Cluain to some of the clergy in the neighbourhood when the thieves were
discovered, and that they used it for celebrating Mass in this place
during the times of persecution, and secreted the chalice on some occasion
when forced to fly for their lives.

It is highly probable, therefore, that this beautiful cup was stolen from
Clonmacnoise, was secreted at Reerasta, and was accidentally found, as
already described, by a young man, who was digging a portion of the old
fort which had been levelled for the purpose of tillage.[411] The artist
who made the Cross of Cong for King Turlough, was equally well qualified
to make the Ardagh chalice. He was, as we have seen, a native of the
County Roscommon, he wrought the Cross for King Turlough O'Conor, under
the superintendence of Domhnall Mac Flanagan O'Duffy, Bishop of Connaught
or Elphin, and Abbot of Roscommon and Clonmacnoise. It is clear that the
chalice was made before Mac Egan made the Cross of Cong, yet in all
probability it would be difficult to find in all Ireland a second artist
who would be capable of executing metal-work with such marvellous
fertility of design and delicacy of execution. We think that, on the
whole, the evidence justifies us in concluding that it was owing to the
munificence of Turlough O'Conor, and the intelligent patronage of the
O'Duffys, that this great Western School of Art was created and fostered,
which has left so many memorials of its artistic genius at Clonmacnoise
Tuam, Boyle, and Cong.

Another most interesting piece of metal-work is the shrine of St. Manchan
of Lemanaghan, which seems to have been also a product of the Clonmacnoise
School of Art. St. Manchan himself died of the plague in A.D. 664, most
likely at his own cell in Lemanaghan which takes its name from the
saint--"the grey land of Manchan." Not inappropriately either, for it was
built on a gravelly ridge surrounded by a waste of brown bog, so that the
contrast between the colouring of the ridge and the bog is very striking.
It is situated about three miles north-east of Ferbane, in the King's
County, on the right of the road to Clara. The remains of Manchan's cell
are still to be seen, and three blessed wells are also close at hand.

In O'Reilly's _Irish Writers_, Manchan is set down as the author of a
Latin Treatise, _De Mirabilibus Sacrae Scripturae_, which has been printed
amongst the works of St. Augustine. But Dr. Reeves has shown[412] that
this treatise on the _Wonders of Holy Scripture_ must rather be assigned
to an Irish monk of the seventh century named Augustine, of whom hardly
anything else is known.

St. Manchan is much better known to moderns on account of the famous
shrine or reliquary, which appears to contain some fragments of the bones
of the saint, and is, undoubtedly, one of the most beautiful productions
of Celtic art, as it has always been considered--opus pulcherrimum quod
fecit opifex in Hibernia.[413] The Four Masters bear emphatic testimony to
the same effect. A.D. 1166.--"The shrine of Manchan of Maothail (Mohill)
was covered by Rory O'Conor, and an embroidering of gold was carried over
it by him, in as good a style as a relic was ever covered in Ireland." St.
Manchan had another oratory at Mohill, County Leitrim.

This shrine is at present preserved in the Catholic Church of Boher, near
the Prospect Railway Station, on the Athlone and Portarlington line; and a
_fac-simile_ may be seen in the Royal Irish Academy. We need not describe
it at length here. It is in the usual form of such Celtic shrines,
somewhat like the roof of a house--24 inches long, 15 broad, and 19 inches
high. On each side there is a large and beautiful cross composed of five
bosses, at the extremities elaborately ornamented, and united by the arms
of the cross which were covered with plates of enamel, fixed in a yellow
ground with red border lines. Above and below the crosses there must have
been originally as many as fifty human figures, but at present only ten
remain. The metal work throughout was richly gilt, and ornamented with the
usual interlaced figures, characteristic of our Celtic ornamentation.

When the shrine was opened it was found to contain a few small fragments
of bones, and some pieces of the original box of yew in which they were
enclosed, with a few of the silver plates which adorned the original
reliquary. As Lemanaghan was originally given to Clonmacnoise as an
"Altar-sod," about the year A.D. 645, there can hardly be any doubt that
St. Manchan was sent from Clonmacnoise to occupy it, and that it always
continued to be a daughter of Clonmacnoise. Hence we are justified in
concluding that Rory O'Conor had this beautiful work of art executed by
some of the _cerds_ of that famous monastery.

CHAPTER XXIII.

IRISH SCHOLARS ABROAD.

  "O, pilgrim, if you bring me from some far-off land a sign,
  Let it be some token still of the green Old Land once mine;
  A shell from the shores of Ireland would be dearer far to me,
  Than all the wines of the Rhine-land, or the art of Italie."
                                                          --_M'Gee._

We do not, by any means, propose at present to give an account of the
Irish Saints and Scholars, who founded so many monasteries and schools in
foreign countries, from the seventh to the eleventh century. The subject
is too wide and too important to be discussed in this volume. It will be
necessary, however, to give a brief account of a few of those celebrated
men, in order to show the character of the scientific and theological
training which they received in the Schools of their native land.

I.--ST. VIRGILIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF SALZBURG.

St. Virgilius, Archbishop of Salzburg, is one of the most celebrated of
those learned men, whom our Irish schools sent forth in swarms during the
eighth and ninth centuries. And he was not merely a learned prelate, and a
successful champion of orthodox doctrine; he was also a great astronomer,
far in advance of his own age, for he taught the sphericity of the earth,
and the existence of antipodes, long before Copernicus or his system was
known to the scholars of Europe.

The exact place and date of his birth cannot be ascertained, but that he
was an Irishman may not for a moment be questioned. In the first place we
have the express testimony of the celebrated Alcuin, an almost
contemporary writer, who declares that Virgilius was born, reared, and
educated in Ireland.[414] Then the author of the poetical epitaph over
Virgilius, in his own church of Salzburg, bears the same testimony,[415]
affirming that it was the 'Hibernian land' that sent him, under God's
guidance, to Salzburg. His Life, too, written about the year A.D. 1190, by
a disciple of Ebenhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, expressly affirms the
Irish birth of Virgilius; and such, we may add, has been the unvarying
tradition of the church and city of Salzburg.

In our domestic Annals we have first the testimony of the Four Masters,
who, A.D. 784, record that "Ferghil, _i.e._, the Geometer, abbot of
Achadh-bo, died in Germany in the thirteenth year of his bishopric;" and
as we shall presently see, this was the date of the death of Virgil, the
Archbishop of Salzburg, and thirteen years was the duration of his
episcopacy. In the _Annals of Ulster_, under date of A.D. 788, we find
that:--"Fergil, abbot of Achadh-bo, died"--the year corresponds to A.D.
784 of the Four Masters, and that appears to be the true date.

There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that Virgilius of the Latin
is equivalent to Fergil of the Irish, as the root-words sufficiently
imply; and that Ferghil the Geometer, who died in Germany as a bishop,
having been previously abbot of Aghaboe, is the celebrated Virgilius,
Archbishop of Salzburg, so widely known to fame as an astronomer and
theologian.

Virgil, with a few companions from Ireland, one of whom was a
priest--Sidonius or Sedna--arrived in France about the year A.D. 741--the
year in which Charles Martel died, and was succeeded in his office of
mayor of the palace by the famous Pepin le Bref, father of the still more
renowned Charlemagne. Virgil spent some two or three years in the Court of
Pepin, who sent him, about A.D. 743, with strong letters of recommendation
to the Court of Ottilo, Duke of Bavaria. At this period Bavaria had been
partially converted to the faith, by the zealous labours of St. Boniface,
the apostle of Germany, afterwards Archbishop of Mentz and Legate of the
Apostolic See. Much, however, still remained to be done; and it was the
wish of Pepin that Duke Ottilo should avail himself of the services of the
two Irish priests, of whose zeal and learning he had ample proofs in the
conversion of his own half-Christian subjects. The duke received the
friends of Pepin with much consideration; for he seems to have kept them
near himself, and entrusted them with his confidence, as we may fairly
infer from subsequent events.

The zeal of the Irishmen, however, soon got them into trouble; but what
was a source of trouble to them has since proved a useful lesson to all
theologians of the Church.

Many of the priests of the period in Germany were by no means learned; so
it happened that one of them when baptizing a catechumen made use of this
form:--"Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritua
Sancta"--which even a boy learning the Latin Grammar can perceive is very
different from the orthodox form. The case was referred to Boniface, who
declared that the baptism was invalid, and ordered those so baptized to be
baptized again. Virgil and his friend, Sidonius, afterwards Archbishop of
Bavaria, knew how jealous the Church has always been about re-baptizing
those once validly baptized; and they declared that in their opinion the
baptism in question was valid. Boniface, however, persisted in his
opinion. He was, as he himself says, an Englishman from _Saxonia
transmarina_--and though it is highly probable that he was of Irish
origin, he did not wish to accept the teaching of the Irish theologians on
this occasion. So the matter was referred to Rome; and it so happened that
Pope Zachary, a Calabrian Greek, and a man, too, of great learning and
holiness, then filled the Chair of St. Peter. His decision, sent by letter
to Boniface, declares distinctly that if the minister of the sacrament,
through ignorance of Latin, and not from any heretical purpose of
introducing a new form, pronounced the words as given above, the baptism
must be held to be valid.[416]

This clear and emphatic expression of Catholic doctrine, as every
theological student knows, we owe to Virgil and Sidonius. They rightly
deemed that this error in the form was not _substantial_ but _accidental_;
it was not introduced from malice, with a view to pervert the form of the
sacrament, but from ignorance; the priest evidently had the intention of
doing what the Church does; he corrupted the integrity of the form, but it
remained perfectly intelligible to any bystander acquainted with the Latin
language, and hence the baptism itself was valid.

Boniface yielded prompt obedience to the Apostolic See, but, although a
saint and martyr, he felt sore at the victory gained over him by the Irish
strangers,[417] who intruded into his spiritual domain, and seemed to
supplant him in favour with the Duke Otillo. And, no doubt, there were not
wanting interested parties who strove to foment dissensions between these
two saints and servants of God. No one, indeed, who knows the history of
Boniface, will endorse the spiteful remark of Basnage that he was--"Vir si
quis unquam superbus sive zelotes." But he was human like others, and his
own letters clearly showed that he felt keenly the victory of Virgil. He
waited, however, for a while, and then sent a friend of his, Buchardus of
Wirzburg, to Rome with letters for the Pope, in which he brought four
serious charges against Virgil. He accused him, as we know from the Pope's
answer, first, that this Virgil was making malicious accusations against
him, Boniface, because he had been convicted by Boniface of teaching
erroneous doctrine;[418] secondly, Boniface charged him with whispering
false things to the Duke, with a view of sowing dissension between him,
Boniface, and the Duke;[419] thirdly, he accused Virgil of giving out that
he was dismissed by the Pope from Rome,[420] in order to get one of the
four bishoprics of Bavaria just then vacant. Lastly, he brings against him
the most formidable charge of all, that Virgil taught that there was
another world, and _other_ men under the earth, and another sun and
moon.[421] And, in the same letter, Boniface complains that a certain
Samson, an Irishman--"genere Scottus"--erred from the way of truth,
teaching that a man could become a Christian merely by the imposition of
hands, without baptism. Clearly Boniface was hard on the Irishmen then in
Bavaria; and the whole tone of the letter shows that he had not forgotten
his previous contest with Virgil and Sidonius.

The Pope in his answer deals with these charges with the greatest
prudence. He had very great respect for Boniface, but it is clear he is
not prepared to accept all his statements without proof. He makes no
special remark on the two first charges, for they could be easily
explained. But, as to the third, he declares that the alleged statement of
Virgil is false, that he was not (_absolutus_) dismissed, or sent home by
the Pope in order to get a bishopric in Bavaria. Indeed, as to this
charge, there is no evidence that Virgil was ever in Rome at all; but it
is highly probable that both Pepin and Ottilo were anxious for his
advancement to a See in Bavaria, and that their zeal was attributed to the
time-serving ambition of Virgil himself. The charge is entirely
inconsistent with his character; and it is hardly necessary to observe
that it is no proof of its truth that it was made in these letters sent to
Rome by Boniface. Too many unfounded charges of the kind have been made in
Rome both since and before.

