronology of the two missions were correct, Palladius could not have started on his journey before May 431, and Patrick not after September 432; thus the journey of Palladius, his mission (however shortlived), return and death, the arrival of these news on the continent, the ordination of Patrick, and his departure for Ireland, would all have to be crammed into a period of less than eighteen months, which is barely possible if everything was done with the greatest speed and no delay was caused by unforseen circumstances. In my opinion, the danger of Pelagianism was a sufficient motive for Palladius to lose no time, and the urgent need of a successor after his sudden death would account for Patrick’s ordination at short notice and his speedy departure; delay by external circumstances need not be assumed a priori. Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 6} Even a priori it is unlikely that Palladius changed his name at the moment of his mission; besides, if he did so, how could his former name be remembered in the district where his preaching was traditionally located? Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 7} I have gone to the trouble of listing all instances of tenere in the early section of AU, AI, Chron. Scot. and Tigernach. I find regnum tenere four times (AI 9c6, 11a38, 11d32–34, also LL 24a46); principatum (abbacy) tenere AU 707 (= Tig.), 722 (= Tig.), Chron. Scot. 570 (= Tig), 661; sedem Petri tenere or obtinere AU 460, 608, cf. ‘Dorbeni cathedram Iae obtinuit’ AU 713. The world chronicle in Tigernach further offers pontificatum tenere (63 B.C.) and imperium tenere (31 B.C.). AU 737 (= Tig.) ‘lex Patricii tenuit Hiberniam’ is not comparable; tenere refers here to the binding effect of the law. Chron. Scot. 499 (= Tig.) ‘Fergus Mór mac Erca cum gente Dáil Riada partem Britaniae tenuit et ibi mortuus est’ is perhaps open to discussion. The words ‘partem Britaniae tenuit’ obviously mean that Fergus and his people got hold of part of Britain, but do they necessarily imply that the date against this entry was the first complete year of the Irish settlement in Dalriada? Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 8} Cf. Colgan’s Vita III c. 16, where terram cepimus of Conf. 19 is paraphrased with tenuerunt terram. Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 9} The suggestion of B. MacCarthy, which was taken up by Bury, that 432 was the initial year of Patrick’s Paschal Table, has been destroyed by O’Rahilly, 48–49.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 10} O’Rahilly, 20f.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 11} Cf. Ryan, J., Ir. Eccl. Rec. 5 Ser. 60, 243.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 12} Kenney, , Sources 165 n. 41; in Thought 8, 31 Kenney interprets this phrase similarly as O’Rahilly. See however Grosjean, P., AB 63 (1945) 79–80. For a full discussion of Prosper’s testimony cf. Croke, W. J. D., ‘The Life and Literature of St. Patrick,’ The Seven Hills Magazine 1 (1906–7) 343–70; 519–50; 2 (1907) 49–69; 231–47.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 13} The date assigned to Contra Collatorem by O’Rahilly (ca. 437) is surprisingly late. The date most generally accepted is 433 or 434 (Hauck, Bardenhewer, Schanz-Hosius, Grosjean). In my opinion the work might have been written even earlier than 433. It is certainly later than the death of Celestine (July 31, 432); apart from this terminus a quo, the dating of Contra Collatorem depends entirely on the interpretation of i.2 ‘Viginti et amplius anni sunt, quod contra inimicos gratiae Dei catholica acies huius viri [i.e. Augustini] ductu pugnat et vincit.’ A date 433 or 434 has been argued on these grounds by reference to Prosper’s Chronicle s.a. 413 ‘Eodem tempore Pelagius Britto dogma nominis sui contra gratiam Christi Caelestio et Iuliano adiutoribus exerit multosque in suum errorem trahit,’ but it is by no means certain that Prosper, when writing his encomium of Pope Celestine, had this date in mind. Nearly all the doctrines of Pelagius were laid down already in his Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which was written before 411 (Schanz-Hosius-Krüger, , Geschichte der römischen Literatur IV 2 [1920]2 502f.); his supporter Caelestius was condemned in Carthage in 411 or 412; of the same year 412 dates St. Augustine’s first treatise against Pelagianism, , De peccatorum meritis et remissione (Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur IV [1924] 515). Prosper’s praise of Celestine would have come most timely soon after the pontiff’s death; in this event, it might well have been written before the news about Palladius had spread as far as Rome, and Contra Collatorem could be of an earlier date than the first edition of the Chronicle, which is generally supposed to date from 433.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 14} See O’Rahilly, , Two Patricks 22; 56 n. 22; History 249–52. O’Rahilly’s translation is the only correct one. For Finis, cf. the title of an historical work by Pliny the Elder, , A fine Aufidi Bassi (libri) triginta unus, mentioned by his nephew, Epist. III.5, 6; Pliny continued where the earlier work of Aufidius Bassus had come to an end.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 15} This objection has not been invalidated by Rev. O’Doherty, J. F., Ir. Hist. Stud. 3, 326–7, who remarks that for Patrick’s defence of his divine call ecclesiastical approbation was irrelevant, and that an appeal to Rome was unnecessary for Palladius, but not so for Patrick. The second argument destroys the first.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 16} O’Rahilly, 37.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 17} This is also the impression of Ryan, J., loc. cit. 244–5. Prof. Ryan also remarks that the author of these documents would not have passed over in silence the work of a predecessor, if it had been of any importance—a plausible argumentum ad hominem.—For the reader’s convenience I list here all the passages in which Patrick ‘the Briton’ refers to his preaching in remotis: Conf. 34 ex. ‘evangelium praedicatum est usque ubi nemo ultra est’ and 38 ‘plebem nuper venientem ad credulitatem quam sumsit Dominus ab extremis terrae’ need not be more than conventional allusions to the remote situation of Ireland; Conf. 41 ‘Hiberione qui numquam notitiam Dei habuerunt’ is equivocal (the clause commencing with qui may or may not be partitive); gens extera in Ep. 10 and 14 is most naturally understood as meaning ‘people outside the Roman Empire’ (for the author of these texts the Catholic Church and the Roman Empire are still coextensive, cf. Ep. 2), and the same meaning is obviously attached to the biblical phrase ad ultimum (in ultimis) terrae in Conf. 1, 11, 58; Ep. 9. Only Conf. 51 ‘et inter vos et ubique pergebam causa vestra … etiam usque ad exteras partes … ubi numquam aliquis pervenerat qui baptizaret aut clericos ordinaret aut populum consummaret’ seems to hint at the existence of Christianity in some parts of the country, but to what extent these districts had been evangelized before Patrick’s arrival we cannot tell.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 18} This spelling system has to some extent infected also the ‘Hibernian’ spelling of Latin.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 19} Two Patricks 42–45. We are concerned here only with regional differentiations in the pronuntiation of Latin, not (as O’Rahilly, , p. 43, implies) with standards of Latin culture. Regional changes in the pronuntiation of the language would affect learned and unlearned alike; the former, however, would preserve the traditional spelling, whereas the latter would often spell ‘phonetically’ or, in an endeavour to spell correctly, fall into the other extreme (cataveris a.o. in the Chronicle of Fredegar).Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 20} The voicing of tenues (esp. d) is found occasionally in the imperial epoch, but does not appear to have become common in Italy and Gaul before the sixth century: see Grandgent, C. H., Introduction to Vulgar Latin (1908) 109, 121, 132.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 21} Conf. 32, 43; Ep. 14. The same conclusion may be drawn from Patrick’s biblical text, which, as far as it can be located, is distinctly Gaulish, and definitely non-British: see Bieler, L., Biblica 28 (1947) 31–58; 236–63.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 22} This has been suggested also by Shaw, F., Studies 32 (1943) 318 n. 1, and Mulchrone, K., Galway Arch. and Hist. Soc. Journ. 22 (1946) 41.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 23} Haddan-Stubbs, , Councils II 1, 330.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 24} Thurneysen, R., Handbuch des Alt-Irischen, § 909; Grammar of Old Irish (2 ed. 1946) 570.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 25} Mulchrone, , loc. cit. 39–41.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 26} Studies 32, 317.