As regards the fourth charge, that of teaching that there was another
world, and other men, and another sun and moon, it deserves fuller notice
at our hands.

It is clear that Virgil held the doctrine of the Antipodes, and that
Boniface, not unwilling to find him erring in doctrine, formulated his
teaching as above. The words of the Pope thereupon are noteworthy.[422]
"Concerning this charge of false doctrine, if it shall be established,"
says the Pope, "that Virgil taught this perverse and wicked doctrine
against God and his own soul, do you then convoke a council, degrade him
from the priesthood, and drive him from the Church." But what is this
doctrine as represented to the Pope? Certainly not that taught by Virgil,
and which he learned in the schools of his native land. The doctrine
censured by the Pope, was that there is another world, and another race of
men quite different from us, _not children of Adam_, and hence not
redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This was the sense in which the
Pope understood the doctrine of the Antipodes, this was the sense in which
it was understood by St. Augustine, and for that reason reprobated by him
as well as by the Pope. And the very words, in which the accusation
against Virgilius is formulated, clearly point to this "perverse and
wicked" teaching. The truth of the matter was, that neither Boniface nor
the Pope knew astronomy as well as Virgil, and hence they imagined he
taught doctrines which were quite different from his real opinions.

It is well to observe that great diversity of opinion prevailed concerning
the existence of Antipodes, both amongst the ancient philosophers and the
Fathers of the Church.

Plato is said to have been the first who held the existence of Antipodes,
and used the word in its present signification. But there is no evidence
that he himself believed in their actual existence, even though he
invented the term which so accurately describes them.

Lactantius, however, in his treatise "De falsa Sapientia Philosophorum,"
ridicules the notion of Antipodes, and, as he clearly regards it as a
philosophical error, we may fairly conclude that some of the ancient
philosophers taught their existence.

It would be easy enough to show how unpalatable the doctrine of the
Antipodes was to the ecclesiastical authorities of the eighth century; and
in what sense the Pope must have understood the alleged teaching of St.
Virgilius. What the Pope declared to be perverse and wicked doctrine--not
heretical--was that there is another world, and another _race of
men_--alii homines--and therefore not Sons of Adam, and another sun and
moon to shine upon them. But this certainly was not the teaching of
Virgilius, for according to him it was the same world, and the same sun
and moon, and the same race of men who dwelt in the opposite regions of
the world.

Virgil must have, in his own defence, explained the real meaning of his
words to the satisfaction of the Pope, for we find no further mention of
the controversy; and we know, too, that in a short time afterwards he was
promoted to the See of Salzburg, which would certainly not be sanctioned
in Rome if they had any suspicion of his doctrine.

Pagi, indeed, holds that there must have been two different Virgils, one
who had the dispute with St. Boniface, and another who was Bishop of
Salzburg; and yet he admits that both were in Bavaria in A.D. 746. This
hypothesis is intrinsically improbable, and altogether unsupported by
evidence. Indeed, the only reason given by Pagi is the silence of the
writer of Virgil's Life, published by Canisius, regarding the disputes
with Boniface. But the answer is quite simple: the writer of the Life
gives very few facts, although he narrates many miracles; and hence from
his silence we can infer nothing against the generally received opinion.

Pagi also alleges that Virgil was the fifth Bishop of Salzburg. Here,
again, however, he is mistaken, at least if we are to credit the author of
the second Life given by Canisius, who makes him the eighth bishop after
St. Rudbert. Other writers, however, make him fifth after the founder of
the See, following the anonymous author of an old poem on the Bishops of
Salzburg, who describes them as:--

  "Advena Virgilius statuens quam plurima _quintus_,
  Multo plura quaerens Arno super omnia _sextus_."

It is almost impossible to fix the exact year in which Virgilius became
Bishop of Salzburg. The metrical epitaph on his tomb declares that for
nearly forty years he ruled the church of Salzburg; and as the latest year
assigned for his death is A.D. 785, this would bring the beginning of his
episcopacy before A.D. 750. Another account represents him as consecrated
by St. Stephen, successor of Zachary; and as the former did not begin his
reign until A.D. 752, we must place the beginning of Virgil's episcopacy
after that event. As he spent some years abbot of St. Peter's Monastery in
Salzburg before he became bishop, the date given in his Life, written by
the disciple of St. Ebenhard, towards the end of the twelfth century, is
much more probable--that he was consecrated bishop in succession to John
in A.D. 766 or 767. The same writer tells us that for two years after his
nomination to the See, he continued to refuse the appointment; and that
during this time the duties of the episcopal office were performed by a
bishop called Dowd, _Dobda_, a countryman of the saint, who seems to have
come with him from Ireland. At last he was prevailed upon to allow himself
to be consecrated, but he yielded only to the earnest entreaties of all
the neighbouring prelates.

His life was spent in unceasing labour, not only for his own flock, but
for the conversion of the neighbouring provinces, especially Carinthia,
which was still pagan. He not only sent missionaries to preach the Gospel
amongst these half-civilized people, but towards the close of his life he
himself paid frequent visits to the newly-established churches, and did
much to confirm them in the faith. Hence Virgilius is venerated to this
day as the Apostle of Carinthia.

He rebuilt the monastery of St. Peter in a style of great magnificence,
for he always loved the good monks of St. Benedict, who had chosen the
Irish stranger to be their abbot and father; and when he died, he left his
bones amongst them. He also built a stately church in honour of St.
Stephen, and a splendid basilica dedicated to St. Rudbert, which he made
the cathedral of the diocese, and to which he translated the relics of
that saint, the founder and first bishop of the church of Salzburg.[423]
When he had these great works completed, he set out on a missionary
journey amongst the neighbouring tribes; but finding his end approaching,
"he quickly returned," says the writer of his life:--

"And when he came in view of his beloved Salzburg, and its encircling
hills, he began to weep copious tears, and he cried out--Haec requies mea,
hic habitabo quoniam elegi eam--and having celebrated the Holy Sacrifice,
he died without pain--leni correptus morbo--on the fifth day before the
Kalends of December, A.D. 784; or according to another, but less probable
account, in A.D. 780. His body was buried in the southern wing of the
monastery which he himself had spent twelve years in building. There he
was honourably buried as became a great High Priest, and his soul went up
to enjoy the fellowship of heavenly citizens for endless ages."

We hear no more of St. Virgil for four hundred years, until near the end
of the twelfth century, when his Life was written by one who was himself a
witness of many of the facts which he relates. "In the year of our Lord's
Incarnation, A.D. 1171," he says in the opening paragraph:--

"On the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the twenty-first
year of the Pontificate of our Lord Pope Alexander III., the most Serene
Prince Frederic being august Emperor of the Romans, and Otto of
Witelenspach, most renowned Duke of Bavaria; when the edifice of the
aforesaid monastery of St. Peter, which had some years before been
destroyed by fire, was being rebuilt at the expense and by the command of
the illustrious Pastor Chunrad, Archbishop of Salzburg, Legate of the
Apostolic See in Germany, and Cardinal Priest of St. Marcellus, through
the co-operating grace of the Holy Spirit, and the suffragant clemency of
the Divine Majesty, it came to pass that the body of the blessed
Virgilius, which had been hidden from all persons for many centuries, was
wonderfully brought to light."

"It happened on a certain day that some stones having fallen from the
wall, gave an opportunity to the passers-by to look into the opening, in
which they noticed signs of a hollow space, and the outlines of an ancient
picture were observed drawn in gold. Thereupon the canons of the church
made an investigation; and upon further opening the wall, the tomb and
image (depicta imago) of St. Virgilius, eighth Bishop of Salzburg after
St. Rudbert, was discovered, with the following inscription:--'Virgilius
templum construxit schemate pulchro.' And moreover the day of his death
was marked, the fifth before the Kalends of December (27th Nov.) Anno
781."

Then the writer goes on to narrate how the archbishop and the clergy, and
all citizens, crowded to the tomb to venerate the sacred relics; and he
gives a long list of most extraordinary miracles which were daily
performed at the tomb, but which we cannot stay to transcribe.

The name of St. Virgilius is not found in the Roman Martyrology, says
Basnage, but he is always spoken of as a saint in the _Annals of the
Benedictines_; and in the Canons of a Council of Salzburg, held in A.D.
1274, the assembled prelates declare that they recognise Rudbert, Virgil,
and Augustine, as the patrons of that church, and command, under penalty
of excommunication, their feast days to be kept as holidays. It is hardly
necessary to add that the festival of Virgilius, Bishop and Confessor, is
celebrated by the Irish Church on the 27th November.[424]

II.--SEDULIUS, COMMENTATOR ON SCRIPTURE.

Another eminent Irish scholar of the Dispersion was Sedulius, the
Commentator on Scripture. Sedulius the Elder, of whom we have already
spoken at length, is known as the Poet; the present Sedulius is, for the
sake of distinction, commonly called Sedulius the Younger, or the
Commentator.

Of his personal history unfortunately we know only two facts--first, that
he was an Irishman; and secondly, that he was, as his writings abundantly
prove, a most distinguished scholar. We cannot even identify him for
certain amongst the many Irish scholars, who are known to have borne this
name during the eighth and ninth centuries.

There was a Sedulius, who is supposed to have been Bishop of Strathclyde
in Scotland, and who was certainly present at a Council held in Rome, A.D.
721.[425] He describes himself under his own hand as a British Bishop of
Irish birth;[426] and he was accompanied by another prelate who calls
himself Fergustus Episcopus Scotiae Pictus--that is a Pictish Bishop of
Scotia, which at that time must mean a Bishop of the Irish Picts. Both
happened to be in Rome together, and were invited to assist at this
Council and subscribe their names. It is another of the many proofs that
indicate the close union between Rome and the Celtic Churches at this
period.

The Four Masters, A.D. 785 (_recte_ 789), make mention of the death of
Siadhal, or Sedulius, 'Abbot of Dublin.' The same entry (A.D. 789) is in
the _Annals of Ulster_, but in the _Martyrology of Donegal_ he is
described as Bishop of Dublin, and in the _Tallaght Martyrology_ on the
same day (12th Feb.) he is simply called 'Siadal Bishop;' but nothing more
is known about him. If there was a Bishop in Dublin, there certainly was
no See of Dublin at this period; for the See was certainly of Danish
origin.

There was also a Siadhail, abbot and Bishop of Roscommon, who died in A.D.
813.[427] Another Siadhail, or Sedulius, who died in A.D. 828, was abbot
of Kildare; and according to Lanigan he was 'unquestionably' the author of
the _Commentaries_, which are ascribed by all the learned to some Irishman
of that name, who flourished about this period. Lanigan, however, has
given no satisfactory evidence of this 'unquestionable' fact; and although
it is quite possible that Sedulius of Kildare may have been the author of
the _Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles_, it is just quite as possible
that he was Sedulius, the Bishop-abbot of Roscommon, or some Hibernian
exile of the same period, who flourished in the Schools of France or
Italy.

Whoever he was, he was certainly a learned man. Montfaucon has preserved a
Greek psalter,[428] written by this Sedulius, which is of itself quite
satisfactory evidence of his Greek scholarship. He was besides an
accomplished Latin poet, and his patristic lore is simply marvellous. No
doubt his work as a commentator consists, to a very large extent, of
extracts from the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin; but so does
every commentary of the kind worth reading. Where commentators begin to be
original, they generally cease to be orthodox. At best their learning can
only succeed in putting the old truths in a new way. It has been
insinuated[429] that Sedulius in his _Commentaries on St. Paul_ adopted
what are now called Calvinistic views about grace and predestination.
There is not a shadow of foundation for the charge, except that Sedulius
quotes and approves of the teaching of St. Augustine. But how far St.
Augustine was from holding such views, it is quite unnecessary to show in
this place. These _Commentaries on St. Paul_ are really very valuable, and
even at this day are worthy of careful study.