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 27} For this argument see Kenney, , Thought 8, 30.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 28} Transference of certain details from Palladius to Patrick was envisaged by Levison, W., Neues Archiv 29 (1903) 167–72. Cf. O’Rahilly, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 29} E.g. the opposition of Nath I to both Palladius and Patrick (related in most texts belonging to what I have labelled the Bethu Phátraic group) may be historical either in both instances (if Inber Dé was the terminus of an established traffic route, both missionaries would have landed there, and been given the same reception by the local chief), or only in one. If in one only, the incident may have been transferred from Palladius to Patrick; it might, however, be a trace of their identity.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 30} O’Rahilly, 34–35.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 31} Ibid. 60–61.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 32} O’Rahilly holds that the shifting of Patrick’s captivity to the north-east of Ireland is part of the Armagh legend as are—in his opinion—the ‘Ulster Acts’ which Muirchú and other writers insert between Patrick’s landing and his celebration of the first Easter at Tara. A close link between these traditions is obvious; they will stand or fall together. That Patrick’s Ulster journey is an alien element in its present surroundings can hardly be doubted. This, however, merely indicates some disturbance of an earlier composition; the materials are no more suspect than any other.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 33} See my paper ‘The problem of Silva Focluti,’ Ir. Hist. Stud. 3 (1943) 351–64. The decisive point is this: in the phrase ‘putabam ipso momento audire vocem ipsorum qui erant iuxta silvam Vocluti quae est prope mare occidentale,’ ipsorum cannot be an antecedent to qui, and thus the relative clause qui erant—mare occidentale must be a parenthesis. So far as I can see, ipse as a mere antecedent to the relative would be unique in all Latin, and Patrick’s Latin, however poor if judged by literary standards, has still the natural consistency of a spoken language.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 34} See Ryan, , Ir. Eccl. Rec. 5 Ser. 60, 243.Google Scholar

^{page 14 note 35} See the lucid exposition by Grosjean, P., AB 63 (1945) 82ff.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Apart from possible survivals of an Irish form Collaid (from Pallaid) in the late diminutive Colladán, Collidán, and in the name of a Cruimthir Collaid of Drum Roilgech in the ninth-century text of Vita Tripartita r 639 = 3061 (Mulchrone, K., Galway Arch. and Hist. Soc. Journ. 22 [1946] 34–42), the name is found invariably in its Latin form, even in Irish texts (O’Rahilly 9–10), and is thus a learned element, derived from Prosper, not from native tradition. Even the Leinster traditions concerning Palladius and his three churches would appear to have been merely local until hagiographers in the seventh century hit upon the Palladius entries in Prosper's Chronicle.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} There never existed an early Vita Palladii (see Grosjean, P., AB 63, 112–19, against Gough Meissner, J. L., Proc. RIA 40 [1931–2] 356–84). The one ‘Life’ of Palladius which we possess, consisting of the historical lessons for his feast (July 6) in the Aberdeen Breviary, is a late medieval compilation.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 1} An approximate date for W can be derived from an ancient interpolation in the Palladius chapter in both V₂ and V₄. After a statement to the effect that Silvester and Solonius are (sunt) in Domnach Airte, we read that they are now in Inish Baithen (off the Wicklow coast). The burning of the monastery of Inish Baithen in 774 = 775 (AU) or 770 (AFM) seems to afford a terminus ad quem for the interpolation (cf. Cusack, M. F., Life of St. Patrick 52, n. 2); the date of the original composition, however, cannot be more accurately determined, because we do not know when the translation of those relics took place.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} The O’Clery MS Brussels 2324–40, quoted twice by Stokes in the introduction to his Lives of the Saints from the Book of Lismore, has not yet been thoroughly examined.Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 3} These texts are printed below in an appendix, with English translations added to sources in Irish.