Besides the _Commentaries on St. Paul_, Sedulius also wrote a _Commentary
on St. Matthew_, the proper title of which is--_Collectaneum Sedulii in
Mattheum ex diversis Patribus excerptum_. He is also said to have written
a grammatical commentary on Priscian, and on the _Secunda Editio_ of
Donatus, works which were both in common use in the ancient schools of
Ireland. He was somewhat of a politician also, and wrote a treatise on
Politics in Aristotle's sense, not referred to by Lanigan, for it was only
discovered in comparatively recent times by Cardinal Mai in the Vatican,
and has been published by him in the ninth tome of his _Nova Collectio
Scriptorum_. Everything goes to show that he was a man of the very widest
culture attainable in that age, and that he, like Virgilius and John
Scotus Erigena, of whom we are now about to speak, acquired that culture
in the schools of his native land.

III.--JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA.

John Scotus Erigena, a man of Irish birth and education, was by far the
most distinguished scholar of the ninth century in Western Europe. He was
at once theologian, philosopher, and poet; he could write Greek verses and
expound the Scriptures in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; he was familiar
with Aristotle and Plato, as well as with St. Basil and St. Augustine, and
was not only rector of the Royal School of Paris, but is also said to have
been professor of dialectics and mathematics. He was known as the "Master"
by excellence, and was spoken of as a "miracle of knowledge." Even in our
own time critics of great name have ranked Scotus with Chrysostom, Dante,
and Thomas of Aquin, partly from the beauty and sublimity of his thoughts,
partly from the originality, depth, and subtlety of his philosophical
speculations. No doubt he erred seriously, and was censured justly. He
erred, however, not in the spirit of Luther and Calvin, but of Origen and
St. Cyprian; for one who ought to know, and was no great friend to the
Irish stranger, has attested that he was in all things a holy and humble
man, filled with the Spirit of God. But he sailed through unknown seas
where there was no chart to guide him. His daring spirit, soaring on
strong pinions, essayed untravelled realms of thought, and in the quest of
truth he often followed wandering fires; yet, as he himself tells us, in
the light of God's revelation and the strength of His grace, the wearied
spirit always found its homeward way again. He was in reality the first of
the schoolmen, and his very errors, like the wanderings of every explorer
of a new country, served to guide those who came after him. Moreover, he
has been censured not only for his real errors, but for doctrines which he
never held, although condemned under his name; and so it came to pass that
he was unduly blamed by those who knew little of his history and less of
his teaching, and unduly praised, we think, by those who are much more
ready to eulogise him for his errors than for his virtues.

Like many other good things which Ireland has produced, both England and
Scotland have striven to make Scotus their own. Thomas Dempster, the
saint-stealer, in his _Menologium Scotorum_, published in A.D. 1621, and
dedicated to Cardinal Barberini, has endeavoured to prove that Scotus
Erigena was a native of North Britain; as, however, his arguments are
founded on the similarity in sound between Ayr and Erigena and between
Scotus and Scot, we need not now refute them at length. Thomas Gale, an
Englishman, who was the first to publish at Oxford, in A.D. 1681, Scotus'
treatise, _De Divisione Naturae_, maintains that he was of English birth,
and was born at a place called Eringen or Ergerne, in Herefordshire, as
that name is very like Erigena--for he gives no other shadow of positive
proof! It is now superfluous to show at length, what all modern scholars
admit, that "Scotus," in the ninth century, and even down to the eleventh
century, was exactly equivalent to "Irishman" now, although of course even
then they sometimes spoke of the "Scoti of Alba" as we speak of the "Irish
of Glasgow" at present. But when used alone in those early centuries the
terms "Scoti" and "Scotia" were applied exclusively to the primitive race
and their dwelling-place--the Milesian Scots of Ireland, of whom the
Albanian Scots were a colony. In A.D. 812, before the birth of Scotus,
Eginhard, the secretary of Charlemagne, says that a fleet of Normans
invaded Ireland, "the island of the Scots;" and, after the death of
Scotus, Alfred the Great, in his translation of Orosius, speaks of Ireland
as "Hibernia, which we call Scotland." So the very name John Scotus is the
same as John the Irishman, and this name was given to him by all his
contemporaries. Pope Nicholas I. calls him, in a letter to King Charles,
"Joannes genere Scotus," and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who knew him
intimately, calls him "Scotus" and "Scotigena," or Irish-born. But what
settles the question is the way in which Prudentius, in his treatise on
Predestination, speaks of Scotus, for Prudentius says he was himself the
friend of Scotus--quasi frater--he lived some time with him in the palace
of the king, and no one could know better whence Scotus came. "Te Solum,"
says Prudentius, "omnium acutissimum Galliae transmissit Hibernia." So it
was Ireland, then, and not England or Scotland, sent him over to France.
Later on in the eleventh century when, after the fusion of the Picts and
Scots into one nation, Scotia came to signify Scotland, the cognomen
Erigena was given to Scotus to signify that he was not an Albanian but an
Irish Scot. We do not find, however, that any of his contemporaries gave
him that name, and the form Erigena, from which Dempster infers his
Caledonian origin, is not found in any existing MS. copy of his works. In
most of them it is written Ierugena, which Dr. Floss, the learned editor
of the works of Scotus, published in Migne's Patrology, thinks is derived
from the Greek, and signifies "native of the sacred isle"--insula
sanctorum. But although Scotus himself was certainly fond of Greek
compounds, very few scholars of the tenth and eleventh centuries were able
to make them. For our own part we should prefer to adopt the reading
Eirugena, which is found in the Florentine and Darmstad manuscripts as
being a far simpler and more natural form. Eriu is the older nominative,
and its vowel termination would render it better adapted to form a
compound than the genitive form Erin, and thus we get Eriugena, which no
doubt would very soon be contracted into Erigena.

Unfortunately we know neither the exact date of Erigena's birth, nor where
he was born and educated. We find him an inmate of the palace of Charles
the Bald in A.D. 851, when he published his book on Predestination. He
must have been at that time some time in France, for he was then well
known as a distinguished scholar, so that if we assume that he was born
about A.D. 820, and came to France about A.D. 850, we cannot be very far
astray. We know from a letter of Eric of Auxerre to Charles the Bald, that
a crowd of Hibernian philosophers came to France, attracted by the
liberality of that prince, and driven out of their own country by the
invasion of the Danes.[430] All the Irish annalists tell us that from
A.D. 815 to 845 the Danes under Turgesius plundered, desolated, and burned
the whole country, but especially the churches, monasteries, and schools.
In A.D. 843 "Turgesius plundered Connaught, Meath, and Clonmacnoise with
its oratories;" in the same year "Forannen, the Primate of Armagh, was
taken prisoner, with his relics and people" (to the number of 3,000), "and
they were carried by the Danes to their ships at Limerick." It is easy to
see how young Scotus might be captured by the foreigners, and succeed in
making his escape to France, or seek an asylum there, most probably either
in this or the next year.

Charles the Bald, son of Louis le Debonaire, and grandson of Charlemagne,
was at this time king of Northern France and Burgundy. He had few of the
kingly virtues of his great grandsire, but he was a zealous patron of
literature, very fond of theological discussions, was present at many
French Councils, and on the whole, was far better fitted by nature to be a
monk than a monarch. He received the young Irish scholar with great
kindness, and treated him with marked distinction. Scotus had apartments
in the palace, was made Capital, or head, of the Scholæ Palatinæ, and
frequently admitted to the royal table. He was a great Greek scholar, and
the king wanted him to translate into Latin the works of Dionysius the
Areopagite, a task which none of his subjects was able to accomplish.
Moreover, the Irishman was witty as well as wise, and the king loved a
joke quite as much as he loved learning. William of Malmesbury has
preserved two of the witticisms of Scotus. On one occasion, when the wine
was going round the table, the Irishman by some word or act offended
against the etiquette due to royalty. The king, who was sitting opposite
to Scotus, good-humouredly rebuked him by asking--"Quid interest inter
Scottum et Sottum?" "Tabula tantum," says the witty Hibernian, and the
monarch greatly enjoyed this turning of the tables against himself. On
another occasion, Scotus was dining at the table of the king with two
other clerics. We cannot, indeed, ascertain for certain whether Scotus
himself was a cleric or not; he certainly does not appear to have been a
priest. These two clerics were very big men, and Scotus was, like some
other great men, very small. Three fishes were brought in by an
attendant--one small and two large ones. The king beckoned Scotus to
divide the fish with his companions. Scotus did so, giving them the small
one, and keeping for himself the two big ones. The king protested against
the unfair division. "It is perfectly fair, my Lord the King," said
Scotus, "for here," pointing to himself and his plate, "we have one small
and two big, and there," pointing to his companions, "they have two big
and one small." The king laughed, and probably a fairer division was
afterwards made by Scotus.

He might have long enjoyed his honours and emoluments in the palace in
peace if he were prudent. But just at this period two fierce theological
disputes arose in France, and either his friends at court, or his Irish
blood, prompted him to mingle in the _mêlée_.

Just about the time when Erigena arrived in France, began the first and
the warmest controversy of the ninth century concerning the abstruse
question of Predestination. Most of the French bishops and theologians
took part in this discussion, which was hotly debated for twelve years.
Its author was a Benedictine monk, of the famous abbey of Fulda, who was
called Gotteschalk, or Servant of God. Raban Maur, one of the most learned
men of his own time, and for many years head of the great School of Fulda,
who was now Archbishop of Mayence, cited Gotteschalk to appear before a
Synod and account for his doctrinal novelties. The Council was held on the
1st of October, A.D. 848. Gotteschalk did appear in person, and handed in
a profession of faith, which, according to Hincmar, was undoubtedly
erroneous.

He was accordingly condemned by the Council, and Raban wrote a letter to
Hincmar to inform him that a vagabond monk (gyrovagus), of the diocese of
Soissons, held heretical doctrine, and was condemned by the Synod with the
approbation of King Louis. He also requests Hincmar to convene a Synod in
his own diocese, and condemn his doctrines in like manner. Hincmar was not
slow in following this advice. That great bishop, for more than thirty
years the central figure of the French Church, was in every way qualified
to fill the high place which he occupied as the first prelate and peer in
France. He was learned, eloquent, and resolute, a lasting friend, and, to
those whom he considered in the wrong, an unrelenting foe. In his youth he
had been a monk of the great Abbey of St. Denis, so that between Raban
Maur, a Benedictine monk of Fulda, and Hincmar, a Benedictine of St.
Denis, the former now the most powerful prince-bishop in Germany, and the
latter the first prelate in France, the unfortunate Gotteschalk, a runaway
monk of their order, could hope for little mercy. A great Synod of his
province was convoked by Hincmar in the palace of Quiercy. The king was
there, and a great number of his bishops and abbots. Gotteschalk was
introduced and interrogated, but persisted in his opinions, and, if we may
credit Hincmar, was very insolent in his demeanour. So the bishops ordered
him to be degraded, and the abbots ordered him to be flogged according to
the rule of St. Benedict, and after that to be imprisoned in an
ergastulum. A great fire was kindled, Gotteschalk was ordered to take his
MS. on Predestination in his hand, and the lash was then applied until he
should himself fling the book into the flames, which he was glad to do
very soon. He was afterwards imprisoned in the Convent of Hautvilliers,
where he remained contumacious for nine years, and died, it is said, in
the same spirit.

But the severity of Hincmar defeated his purpose. He was so severely
attacked by several French theologians that he found it necessary to ask
his friend, Scotus, to come to his assistance, and the "Master" promptly
responded to the call. In A.D. 851 he published his _Liber de
Prædestinatione_, a short treatise in nineteen chapters, on a very burning
question. This book at once raised a tremendous storm on all sides. He
adopted a new system of discussion, arguing rather from reason than
authority, and dealing his blows indiscriminately on friend and foe. He
ranges through all metaphysics, discusses the nature of sin, the origin of
evil, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and the qualities of the
bodies that will be hereafter united to the glorified and condemned souls.
He somewhat contemptuously speaks of his opponents, and acts on those
independent principles which he elsewhere so eloquently proclaims in a
sentence that has something of the sonorous ring of a Ciceronian
period.[431] Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, at once sent this treatise of
Scotus to Prudentius, and he was not very long in pronouncing what he
thought of it. The next year he published his great treatise _De
Prædestinatione contra Joannem Scotum_, with an introduction addressed to
Archbishop Wenilo. We have no hesitation in saying that this introduction
is written in language rather vulgar, and by no means charitable. He heaps
all manner of abusive epithets on the head of the redoubtable Scotus, and
although he declares that he is animated only by zeal for the Catholic
faith, and the affection of true charity, we think he would have given
better proof of both by greater moderation in his language. He declares
that he found in the book of Scotus the poison of Pelagianism, the madness
of Origen, and the wild fury (furiositatem) of the Collyrian heretics. He
speaks of the impudence of Scotus in barking at (oblatrantem) the orthodox
faith and the Catholic Fathers, and he hints pretty clearly that it was
the devil himself who vomited so many blasphemies by the mouth of John and
Julian, and so on to the end of the chapter. In the same spirit, but in
more moderate language, Florus attacked the book of Scotus, whom he calls
a "vaniloquus et garrulus homo," and speaks of his writings as "plena
mendacii et erroris." For the present we shall not discuss in what or how
far Scotus erred in his book, but he was certainly on the right side in
supporting Hincmar, and although neither Florus nor Prudentius held all
the opinions of Gotteschalk, it would not be difficult to extract from
their writings many propositions, which would need to be interpreted in a
very charitable spirit, indeed, before they could be reconciled with the
commonly received doctrines of our Catholic theologians.

But Hincmar was not the man to yield to the noisy declamation of the
theologians of the South. In A.D. 853 he convened another Synod at
Quiercy, in which he formulated with great accuracy his own doctrine on
grace and predestination. They are well known as the Capitula
Carisiaca.[432]

It is said that Prudentius signed them, but he certainly in a short time
afterwards formulated four counter-propositions, which it is not easy to
reconcile with Catholic doctrine, and in this proceeding he was
countenanced by Remigius of Lyons. Later on, in the Council of Valence in
A.D. 855, and in that of Langres in A.D. 859, the southern theologians and
bishops attacked the capitula of Hincmar, at least by implication, and
denounced the book written by Scotus as a devil's commentary rather than
an argument of faith, and said it contained nothing but old women's
stories, and Irish porridge nauseous to the purity of faith. They did not
expressly mention his name, but there can be no doubt about the reference
in the words--"Scotorumque pultes puritati fidei nauseam inferentes." But
in the end Hincmar prevailed, and his doctrine was sanctioned in the Synod
of Tousi, in the year A.D. 860, where a great many prelates of both
parties were assembled from fourteen provinces, with twelve metropolitans,
and the three kings at their head--Charles the Bald, Lothaire of Lorraine,
and Charles of Provence. So the censures of Florus and Prudentius, and the
condemnation of Valence and Langres cannot have much weight in blackening
the theological character of Scotus Erigena.

The next discussion in which Scotus is said to have taken part occurred
shortly afterwards. It has been stated by many writers that he was the
first who denied the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Western Church.
Certainly, Berengarius, in the eleventh century, claimed Scotus as his
teacher on the new doctrine which he introduced; and the Sacramentarians
regarded him as a great apostle of what they called the truth. A book on
the Eucharist, attributed to Scotus by Berengarius, was condemned in three
synods, and committed to the flames as impious and heretical.

But there is no contemporary evidence to show that Scotus wrote a treatise
on the Eucharist, and, on the other hand, there is positive evidence which
goes to show the identity of the work attributed to Scotus with the
treatise that has certainly been written by Ratramnus. The very words, on
account of which Berengarius says the book was ordered to be burnt at the
Council of Rome in A.D. 1059, namely--"ea quae in altare consecrantur esse
figuram, pignus, et signum Corporis et Sanguinis Christi," and which were
used in a heretical sense by Berengarius but not by their author, are
found in the _Book of Ratramnus_, the MS. of which still bears his name in
uncial letters of the tenth century. Another expression attributed by
Ascelinus to the unfortunate Irishman--"specie geruntur ista, non
veritate"--are nowhere to be found in the existing writings of Scotus, but
are found exactly in the same MS. of Ratramnus. There can be no doubt that
Scotus, in his commentary on St. John, did use inaccurate language, but
certainly not in a heretical sense.[433] Yet, his language displeased some
of his best friends, so that Hincmar in his second book on Predestination
seems to attribute to Scotus--for he does not mention his name--the error
of teaching that the Sacrament of the Altar was not the real body and
blood, but only a memorial of them, whereas Scotus taught in reality, or
certainly meant to teach, that it was both--namely, a memorial, and at the
same time a reality. Adrevaldus, too, wrote a treatise--"De Corpore et
Sanguine Domini contra ineptias J. Scoti." This is the only contemporary
evidence we have concerning the alleged errors of Scotus on the Eucharist.
Just 200 years later, however, in consequence of the fame of Scotus, and
the similarity of their style, the _Book of Ratramnus_ was attributed to
Scotus both by Berengarius and most of his contemporaries. So it shared
the fate of Berengarius himself, it was condemned by the Council of Paris
in A.D. 1050, and in the same year it was anathematised by the Councils of
Rome and Vercelli. Nine years later Pope Nicholas II. made Berengarius
himself throw the book into the fire in presence of an immense crowd of
people at Rome. And so it came to pass that Scotus was censured for
opinions which he never held, and for a book which he never wrote.

Almost from his first arrival in France, Scotus had been engaged in
translating from the Greek into Latin the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. In
the year A.D. 828 the Greek Emperor, Michael Balbus--the stammerer--had
sent, as a present to Louis le Debonaire, a copy in Greek of the writings
attributed to Dionysius, the Areopagite. Dionysius, mentioned in the 17th
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, was said to have been at first bishop
of Athens, and to have been afterwards sent into France by St. Clement,
where he preached the Gospel for many years, and died a martyr's death.
The works attributed to St. Dionysius, although really written by some
forger of the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century, were at
this time regarded as genuine. Hence, the Greek Emperor's gift was very
highly prized in France, and preserved with the greatest care and
veneration as the undoubted work of the apostle of the French people, and
especially of Paris, where the great Abbey of St. Denis, for many ages the
cemetery of the kings of France, was built in his honour. But these
writings in Greek were a sealed fountain to most of the French scholars at
the time. Hilduin, a monk of St. Denis, was charged with their custody,
and commissioned to translate them, but failed in the attempt. When,
however, the exiled Irish scholar came to Paris, the king, to his great
joy, soon discovered that he was a perfect master of the Greek tongue,
and asked him to undertake the translation of the writings of the
Areopagite. Scotus gladly undertook the task imposed upon him by his royal
patron, and executed it in such a way as to please the man of all others
best qualified to pronounce a critical opinion--Anastasius, the Roman
Librarian. In a letter written to the king, in A.D. 875, he declares it to
be a wonderful thing that a man like Scotus, a barbarian, living at the
end of the world--vir ille barbarus in finibus mundi positus--could
understand and translate into another tongue the writings of the
Areopagite. But the Holy Spirit, he says, was the chief agent who filled
him at once with fire and eloquence--qui hunc ardentem et loquentem
fecit--and charity was the mistress who taught him for the instruction and
edification of many. He adds that his only fault was to translate too
literally, and the cause of that was his great humility, which did not
permit him to change the exact order and meaning of the words of so great
a writer.

We cannot ascertain for certain the year of its appearance; it was
probably about A.D. 855, but in this case, too, Scotus was unfortunate.
Whether it was that the French theologians had given him a bad character
in Rome on account of the book on Predestination, or, as others think,
that the Greek scholar was considered to be a supporter of Greek
influences in the Court of Charles during the Photian intrigues, it is
certain that at this time he was no favourite at Rome. Accordingly, when
his work appeared, Pope Nicholas wrote a letter to Charles the Bald, in
which he complains of the publication of this translation without the
usual apostolic sanction--quod juxta morem ecclesiae nobis mitti
debet--especially as John the Scot, who translated it, although said to be
a man of much learning, was by many persons regarded as not altogether
sound in his doctrine--non sapere in quibusdam frequenti rumore dicitur.
Therefore the Pope orders Charles either to send the aforesaid John to
Rome to give an account of himself, or at least not to permit him to
remain any longer at Paris as the head of the University--aut certo
Parisiis in studio, cujus capital jam olim fuisse perhibetur, morari non
sinatis. This letter was written in the third year of Nicholas's
pontificate, either A.D. 861 or 862. We do not know what effect the letter
produced, whether the king dismissed Scotus from his high position or not.
It is very improbable that he did dismiss him, seeing the way in which
Anastasius, himself a Roman, spoke of Scotus twelve years later as a holy,
learned, and humble man. Most probably by that time they had got better
information concerning Scotus in Rome, and found out that he was neither
so unsound in doctrine, nor so Photian in his tendencies as his enemies
made him out to be. At this time, however, when the Pope wrote to Charles,
Scotus took very good care not to go to Rome, where he might have met the
fate of Gotteschalk; nor does it appear that Charles dismissed his
favourite from the palace, although requested to do so by the Pope
himself.

Scotus not only translated and wrote extensive commentaries on the
writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, but about the same period composed a
profound, original, and eloquent work in five books, which he entitles
Περὶ Φυσέως Μερισμοῦ, seu De Divisione Naturae. This work has been greatly
praised, and greatly and justly censured. We shall, however, for the
present reserve our judgment on its undoubted merits, as well as on its
demerits, and confine ourselves to sketching its eventful history. It is a
dialogue between a master and his pupil after the Platonic fashion, not
indeed with Plato's unrivalled beauty of form, but with much of the
eloquence and subtlety of the Greek mind. No other scholar of the Western
Church in any age was so filled with the spirit of the philosophy and
theology of the Greeks, and whose mind was so closely akin to the mind of
Greece. The Irish, like the Greek mind, has a natural love for
speculation, is quick, subtle, and far-seeing, has greater power of
abstraction and generalisation--that is to say, greater metaphysical power
than the phlegmatic Anglo-Saxon. Scotus was a typical Celt, strongly
developing all the intellectual peculiarities of the race. Moreover, he
was familiar with Plato, and Aristotle, and the Greek Fathers, far more
than with the Latin Fathers. He had, by close study, imbibed the spirit of
Neo-Platonic philosophy from the writings of Dionysius, whom he not
unnaturally regarded with the reverence due to an apostle, and so his
whole soul was made by nature, study, and duty, intensely Greek. No doubt
this was in itself one great source of his errors, both real and
imaginary, because his critics seeing how he erred in some things where
they could fathom his philosophy, imagined he erred in many more where
they could scarcely guess at the meaning of his words. Hence William of
Malmesbury very justly says of this work of Scotus, "De Divisione
Naturae," that it was very useful for the solution of some difficult
questions, "Si tamen ignoscatur ei in quibusdum, quibus a Latinorum
tramite deviavit dum in Græcos acriter oculos intendit." His eyes were on
the Greeks, and his spirit was with the Greeks, and so his teaching and
his language in many respects seemed strange and erroneous to the Latins.
It has been said that this book of Scotus was corrupted by his enemies the
more easily to refute him, and by heretics the more easily to defend their
own errors. But the supposition is quite gratuitous, unsupported by
evidence, and unnecessary as an explanation of facts. His doctrine in many
points was attacked in his own time, his errors were palliated by friends
and amplified by enemies. In later ages erratic sectaries, who vexed the
Church of France in the beginning of the thirteenth century, appealed to
the writings of Scotus in defence of their errors, and thus he was made a
third time a scape-goat to carry the sins of others. We learn from the
Chronicon of the monk Alberic, but from no other source, that in the year
A.D. 1225, Honorius III. sent a Brief to the archbishops and bishops of
France, in which he passed a severe judgment on the book of Scotus,
entitled "Periphysis," for so the monk writes it. The Bishop of Paris had
informed the Pope that this work was full of heretical depravity, and had
been condemned by the Archbishop of Sens and his suffragans, that it was
hid in many monasteries, where cloistered and scholastic men, thinking it
a great thing to propound new opinions, spent much time in the study of
the book. So the Pope ordered it to be carefully sought after, whenever it
was found to be solemnly burned, and inflicted excommunication, _ipso
facto_, on those who should knowingly presume to keep it in their
possession. This severe prohibition was effective. The MS. copies were
everywhere sought out, and nearly all destroyed, and no Catholic dared to
publish it. But in the year A.D. 1681, Thomas Gale, of Oxford, printed it
at that city. A few years later, in A.D. 1685, the old prohibition was
renewed, and the work placed on the Index, where it still remains,
although reprinted in Migne's Patrology.