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 1} One of these (in this section) is Probus. W, as will be shown below, probably contained Muirchú's account and that of r side by side; they are still extant unmingled in V₂, whereas V₄ makes an attempt to fuse them into one.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 2} I can see no valid reason why it should be assumed with O’Rahilly (p. 54) that the capitula in LA with their distinct statement to this effect misinterpreted a text describing a journey from Auxerre to Rome. In my opinion, the context makes it sufficiently clear that from the very beginning Patrick’s destination was Ireland. Coeptum ingreditur iter at the beginning of I.8 need not necessarily refer back to ac coepto (accepto B, ceptoque N, et arrepto Prob) per Gallias itinere in I.6. Coeptum iter—which is frequent in Ovid—seems to have been one of the conventional flores in medieval Latin style; coeptumque aggrediens iter is used without any idea of continuing a march by Florence of Worcester at A.D. 1088 (II.23 Thorpe).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} The historical facts underlying Muirchú’s statement are somewhat obscure with regard to details.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 4} See Measgra Mhihíl Ui Chléirigh (Dublin 1944), where I have proved that LB LG and—after the elimination of many direct borrowings from Muirchú—the Latin Lives V₃, MS Cotton Vitell.E.vii, and Jocelin form a subgroup of BPh.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 5} This detail is perhaps modelled on the mission of Palladius.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 6} ‘On hearing about it,’ as the text runs; we are not told, however, where or how.Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 7} A similar remark in Jocelin is out of place, because Jocelin relates Patrick’s ordination after his arrival in Rome. We have to state contamination of the rK and LB.V₃ type; the same contamination was probably found in the materials drawn upon by the scholiast of Genair Pátraic, who, seeing the incongruity, ventured upon the ‘correction:’ nec ei Celestinus honorem dedit. Thus at least we read in the printed edition; however, the words nec ei Celestinus are supplemented by the editors. Anyhow, their supplementation seems to be justified by the context.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 8} A formal characteristic of this group is the active gender of the verb in both Irish and Latin texts.Google Scholar

^{page 19 note 9} In Domnach Airte ‘there are’ (hi fail r. hi tá K. in qua sunt W) Silvester (Siluister r) and Solonius (Solinus V₄, V₂P; Solonius V₂ ^A; Salonius V₂ ^H; Saluius V₂ ^B). I have not been able to trace Silvester. Solonius is commemorated at Mar, Scotland, on August 19 (Hollweck, F. G., Biographical Dictionary of the Saints [1924] 926); according to a legend referred to in Les Petits Bollandistes 10, 17, it was he who enterred Palladius. Contrary to the common names Salonius and Solinus, which occur as variants in our manuscript tradition, Solonius is rare; I know only the following instances: CIL 12, 3165 Q. Soloni Fabi Seuerini; 3184 Q. Solonio Q. F. Vol. Seuerino; 3924 Solonia—all three from Nemausus in Gallia Narbonensis; 2789 Q. Solonius Philippus, also from Gallia Narbonensis. The rKW-text seems to imply that Domnach Airte possessed the relics of these two saints; in W they are called ‘sancti viri de familia Palladii,’ in AFM and Jocelin, his disciples—claims which we can no longer substantiate, but which may well be legitimate. In other respects AFM and Joc mark a late stage in the development of the legend, as may be judged from the assertion that Palladius left in his churches not only Silvester and Solonius, but also Augustinus and Benedictus, who, according to Muirchú, brought the news of his death to the continent.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 10} Hogan, E., Onomasticum Godelicum 515.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 11} Lectio VI, Pars estiv. fol. 24v–25v. For the rest, this late Scottish transformation of the Palladius legend is irrelevant to our problem.Google Scholar