Scotus also wrote several Greek and Latin poems on various subjects,
thirteen of which, mostly Latin, are printed in Migne's edition of his
works. Like most poems in foreign, and especially in dead languages, they
are merely artificial flowers of poesy--stiff, scentless, and lifeless;
but they serve to show the familiarity of the writer even in that rude age
with the languages of Greece and Rome.

How Scotus ended his life we know not. William of Malmesbury, whom many
other authorities blindly follow, states that it was a common report--_ut
fertur_--that he was invited to England by King Alfred, that he lectured
at Oxford, and afterwards retired to Malmesbury, where he was stabbed to
death by his pupils with their pens, or perhaps penknives (graphiis). His
body was at first secretly buried in the Church of St. Laurence, where the
crime was committed, but a bright light shining nightly on the spot warned
the monks to transfer the holy remains of the martyred scholar to the left
corner of the high altar in the great Church of Malmesbury, where they
reposed in peace and honour until another abbot, Warinus de Lira, exhumed
the bodies of Scotus and other saints, and buried them without honour or
ceremony in an obscure corner of the Church of St. Michael. But his memory
was long venerated as a holy martyr, and his feast celebrated on the 10th
of November, on which day his name was inserted in the Antwerp edition of
the _Roman Martyrology_, until Cardinal Baronius had it expunged. The
story of William of Malmesbury is altogether improbable, and we have no
contemporary evidence in its support. It arose in the beginning from
confounding Scotus Erigena, or, as he was sometimes called, Joannes, with
another John, abbot of Etheling, who was invited to England by Alfred,
about the year A.D. 880. In the letter written by Anastasius in A.D. 875,
he not obscurely speaks of John Scotus as already dead, at least he uses
the past tense throughout. It is not improbable, therefore, that shortly
after the Pope's letter in A.D. 862, Scotus may have deemed it prudent to
retire from Paris, and, with an Irishman's love of home, returned to his
native country, where he is said to have died in peace and holiness in the
year A.D. 874.

It has been said, too, that he travelled to Athens, and visited various
parts of the East, and that he was skilled in most of the Oriental
languages. But these statements appear unfounded; they are certainly
destitute of any reliable authority. What we know for certain is that
Scotus was an Irishman, that he was the first scholar of his time, that he
acquired his knowledge even of the Greek language, in the schools of his
native country. He was loved and honoured by friends who knew him, and
misjudged both during his life and after his death by many who knew
neither the man himself nor his writings. His career was short and
brilliant; comet-like he blazed for a while in the sunshine of royal
favour; he appeared and disappeared in a strangely eccentric orbit. For
ages he was lost to view, but in our own time is seen again shining in the
literary heavens with even more than his ancient splendour. We are not
inclined to extol him unduly, neither does it become us to judge him
harshly; but whatever may be said of his errors, all must admit that John
Scotus Erigena was a man of saintly life, a prodigy of learning, and an
honour to the country which gave him his name and his knowledge.

IV.--FOREIGN SCHOLARS IN IRELAND.

We have already spoken of several foreign scholars, who came to our Irish
Schools; but there are a few others to whom it is necessary to make more
explicit reference.

The hill of Slane, on the banks of the Boyne, near Drogheda, is one of the
historic sites of Ireland. It commands a noble prospect of all the
swelling plains of Meath and Louth, bounded on the north by the distant
Mourne Mountains rising from the sea, and on the south beyond the smoky
pall of Dublin, by the many topped summits of the Wicklow Hills. There,
close at hand on this same left bank of the river towards Drogheda are
Brugh and Dowth and New Grange, the cemeteries of pre-historic kings;
while just in front beyond the river is Rosnaree, where the great King
Cormac sleeps with his face to the rising sun, the daily herald of his
immortal hopes. Further off in the distance to the south and west, may be
seen Royal Tara, and Skreen of Columcille, and Kells of the Crosses, and
the towers of Trim and all the other storied ruins that once guarded the
passes of the Boyne from Newtown of the Normans, by Bective, Navan, and
Donore, whence fled the chicken-hearted James, down to the obelisk by
yonder bridge that marks the spot where the gallant Schomberg fell.

It was on this hill of Slane that St. Patrick lit his Paschal fire for the
first time in Erin, within view of King Laeghaire and his Druids from
Tara. And it was here too that Erc, "the sweet spoken judge of Patrick,"
built his oratory and little cell, which in after ages grew to be a great
monastery and a great college. There is now no trace of the oratory of St.
Erc at Slane. The ivy-clad ruins that still remain on the hill seem to be
of Norman origin, dating probably from the twelfth century. The history of
the ancient monastery has likewise disappeared, almost as completely as
its buildings. One interesting fact, however, is still preserved by local
tradition,[434] and that tradition has been amply confirmed by the
researches of scholars in our times. It is said that a king of France was
educated long ago at the great College of Slane, but his name and date are
forgotten. We are, however, enabled to supply these particulars. St.
Sigebert III. was king of the Austrasian Franks from A.D. 632 to 656.
This pious king was more given to prayer than to warlike enterprise; and
so Grimoald, Mayor of the Palace, became virtually ruler of Austrasia.
When Sigebert died in A.D. 656, Grimoald, wishing to have the name as well
as the power of a king, caused the late king's son, Dagobert, to be
tonsured, and then sent Dido, Bishop of Poitiers, to carry off the boy
secretly to Ireland, to be educated there as a monk in one of its famous
monastic schools. Tradition tells us that the school was Slane, and that
Dagobert spent eighteen or twenty years in its halls, and acquired during
that long period all the learning of the Scots. Meanwhile Grimoald
received the fitting reward of his treason. He was captured by Clovis of
Neustria, and put to death with torture, not long after he had sent the
young prince to Ireland. When Dagobert was grown to man's estate he
returned home to Austrasia, and mounted his father's throne as Dagobert
II., by which name the student of Slane College is known in French
history.[435] It is obvious that Slane was selected, not because it was
the most celebrated school at the time, but because it was in Meath, where
the High-kings mostly dwelt; and it was only natural to bring the royal
boy to some college near the royal court. It was through the agency of
Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, that Dagobert was restored to his friends and
his kingdom about the year A.D. 674, after the deposition and death of
King Childeric II.

Another eminent saint and scholar of foreign origin, contemporary with
Dagobert in Ireland, was Egbert of Northumbria. Bede gives a very
interesting account of this eminent man.[436] He was sprung from the
nobility of Northumbria, and appears to have been born in A.D. 639.

With another young noble named Ethelun, Egbert went over to Ireland, like
the crowds of his countrymen, 'to pursue divine studies, and lead a
continent life.' They sojourned in the monastery, called in Irish
Rathmelsigi, which Bede's editor and translator[437] foolishly calls
'Melfont.' He meant Mellifont, near Drogheda; but there was no monastery
at Mellifont for nearly five hundred years afterwards. As the same learned
editor makes Columba's noble monastery of Dair-magh to be Derry, instead
of Durrow, we need not attach much importance to his notes on Bede
concerning Irish matters. Colgan says that this monastery of Rathmelsigi
was in Connaught; but he does not specify, and probably did not know, the
exact locality. In the _Martyrology of Donegal_, we find reference to
"Colman[438] Rath-Maoilsidhe" (at Dec. 14th), which is in all probability
the monastery referred to by Colgan. This Colman is different from Colman
of Innisboffin, whose festival day is the 8th of August. It is not
improbable that his monastery was situated at the place called Rath-maoil,
or Rath-Maoilcath, both of which were situated near Ballina, on the right
bank of the Moy. Everything points to the fact that most of the young
Northumbrian nobles and ceorls, who came to the West of Ireland in crowds
at this period, landed in the estuary of the Moy, and then going
southward, took up their abode, or founded their religious houses wherever
they could obtain suitable accommodation. St. Gerald's Abbey of Mayo was
not then established (in A.D. 664); and so Egbert and his companions put
themselves under the guidance of St. Colman, or some of his successors, in
this monastery of Rath-Maoilsidhe.

Just then the terrible Yellow Plague made its appearance in Ireland, and
carried off one-half of its population. All the companions of Egbert and
Ethelun were cut off by the plague; and now they themselves were attacked,
and became grievously ill. Then Egbert, whilst he had yet a little
strength remaining, rose up in the morning, and going out of the chamber
of the sick, he sat down alone, and began to think of his past sins; and
he asked God's pardon for them with many tears. He prayed, too, earnestly
that God would not yet take him out of the world, but would give him time
to atone by his good works for the sins of his youth. And if God deigned
to hear his prayer, he vowed never to return again to his native Britain,
but to live as a pilgrim in some strange land; and, moreover, to recite
the Psalter daily, and to fast continuously for twenty-four hours once a
week. When he returned to the sick chamber, Ethelun, his companion, was
asleep; but presently awaking, he told Egbert that his prayer was heard by
God; then he gently rebuked him, for he had hoped that together they would
go into life everlasting. Next day Ethelun died; but Egbert recovered from
his sore sickness, and lived to be ninety years of age, when he departed
from this life.

He was ordained a priest; "and his life," says Bede, "adorned the
priesthood, for he lived in the practice of humility, meekness,
continence, justice, and all other virtues." He loved the Irish greatly,
and lived amongst them for fifty years (A.D. 664-715), preaching the
Gospel, teaching in his monastery, reproving the bad, and encouraging the
good by the bright example of his blameless life. He not only kept his
vow, but he added to it, says Bede; for during the whole Lent he took but
one meal in the day, and that was nothing but bread in limited quantity,
and thin milk from which the cream had been skimmed off. Whatever he got
from others--and he got much--he gave to the poor.

For many years he had been resolving in his mind to sail round Britain,
and go to Germany to preach the Gospel to the pagan tribes who dwelt
there, and who were kindred to his own nation of the Angles. But God had
willed otherwise. There was in Egbert's monastery an old monk who had many
years before been minister to Boisil, Abbot of Melrose, an Irish
foundation in Scotland. Now one morning after matins, Boisil appeared to
this aged monk, who at once recognised his old master, and commanded him
to tell Egbert that it was God's will that he should give up his proposed
journey to Germany, and go rather to instruct the Columbian monasteries in
the right method of keeping Easter, and of tonsuring the head.

Egbert fearing that this vision might be a delusion, still continued his
preparations for Germany, and did not obey the direction given by Boisil.
Then that saint appeared a second time to his minister, and commanded him
to make known to Egbert, in a more imperative way, what it was God willed
him to do. "Let him go at once," he said, "to Columba's monastery of Hy,
_because their ploughs do not go straight_, and he will bring them into
the right way." Moreover, the ship in which he was preparing to set out
for Germany was wrecked in a storm, and thrown upon the shore, leaving,
however, his effects intact. Egbert, taking this as a further
manifestation of the Divine will, gave up his project of going to Germany,
and set sail for Iona. Wictbert, however, one of his associates in
religion in Ireland, went in his stead, and for two years preached the
Gospel in Friesland, but reaped no harvest of success amongst the pagans.
So he returned once again to Ireland, and gave himself up to serve God
during the rest of his life, as he was wont to do before his departure, in
great purity and austerity; "so that if he could not be profitable to
others by teaching them the faith, he took care to be useful to his own
beloved (Irish) people by the example of his virtues."

Now when this holy father and priest, Egbert, beloved of God, and worthy
to be named with all honour, came to the monastery of Iona, he was
honourably and joyfully received by the community. He was also a diligent
teacher, and carried out his precepts by his example, so that he was
willingly listened to by all the members of the community. The effect of
his frequent instructions and pious exhortations, was that at length the
community of Hy consented to give up the inveterate tradition of their
ancestors in religion, and adopt the new discipline, which by this time
had been received everywhere else throughout the Irish Church. Now surely,
this was, as Bede observes, a wonderful dispensation of Providence, that
these very monks of Iona, who were the first to preach the Gospel in
Northumbria, should afterwards be persuaded by this Northumbrian priest to
accept the correct discipline and true rule of spiritual life. And
stranger still, it was on Easter Day, the 24th of April, A.D. 729, that
this man of God went to his eternal rest; whereas, but for his exertions,
that Easter festival would not have been duly celebrated on that day, but,
in accordance with the unreformed system, would have been celebrated in
that year towards the end of March, whilst the rest of the Church was
observing the fast of Lent.