^{page 20 note 12} Celestine is called the 42nd ‘ó Petur’ in BPh (rK.LCS), the 45th ab apostolo Petro in Lis. LG. Colg. V3J0c (so in T; 43rd in the printed editions) MW. Granting the fact that the Roman numerals ii and u are liable to confusion (another confusion took place in F, which reads lxii instead of xlii), it is still remarkable that 42 is found in all true representatives of BPh, 45 in the complete M-group, and also in some texts which constitute an intermediate group at least in this paragraph (Lis. LG. V₃Joc). It would appear that BPh had 42, M had 45. Needless to say the former is correct: Celestine is the 42nd successor of Peter (the 43rd pope). Prosper, to mention this detail in passing, lists Celestine as the 41st successor of Peter; in his list of popes Marcellinus has dropped out after Marcellus.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 13} As a saying of Celestine when hearing about Palladius’ death, this phrase is introduced also by the scholiast of GP; here, too, it has been mutilated, but at a less vital point: ‘nec potest homo quidquam accipere de terra nisi datum ei fuerit desuper.’ In the ‘intermediate’ group (see preceding note) the phrase in question has been further curtailed and transformed; Jocelin says that this was an Irish proverb, and its wording might be guessed from the text of Lis: ‘ár ni dó [substitute: Pallaid?] rocinn Dia a comhshod [substitute: comhshod na hErenn] acht is do Pátraic.’ I do not know whether there is independent evidence for the existence of this ‘proverb’; if it did exist, it cannot have been of great antiquity. It was certainly evolved from the phrase in HB, not vice versa. There is an echo of this proverb in V₄ (in the place where V₂—following probably W—records Nath Í’s opposition): ‘quia non per eum omnipotens Dominus Hibernienses gentes de errore gentilitatis ad … fidem perducere predestinavit’; another trace of influence of the ‘intermediate’ version on V₄ might be found in the fact that V4, like those texts, names expressly Rome as Palladius’ destination.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 14} See above p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 15} The Vita Patricii in HB is commonly supposed to be ‘based on the documents in LA, but showing a few variations’ (Kenney, , Sources 155). I think a vigorous BPh strain can hardly be overlooked, and there is room for elements of a yet different origin.Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 16} That Palladius died at Fordun seems to be implied also in the other two sources (Schol GP is not a continuous text, and Nennius is an extremely meagre extract). A similar tradition is preserved in the Breviarium Aberdonense (see above, note 11).Google Scholar

^{page 22 note 17} Skene, William F. (Celtic Scotland II [1877] 26–30), the last writer before O’Rahilly to discuss these accounts in some detail, seems also to be inclined to regard the martyrdom of Palladius in Ireland as the earliest, if not the genuine, version of his death.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 1} To assume with O'Rahilly, (p. 20) that this Patricius was Palladius is sheer questionbegging.Google Scholar

^{page 23 note 2} An entirely different view is held by J. L. Gough Meissner in: Phillips, W. A., History of the Church of Ireland I (1933) 47–76; 376–8. Meissner maintains that pre-Patrician Christianity in Ireland was the work of Candida Casa and spread mainly over the north; Palladius was sent to the Picts of Scotland and paid merely a passing visit to their fellow-people in Ireland. The foundations of this theory have been destroyed by Grosjean, P., AB 63 (1945) 112–119.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 3} This was probably a form of personal commendation, equivalent to the commoner one by letters.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 4} I must refrain from discussing here the problem of Amatorex; in my opinion, Zimmer’s suggestion that Patrick was ordained in the basilica of St. Amator, (Nennius Vindicatus [1893] 123) is still the best guess.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 5} This conclusion was drawn already by Bellesheim, A., History of the Catholic Church of Scotland I (1887) 23f.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 6} The day of Palladius’ death is uncertain. We find as alternative dates December 15 and January 27. Under July 6, the Martyrologium Hieronymianum commemorates a martyr Palladius of Alexandria; this date could then be referred to Patrick’s predecessor by a similar mis-identification as was August 24 to Sen-Phátric.Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 7} Is this perhaps the grain of truth behind the words of Muirchú: ‘neque ipse longum voluit transegere tempus in terra non sua’? Google Scholar