With Egbert also dwelt in the same monastery the celebrated St. Chad, or
Cedd, Bishop of Lichfield. Chad is justly regarded, on account of his
learning and holiness, as one of the Fathers of the Anglo-Saxon Church. He
was one of four brothers, like Egbert himself, of Northumbrian origin, two
of whom became bishops, and two were holy priests. Chad was one of that
crowd of Northumbrian nobles, who, in the days of Bishops Finan and
Colman, flocked to Ireland for instruction in theology and religious
discipline. Bede says expressly that he with the most reverend Father
Egbert, when both were youths, led for a long time a monastic life
together in Ireland--praying, observing continency, and meditating on the
Holy Scriptures. Chad, however, returned after a time to his own country;
but Egbert continued in Ireland until he set sail for Iona.

Chad was, as we have already seen, present at the Conference of Whitby in
A.D. 664, and having been educated in Ireland, he naturally sympathised
with Bishop Colman and the Irish party. He was subsequently appointed to
the see of York, but still sympathising with the Irish party, he was
deposed through the influence of Wilfrid. Yet he was sometime after
appointed to the See of Lichfield. He was a man of great holiness of life;
but his episcopacy at Lichfield only continued for two years and a half.
He died probably in A.D. 671 or 672, and was buried in St. Mary's Church;
but his bones were afterwards translated to the present Cathedral of
Lichfield.

A little later in the same seventh century, the celebrated St. Willibrord,
afterwards Archbishop of Utrecht, was a student in our Irish schools, and
most probably, we should say, at Mayo of the Saxons. His father Wilgils,
was also of the English nobility, but after the birth of his son he
retired from the world, and built himself a cell at the mouth of the
Humber, where he led a life of the most austere virtue. Willibrord in his
youth was trained in the great school of St. Wilfrid at York; but about
the age of twenty, in order to finish his education, like most of his
countrymen at the time, he passed over to Ireland. This much we know from
Bede, who also adds that whilst yet only a priest in Ireland, he led
therein the life of a pilgrim--forsaking his earthly country through love
of his heavenly country. Willibrord also testified to Bishop Acca and
Bishop Wilfrid, that once on a time, when he was in Ireland, the plague
overtook a certain student of the Scottish, that is the Irish, race. This
young man, though well skilled in literature, had been rather heedless
about the welfare of his soul. When he fell sick he at once sent for
Willibrord, and telling him how much he feared to die on account of his
sins, he besought him, if he had any relics of the good King Oswald, to
apply them for his benefit.

Then Willibrord said that he had a portion of the stake on which the
pagans fixed the head of the martyred king; and "blessing some water he
put into it a chip of the aforesaid oaken stake, and gave it to the sick
man to drink. He presently found ease, and recovering from his sickness he
lived a long time after; and being entirely converted to God in heart and
actions, wherever he came, he spoke of the goodness of his merciful
Creator, and the honour of his faithful servant."[439]

It was the holy Egbert, who sent Willibrord with twelve companions to
preach the gospel to the Frisians. And shortly after two other priests of
the English nation, who had long lived as pilgrims in Ireland, following
their example, went to preach in Saxony, where they gained the crown of
martyrdom within a few years. This is not the place to narrate at length
the apostolic labours of Willibrord and his associates--how he was
consecrated by Pope Sergius in Rome, and was commissioned to preach to the
Frisians; how completely he succeeded where others had failed; how he
laboured there for fifty years in all--during thirty-six of which he was
Archbishop of Utrecht. These things are told at length by Alcuin in his
beautiful _Life of St. Willibrord_, which also describes the saintly end
of the long and laborious career of this venerable servant of God.

It is surely a credit to our Irish schools to have trained up so many
learned and apostolic men, like Egbert and Willibrord. It was in Ireland
they were trained in divine studies, as Bede testifies; it was in Ireland
they learned the continent and self-denying life of all true apostles; and
it was from Ireland they went forth to preach the Gospel to the fierce
pagan tribes of Germany, where so many of them were privileged to meet a
martyr's death.

Another Irish student at this period was Agilbert, afterwards Bishop of
Paris. He was, says Bede, a Frank by birth, who came from that country to
Ireland, "and lived a long time there for the purpose of studying the
Scriptures." Bede seems to imply that he was a bishop before he came to
Ireland,[440] for he describes him as a 'Pontifex natione Gallus.' This
shows in what high esteem our Irish schools must have been held at this
period, when even bishops came from France to study divinity in their
halls. Agilbert afterwards passed over to England, and for a time held the
See of Dorchester or Winchester. He was present at the Conference of
Whitby, and took the side of Wilfrid, but finally returning to his native
country he was made Bishop of Paris. The year of his death is not known.
It was probably about A.D. 680.

CHAPTER XXIV.

GAEDHLIC SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARS OF ANCIENT ERIN.

  "The Gaedhlic tongue! the Gaedhlic tongue! why should its voice be
        still,
  When all its magic tones with old and golden glories thrill--
  When, like an aged bard, it sings departed warriors' might--
  When it was heard in kingly halls, where thronged the brave and bright;
  When oft its glowing tales of war made dauntless hearts beat high--
  When oft its tales of hapless love drew tears from beauty's eye?"
                                                          --_Anonymous._

Hitherto we have spoken chiefly of the monastic schools, and the clerical
scholars of ancient Erin. We are not to assume, however, that the Gaedhlic
tongue was not cultivated in those schools, and that the eminent saints of
ancient Erin were not excellent Gaedhlic scholars. We know for certain
that the contrary was the fact. Several of them, like Columcille, were
eminent Gaedhlic poets; many of them, like St. Carthach of Lismore, even
wrote their monastic Rules in Gaedhlic; and, of course, even scholars,
like Adamnan, who wrote learned treatises in the Latin tongue, must have
preached the Gospel, and taught the people in the vernacular language. St.
Patrick himself, who was a Briton, found it necessary to do so, and, as
far as we can judge, he must have been an accomplished speaker in the
ancient Gaedhlic tongue.

Still the monastic schools were more given to the cultivation of the
classical languages than to the study of the Gaedhlic; and when their
great scholars wished to deal with theological or scientific subjects,
they wrote in the Latin language. Even some of our Annalists, when they
wished to give special prominence to their entries, wrote in the Latin
rather than in the Gaedhlic.

At the same time, we are not to suppose that during this period there were
no Gaedhlic schools in the sense in which we now speak of English as
opposed to Classical schools--that is, academies in which the Gaedhlic
language, and literature, and history were the subjects chiefly, if not
exclusively, taught. On the contrary, we have abundant evidence that there
were several schools of this character, in which the vernacular language
was cultivated with great success, and not merely the language, but also
the history, the antiquities, the laws, and the literature of the nation.

We are even inclined to think that in Celtic Ireland the vernacular
language was more carefully cultivated during this period, and that laymen
generally had better opportunities of obtaining what would now be called a
university education, than they had in any other country of western
Europe. This statement is, in our opinion, capable of clear proof from
existing monuments; but for the present we need not go beyond the admitted
facts that both clerics and laymen from the Continent came to the schools
of Erin in large numbers, to acquire the culture of our Celtic schools;
whilst on the other hand, when our Irish scholars went abroad during the
ninth and tenth centuries, they were at once entrusted with the highest
offices in the Continental schools, and proved themselves to be, not only
amongst the ablest theologians of the time, but also the first men of that
age in Greek and Latin Literature. The history of men like Virgilius, and
Dungal, and John Scotus Erigena, proves the truth of this statement beyond
denial or controversy.

The Lives of the Saints furnish materials for the history of our monastic
schools; but our lay scholars, having no such records of their lives and
learning, are forgotten, except in so far as some treatise, or fragment of
a treatise, of their composition may have survived the wreck of time.

We find, however, from references in the Brehon Laws, that lay Schools and
lay Professors occupied a recognised and honourable position in the social
polity of the time.

I.--ORGANIZATION OF THE GAEDHLIC PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS.

In the Sequel, or Second Part, of the _Crith Gabhlach_ the legal rights
and social position of the Professors of the Liberal Arts are set down
with a considerable degree of fulness and accuracy. We are aware that it
has been said[441] that these, and some other portions of the _Crith
Gabhlach_ "are the fantastic production of an antiquarian lawyer of a
strong ecclesiastical bias." It is hardly necessary to question the
competency of this writer to pronounce such an opinion. He appears to have
been wholly unacquainted with the Irish language, and obviously has only
a lawyer's knowledge of our ancient Annals. For those very things,
regarding the orders, rights, and privileges of the Church, which he so
coolly describes as the fantastic production of a lawyer with an
ecclesiastical bias, are shown in every page of our Annals to be amongst
the recognised institutions of the Celtic tribes in Erin. It is, in fact,
quite clear that he admits only as authentic laws those which seem to
harmonise with his own pre-conceived notions of ecclesiastical polity; but
those which do not fit in with these pre-conceived views, he rejects as
fantastic! Such is the critical faculty of some of those to whom the
publication of the Brehon Laws has been entrusted.

In this Sequel to the _Crith Gabhlach_,[442] 'profession' is set down as
one of the things which give social status in Erin. And, as in the Church,
and amongst the land-owning classes, there were several grades, so there
were also amongst the professional classes. These grades are set down as
seven; but it is not easy for us to realise the degrees of gradation
between them, since that state of society has totally passed away; as
surely it would be difficult in similar circumstances to discriminate
between the various grades in the learned professions that exist amongst
ourselves to-day. It would not be easy for us to explain for the Maoris
how those entitled to write after their names A.B., or M.A., or LL.D.
differ amongst themselves; or in what the Q.C. is superior to the Stuff
Gown; and the same difficulty will be found to exist in all the degrees,
whether academical or professional, on which men set so much value at
present.

In like manner, in ancient Erin, the 'seven grades of wisdom' are
carefully distinguished by law, although it is not easy for us in every
case to perceive the point of the distinction.

There was a High-professor (_rosai_), and a simple Professor (_sai_);
there was an _anruth_ and a _sruth_, that is, a 'noble stream' and a
'stream,' which, in our opinion, have not been at all explained; there was
an 'illustrator,' and an 'interrogator,' and a 'pupil'--or, as we should
now call them, a grinder, and a tutor, and an undergraduate. The
High-professor was also called an _ollamh_ and a _sai litre_, that is in
modern parlance a LL.D. (speaking of laymen), and a Doctor of Literature.
The most important point is that the Ollave was entitled to sit at the
king's table as an honoured guest. In point of knowledge he was qualified
to answer all questions in the four great departments of learning--that
is, in poetry, literature, history, and, like a LL.D., in canon and civil
law.

He was entitled to bring four-and-twenty persons in his retinue, or
peripatetic school; and neither he nor they could be denied food without
incurring a severe penalty--one-seventh of his death-eric. One of his
functions and rights was to be 'in the bosom of his disciples,' always
imparting knowledge to them on all suitable occasions.

The _anruth_, or 'noble stream,' was only entitled to half this company,
but in other respects he was supposed to be a junior Ollave or Fellow--in
the number of his intellectual gifts, in the eloquence of his language,
the greatness of his knowledge, and the nobility of his teaching--but he
had not yet reached the 'pinnacle' of knowledge, like the full-blown
Ollave.

We cannot now discuss at greater length the various other sub-divisions,
both amongst masters and pupils, which were almost as numerous as in the
Intermediate Schools and Royal University--all put together, including the
Senators, Fellows, Teaching-Examiners, and Graduates.