^{page 24 note 8} Schol GP tells us that Palladius was driven to Fordun by a storm. Storms are a conventional motif which many hagiographers found convenient for bridging the gap between two conflicting traditions. However, a storm is mentioned also in HB, and comes in there most awkwardly: Palladius, sent out to convert the Irish, is prevented by God (from doing so) per quasdam tempestates, ‘because nobody can take from the world what is not given to him from above.’ ‘Et profectus est ille Palladius de Hibernia [which he was not allowed to reach] et pervenit ad Brittanniam.’ The storm must then have been an established feature of the story as the compiler of HB knew it.—It cannot, of course, be asserted that Palladius’ body was taken to land at or near Fordun; all that we can say is that his relics must have been there by the eleventh century.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 9} In later times it became a commonplace that Ireland alone of all countries embraced the Christian faith without shedding the blood of martyrs.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 10} The same tendency is perhaps to blame for the fact that in the majority of our texts Palladius is not styled bishop, but merely archdeacon.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 11} A coefficient cause of this development was probably the tendency, so common in all legend and popular tradition, towards simplification of historical facts.Google Scholar

^{page 25 note 1} The chronology of his mission may be tentatively reconstructed as follows: Palladius was appointed bishop for Ireland early in 431 and ordained about Easter; he may have arrived in his province towards the end of summer. After a period of about eight months (or only four to five, if the dates for his death could be relied upon) he was martyred—in any case some time in 432. The sixth of July, being the natale of a different Palladius in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, cannot be safely claimed as the date of the advent of his relics at Fordun; suffice it to say that July 6, 432 as the date of this event would fit smoothly into the framework of our reconstruction. If the death of Palladius came to be known on the continent at a slightly later date (end of July or beginning of August), Patrick, hastening to fill his post, could reach Ireland just in time before the end of the seafaring season. This would be consistent with the witness of the Irish Annals according to which Patrick arrived in Ireland in the first year of Pope Xystus and in the eighth year of the emperor Theodosius II, i.e. between August and December 432 (see my remarks in Studies 32, 224 and note 3).—The ordinatio Patricii which is commemorated in the Martyrology of Tallaght on April 6, if a historical date at all, need not necessarily be the date of his consecration as bishop. It is noteworthy that on the preceding day (April 5) both Martyrology of Oengus and Martyrology of Tallaght comemmorate Patrick’s first baptism in Ireland.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland (1934) 25–6.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 3} Robert, B., Etude critique sur la vie et l’oeuvre de Saint Patrick (1883) 80 remarks that in the later Patrick legend acts of Patrick’s disciples are often added to those of their master; e.g. Foirtchern, according to LA a convert of Patrick’s disciple Lommán, is converted by Patrick personally in the Tripartite Life.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 4} I have not been able to lay hands on the study by Klemke, J., Patricius Junior (Leipzig 1898).Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 5} If there is anything behind them, it might be that relics of Patrick ‘the Briton’ were kept at Glastonbury at some later date. O’Rahilly thinks that the ‘later’ Patrick was born in the Glastonbury district (see Two Patricks 33–34), and is inclined to read the Bannauemtaburniae of Conf. 1 as Bannaventa Bruviae, which he tentatively proposes as the Roman name of Glastonbury. This equation remains doubtful; even more so is O’Rahilly’s further identification with the same locality of the Beneventana civitas of the (twelfth-century) Vita Cadoci 33; the text (Rees, W., Lives of the Cambro-British Saints [1853] 70): ‘quomodo a Brittannia ad Beneventanam civitatem in alba nube translatus fuerit’ is most naturally taken to mean that Cadoc was miraculously translocated from England to Southern Italy.Google Scholar