The learned professions were, in like manner, carefully discriminated and
sub-divided. Leaving out the Church, it seems that there were at this
period three great lay professions--Poetry, Law, and History. Poetry
(_filidecht_), generally gets precedence; and the Ollave-poet seems to
have been at the very top of the learned professions. The 'bard' at this
period is distinguished from the 'poet.' The former is described as a man
"without lawful learning but his own intellect;"[443] that is a man who
had from nature the gift of music and of song, but who was never regularly
trained, and never graduated in the School of Poetry. Not so the _file_ or
poet. He was trained in all the mysteries of the various kinds of Gaedhlic
verse; he could compose _extempore_ or in writing; he knew the legal
number of recognised poems and tales, and was pronounced qualified to
recite them before kings and chieftains, whether in the banquet hall, or
on the battle-march. He could eulogise, too, and satirise; and he and all
his company were entitled both to fees and refection.

The course in poetry extended over 'twelve years of hard work;'[444] and
besides the knowledge of the seven kinds of verse, in each of which the
Ollave-poet was supposed to be able to compose extemporaneously, he was
also required to know seven times fifty tales by heart for public
recitation. These tales were of a wild and romantic character, but for
that very reason were highly popular with all classes in ancient Erin.
They included tales of Battles, Voyages, Cattle-spoils, Sieges, Sorrows,
Slaughters, and so on, through the lost list of the legendary poems of
Erin. Fortunately many of them still survive in manuscript, and a few have
been published; which even in faulty translations are found to be
exceedingly interesting and amusing. It was, doubtless, the popular and
entertaining character of these romantic stories that placed the
Ollave-poet at the head of the learned professions, even on an equality
with kings and bishops in point of social dignity. There were seven grades
or degrees in this great fraternity, from the _fochloc_, or scholar-poet,
up to the great Ollave himself, who was the head of the school, or band of
twenty-four that formed his train.

In like manner with the Brehons, there was an Ollave-Brehon who
corresponded with a judge of the High Court in our own times; and then
there were seven grades of inferior brehonship, descending from this high
official to the raw law student, who was just beginning to take out his
lectures and eat his dinners--for, in ancient, as in modern Erin, the
lawyers made eating an essential part of their professional career. The
fees of the Brehon were fixed by law, and to withhold them was a grave
offence, for which a distress might be levied after an interval of three
days.[445]

Whoever looks over, even in a cursory way, the four large volumes of the
ancient Brehon code already published, will readily admit that to be an
accomplished lawyer in ancient Erin required long and careful study under
competent masters. At length the system grew so intricate and complicated
that the Brehonship was confined to a few families, who transmitted from
generation to generation the key to the interpretation both of the written
and customary law. Every _righ_ was entitled to have his own Brehon, who
sat on stated days, generally in the open air, for the adjudication of all
the causes arising in the tribe. The litigants might, of course, have
their own advocates, but they were generally young Brehons of inferior
degree belonging to the school of the chief Brehon. Amongst these legal
families the MacEgans of Duniry in Galway, and Ormond in Tipperary,
became the most celebrated, so that members of that family were employed
as judges by most of the kinglets beyond the Shannon.

The Historical Poets or Chroniclers seem to have constituted a separate
professional class in Ireland during this period. O'Donnell, in a passage
from the Irish Life of St. Columba, clearly defines their duties, and he
must have known them well, for the O'Clerys, his own hereditary
Chroniclers, were the most illustrious members of that profession that
ever appeared in Erin. It was their duty to record--(_a_) the
achievements, wars, and triumphs of the kings, princes, and chiefs; (_b_)
to preserve the genealogies and define the rights of noble families; (_c_)
to ascertain and set forth the limits and extent of the sub-kingdoms and
territories ruled over by the princes and chiefs. There is no statement in
the Brehon Code as to the duties of the Chronicler so definite as this,
because the code supposes that these things were perfectly well known to
all the Feni, from their own daily experience.

In the earlier periods of our history these important duties were
discharged by the Bards; but by degrees it was found more convenient to
confine them to a separate class, which afterwards, like the Brehons, came
to be hereditary. As the _righ_ was entitled to have his Bard and Brehon,
so also he was entitled to have his Chronicler to discharge those duties
to which we have referred above. Up to the eleventh century the Chronicles
were written in verse, but after that period they began to be written in
prose; and in many cases they are written both in prose and verse--the
verse being nearly always the older form of the Chronicle.

Many of these Rhyming Chroniclers record merely the local history of their
own chieftains; but in other cases the poet-historian took a wider scope,
and gave a narrative not only of Irish history, but of universal history,
in a brief way, down to the time of St. Patrick. Most of these Chroniclers
were laymen, although several of the most distinguished amongst them were
monks or priests in some of the great monastic schools.

It is quite clear from various references both in our Annals, and in the
Brehon Code, that these three professions were kept quite distinct from
the sixth to the twelfth century, that they were taught by different
professors, and in different schools--these professors being generally but
not always laymen.

Perhaps the earliest school of this character to which we find any
definite reference is the School of Tuaim Drecain. It is doubtless only
one of many similar institutions that flourished in ancient Ireland, but
as we have more accurate information, although incidental, concerning this
establishment, we propose to give an account of this typical seminary in a
separate section.

II.--THE SCHOOL OF TUAIM DRECAIN.

St. Bricin's School of Tuaim Drecain is one of those mentioned in
O'Curry's catalogue of celebrated schools in ancient Ireland. Moreover,
although its founder and rector was a saint, whose festival is found
marked in our martyrologies, it seems to have been a lay school of general
literature, or, as we should say, a school of arts rather than of
scripture or theology. It has besides produced one very distinguished
Irish poet, some scraps of whose writings have come down to us, and
therefore deserves a special notice at our hands.

Its founder is described in the _Martyrology of Donegal_ (5th Sept.) as
"Bricin of Tuaim Drecain, in Breifne of Connaught; but it is in Breifne Ui
Raghallaigh it is, and he was of the race of Tadhg, son of Cian, son of
Ollioll Olum." We find off-shoots of that race of Tadhg, son of Cian, in
Bregia, and in Leyney, county Sligo, and elsewhere also, but to which
branch of the race he belonged we are not informed.

Tuaim Drecain is now called Tomregan, which very nearly represents the
pronunciation of the Irish word. It is a parish situated partly in three
baronies and in the two counties of Cavan and Fermanagh, where the
Woodford river, after draining several of the Leitrim lakes, flows on to
join the river Erne, near Belturbet. The name signifies the tomb or grave
of Drecan, some ancient warrior of whom nothing is known. It would,
however, be interesting to know if there is any tumulus, or stone circle,
in the parish which might help to explain the origin of the name. We know
from the _Annals of the Four Masters_ that Eochaidh Faebhar-glas, King of
Ireland, from A.M. 3707 to 3727, fought a battle at Tuaim Drecon; and it
was probably from the tumulus raised over Drecon on this occasion that the
place got its name.

St. Bricin flourished during the early years of the seventh century, and,
besides his other scholarly acquirements, it seems he had also some
knowledge of medicine. Amongst his pupils the most celebrated was
Cennfaeladh the 'learned,' who in his youth had been a distinguished
soldier, and took part in the great battle of Magh Rath (now Moira, co.
Down), which was fought in the year A.D. 634. On that fatal field he
received a very dangerous wound in the head, which was very near bringing
his learned career to a premature close. He was, however, carried off from
the battle field, and taken to Armagh, whence Senach the Primate, sent him
to Tomregan, that he might have the benefit of the surgical skill of
Bricin. The saint succeeded in healing the wound in the poet's head,
although he had actually lost through the wound a small portion of the
brain. This, however, in his case only added to his powers of memory and
general intelligence, which goes to show that in some cases the skull is
really too thick, and is the better of being trepanned.

At this time St. Bricin was the head of a great lay college at Tuaim
Drecain, which consisted of three distinct schools carried on in different
buildings, each having its own professor--one a School of the Brehon Law
(Feinechas), another a School of Poetry and History, and the third a
School of Classical Learning. These schools were, it appears for
convenience sake, located at the junction of three streets, so that the
pupils could, when necessary, easily pass from one to another.

Now, as soon as Cennfaeladh's wound began to heal, he employed his leisure
in attending the lectures delivered in these various schools; and his head
having been specially opened, he acquired, and what is more, he retained
all the lectures delivered in the different schools, so that he afterwards
opened a similar academy himself, and was able to instruct his pupils in
all these various branches of knowledge. Poetry, it seems, he made the
vehicle of communicating his information, which was quite the usual
practice in those early days; and it had this one great advantage when
books were so scarce--it greatly helped the memory, thus rendering it much
easier for the master to teach, and for the pupil to learn.

Some of the treatises thus composed by Cennfaeladh for the use of his
schools have fortunately survived the ravages of time. O'Curry thinks it
probable that he was the author of an entire Grammatical Tract which has
been preserved in the _Book of Leacan_ and the _Book of Ballymote_.

This Tract, O'Curry tells us, is divided into four books. The authorship
of the First Book is ascribed to Fenius Farsaidh, or Fenius the
Antiquarian, an ancestor of Milesius, who may be regarded as a mythical
personage, his name being introduced to lend an air of antiquity to the
work. The Second Book is, for a similar reason, ascribed to Amergin, a son
of Milesius. The Third Book is attributed to Ferceirtne the Poet, who
flourished in the time of Conor Mac Nessa; but the Fourth Book is clearly
the work of Cennfaeladh himself, who, if he did not compose, certainly
revised the entire treatise. Cennfaeladh died about A.D. 678; and O'Curry
thinks the work was retouched after his death by later scholars--most
likely by Cormac Mac Cullinan, or some of his pupils, towards the close of
the ninth century.

This most interesting work is unfortunately hitherto unpublished, for few
scholars are qualified to undertake the task of its publication. It not
only deals with the principles of the Irish grammatical construction, but
compares the Gaedhlic forms with the Latin of Priscian, Donatus, and other
authors then familiar to Irish scholars; and even to some extent it
compares the Irish inflections with those of the Greek and Hebrew
languages.

Cennfaeladh also compiled a Law Tract which has been published by the
Brehon Law Commissioners; and moreover, he was the author of several
historical poems, fragments of which are still extant. His poem on the
Migrations of Milesius from Scythia to Spain is complete; but we possess
only a fragment of another equally interesting one on the Death of the
Ultonian Heroes of the Red Branch. To him also O'Reilly attributes the
authorship of the poem on the Teach Midhchuarta, which describes all the
furniture and arrangements of the great Mead-Circling House of Tara. So
that it may be truly said that few schools in Ireland produced a more
distinguished scholar than Bricin's Academy at Tomregan in Breifne.[446]

III.--CORMAC MAC CULLINAN.

This is, perhaps, the most fitting place to give an account of the life
and writings of the celebrated Cormac Mac Cullinan, the Bishop-king of
Cashel. It is as a Gaedhlic scholar he is best known to posterity,
although his high position, his valour, his piety, as well as his tragical
end, have all combined to render his career singularly interesting to his
fellow countrymen.

Cormac was born so early as the year A.D. 835, at the very time when
almost all Ireland was writhing under the oppression of the Danes. He was
sprung from the chief royal family of Desmond, that is, the Eoghanachts
of Cashel. It is well known that the entire province of Munster was
divided between two sons of Ollioll Olum--Eoghan, the elder taking
Desmond, and Cormac Cas the younger getting Thomond for his principality,
with alternate right for both brothers to the sovereignty of the entire
province. The Eugenian line, however, contrived to keep the sovereignty of
the province for the most part in their family; and, as these kings lived
generally at Cashel, the royal family of South Munster came to be called
the Eoghanachts of Cashel.

No mention of Cormac is made in our Annals until he was called to the
throne of Cashel by his fellow tribesmen, A.D. 900, when he had attained
the mature age of sixty-five. The Four Masters, however, tell us that
Sneidgius, the wise man of Disert-Diarmada, was his tutor; the latter died
A.D. 885 (_recte_ 888), as we find it in the more accurate _Chronicon
Scotorum_. Disert-Diarmada, now called Castle-Dermott, is a place of
ancient fame in the south of the County Kildare. It took its old name from
a hermitage founded there by St. Diarmaid, otherwise called Ainle, because
he was a 'fresh-complexioned youngling,' as the Gloss on Ængus tells us,
when he retired to the hermitage that has borne his name ever since. The
ancient round tower still standing, as well as the old stone cross, and
the broken shaft of a second cross, show that the old abbey, on whose site
the Protestant Church now stands, was a place of great ecclesiastical
importance. The Crouched Friars were established there by Walter de
Riddlesford, and Thomas, Lord of Offaley, founded a convent for
Franciscans in the same place. It was called Castle-Dermott from the
castle erected by de Riddlesford in the reign of King John. It was a place
of much strength, surrounded by walls, and defended by this strong castle;
and hence we find that two Parliaments of the Pale were held here--one in
the reign of Edward IV., and the other in A.D. 1499. Its chief glory,
however, will always be that it was there Cormac Mac Cullinan was
educated, and there he was buried. It gave him knowledge, and when his
brief and stormy reign was over, it gave him the rest of the grave.

It seems that during the ninth century at least, the abbots of
Disert-Diarmada enjoyed quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. Some of them were
certainly bishops; and, no doubt, had a territory which owned their
spiritual sway. In A.D. 842, we are told that "Cumsudh, son of Derero and
Maenach, son of Sadchadach, who were both bishops and anchorites, died in
one night at Disert-Diarmada." A.D. 895 died Muirghaes, Bishop and Abbot
of Disert-Diarmada; and again in A.D. 1038, we hear of the death of a
'distinguished bishop' of Disert-Diarmada.

The learning of Cormac Mac Cullinan was, no doubt, acquired within the
walls of this ancient monastic school. Sneidgius, the sage (_egnai_) of
Disert-Diarmada, was his tutor, and from the acquirements of the pupil, it
is not difficult to infer the learning of the master. We have now no
means, however, of knowing how long Cormac remained at Disert-Diarmada.

He was certainly a bishop before he became King of Cashel, but it is
difficult to say what See he was placed over, or whether he ever had
charge of any See at all. We do not read in any of our Annalists that he
was Bishop of Cashel before he became King of Munster; indeed it is very
doubtful if he were ever Bishop of Cashel at all. There is no reference
made to a Bishop of Cashel before this period, so far as we know, in any
of our ancient authorities. It was the seat of the temporal royalty, but
it had not yet become the seat of spiritual authority. The Four Masters
say that Cormac was King and Bishop, but they do not say he was Bishop of
Cashel. The _Annals of Ulster_ call him King of Cashel, but do not call
him 'bishop' at all. The _Chronicon Scotorum_ describes him as "King of
Cashel, a most excellent scribe, a bishop, and an anchorite;" but makes no
reference to his See. Keating is, so far as we know, the first who calls
Cormac, not Bishop, but Archbishop of Cashel. In fact down to the year
A.D. 1101, Cashel was simply a royal dun, which gave its name to the
kingdom of South Munster. There was up to that time no church or monastery
at Cashel, of which we have any information. But in that year a remarkable
event took place, thus recorded by the Four Masters: "A meeting of Leath
Mogha was held at Caiseal by Muircheartach O'Briain with the chiefs of the
laity, and O'Dunan, noble bishop and chief senior with the chiefs of the
clergy; and on this occasion Muircheartach O'Briain made a grant, such as
no king had ever made before, namely, he granted Caiseal of the kings to
the religious, without any claim of laymen or clergymen upon it, but the
religious of Ireland in general." Here we find at the beginning of the
twelfth century, that for the first time in its history, Cashel was given
up for religious purposes, and ceased to be the royal residence of the
southern kings. We find down to that time frequent mention in our Annals
of the kings and royal heirs of Cashel, but of no Bishop of Cashel.
Thenceforward, however, we hear of the Archbishops, but not of the kings
or tanists of Cashel. The thing appears to have been brought about in the
following way.

In consequence of the temporal sovereignty of Cashel, the prelates of
Emly, in whose diocese it was situated, began to claim metropolitan
jurisdiction over all Munster, especially when the O'Brian family began to
claim the sovereignty of Ireland during the eleventh century. Hence we
find that Domhnall Ua Heni is called in the _Chronicon Scotorum_
'Archbishop of the men of Munster' (Anno 1094). Celsus, the Primate, was
anxious to oblige the King of Munster, and, moreover, O'Dunan, successor
of O'Heni (from A.D. 1094-1118), was the personal friend and admirer of
Celsus. Hence St. Bernard tells us that Celsus consented to establish _de
novo_ a second metropolitan See in Ireland, subject, however, to the
primatial See of Armagh. O'Dunan was the first who _de jure_, if it can be
so called, enjoyed the metropolitan dignity in the South of Ireland; and
we know that St. Malachy was anxious to obtain the pall for the new See of
Cashel, as well as for his own primatial See of Armagh. And it was
doubtless to provide a sufficient endowment and a becoming See for the new
metropolitan that the king made over his own royal fortress, and a part of
his mensal estates for that purpose.

King Murtogh O'Brian was succeeded in the year A.D. 1119 by Cormac Mac
Carthy, a pious and munificent prince. He did not reside at Cashel, for it
was now church property; and it is highly probable the 'noble senior and
chief bishop of Munster' had already established his episcopal palace on
the famous Rock. He was not yet, however, formally recognised as
archbishop, for he was present at the Synod of Fiadh Mic Ænghusa, which,
according to the Four Masters, was held in A.D. 1111, and he is there
simply described as 'noble senior of Erin,' and as _Bishop_ of Munster, or
as others have it, Bishop of Cashel. He was the first prelate who bore
that title _de jure_, and he was a man who in every respect seems to have
been worthy of the eminent dignity to which he was now elevated. He died
at Clonard in the year A.D. 1117, according to the Four Masters, who
describe him as "the head of the clergy in Ireland (in merit) and lord of
the alms deeds of the West of Europe."

If, as the Four Masters say, his death took place in A.D. 1117, it was
just two years before the death of his friend Murtogh O'Brian, "King of
Munster and of Ireland," the munificent prince who gave over Cashel for
religious purposes. Cormac, his successor, was not to be outdone in
generosity, so we find that in A.D. 1127 he began to build the beautiful
church on the Rock of Cashel, which has ever since been known as Cormac's
Chapel. It is sometimes ascribed to Cormac Mac Cullinan, but Petrie
conclusively shows that it was begun about A.D. 1127 by Cormac Mac Carthy,
and consecrated seven years later in A.D. 1134, as all our annalists
declare.

It is a singular fact, too, that Cormac Mac Carthy, shortly after the
chapel on the Rock was begun, was driven from his throne by Turlough
O'Conor, and was compelled to take refuge at Lismore, and there also "took
the staff-bachall"--or crozier[447]--and was honoured with the counsels
and friendship of St. Malachy. Hence he is called a bishop-king by a
contemporary writer, Maelbrighte, in his copy of the Gospel now preserved
in the British Museum. The Four Masters also referring to his murder in
A.D. 1138, describe him as Lord of Desmond, and Bishop-king of Ireland;
and add, that he was treacherously slain by Turlough, son of Diarmaid
O'Brian, a grandson of the previous king. Our own opinion therefore is,
that O'Dunan, the noble senior, was the first Bishop of Cashel, that it
was Murtough O'Brian gave him his See-lands, and that it was Cormac Mac
Carthy, himself a King-bishop, who built the beautiful chapel on the Rock,
rather, however, as an episcopal oratory, than as a cathedral properly so
called.

Now to return to Cormac Mac Cullinan. He became King of Munster in the
year A.D. 900, when, as the _Annals of Ulster_ tell us, there was a
'change of kings' at Cashel, viz.: Cormac Mac Cullinan in the place of
Cenngegain, that is Finnguine--the former term was, it seems, a nick-name
of the previous king, who became unpopular and was deposed by the
tribesmen. Next year he was murdered, but it was by his own kinsmen.

There is no doubt that Cormac was, as we have said, a bishop at this
period. He was not Bishop of Emly, for the See was then filled. Neither
was he Bishop of Lismore, as some writers have asserted, for his namesake,
the Bishop of Lismore, lived until A.D. 1119. It is not necessary, indeed,
to assume that he had any See. Hitherto he seems to have been a man of
studious habits, as he certainly was a man of great learning. Being a
member of the royal family of Munster, it would, so to speak, be the
right thing to make him a bishop; but, in all probability, he spent most
of his time in retirement at Disert-Diarmada, and was no doubt reluctantly
called to the throne, as next in blood, by the revolution which deposed
his predecessor.

All our annalists agree in representing Cormac as both a pious and learned
prince; but we cannot call him either a great king or a great saint. That
he was a just man according to the ordinary standard, he gave proof soon
after his accession to the throne of Munster. The old rule of alternate
succession between the Eugenian and Dalcassian lines had, as the learned
Cormac was well aware, been scandalously violated. He resolved, so far as
he could, that justice should be done when his reign would come to an end.
Calling around him the chiefs both of Desmond and Thomond, he reminded
them of the ancient rule of alternate succession, and confessing that the
Eugenian line hitherto had enjoyed more than they were entitled to of the
sovereign power, he besought the princes of his own house to consent to
the succession of a Dalcassian prince to the throne of Munster. The
princes of Desmond listened in respectful silence, and pretended to assent
to the proposed arrangement, but afterwards declined to carry it out.

The seven years' reign of Cormac was full of stirring events. The first or
second year of his reign was marked by "the expulsion of the Gentiles from
Ireland, _i.e._, from the fortress of Ath-Cliath," as the _Annals of
Ulster_ express it. They had, for some years, been losing ground on the
eastern coasts, but at this period met with such a crushing disaster from
Cearbhall, King of Leinster, that all the foreigners fled from Dublin,
half-dead with terror, having left most of their ships behind them. It was
the beginning of the 'forty years' rest,' which poor Ireland then enjoyed
from their perpetual incursions. No doubt colonies of Danes still remained
in the great sea-port towns, which they had built; but they were too much
broken down by defeat to risk any new enterprises, and gladly confined
themselves within their walls, spending their time rather in trade and
commerce than, as hitherto, in war and rapine.

No sooner, however, did the native princes once more breath freely, than
they turned their arms against each other. Flann Sionna, son of
Maelsechnaill, was then King of Ireland. He had already reigned more than
twenty years as Ard-righ; and what is more wonderful still, he was
destined to reign sixteen years more, and, strangest of all, to die in
his bed. He was a restless and ambitious prince, and seems to have
inherited all the ancestral jealousy of the South of Ireland. In A.D. 904
he made a wanton raid into Ossory. Next year he led a hosting against
Munster, and in conjunction with Cearbhall, King of Leinster, he plundered
all the Golden Vale, from Gowran to Limerick. The men of Munster were now
fairly roused, and even the Bishop-king was put upon his mettle. He levied
a great army, and marched northwards to meet the troops of Flann and his
allies in a fair fight. The rival hosts met on the same field of Magh
Lena, which had witnessed the great battle between Conn the Hundred
Fighter, and Eoghan Mor. Once more it was North and South arrayed against
each other in fratricidal strife, whilst Danish colonies still held all
the ports of the kingdom. Of old the North was victorious at Magh Lena;
but now fortune favoured the men of Munster. Flann and his allies were
completely defeated, and driven off the field. Not content with this
victory, the King-bishop crossed the Shannon, and marching into the very
heart of Connaught defeated and plundered the Connacians, who were allies
of Flann. The hostages of the western provinces were carried off in
triumph, and the fleets of Munster sailing up from Killaloe plundered the
islands of Lough Ree.

So far no blame can be thrown on the King-bishop. He had merely defended
his own territories, and chastised the insolence of an aggressive foe. But
the victors were now grown wanton from success, and resolved to carry
their triumphant arms into Leinster, as they had already done into
Connaught. The pretext for this wanton invasion was the recovery of the
old Borrumean tribute, which, it was alleged, the Leinster men had not
paid for 200 years, and which the chiefs of Munster were now determined to
exact. Cormac was himself entirely opposed to this unjust war. He felt, no
doubt, that this alleged non-payment of the tribute was merely a pretext
for a war of conquest. But his subjects were full of confidence from
previous success; and, moreover, he was urged on to battle by his evil
genius, Flaithbeartach, abbot of Inniscathy, a member of the royal house
of Munster, and subsequently King of Cashel.

This restless ecclesiastic was the real author of all the evils that
followed. He seems to have been a headstrong and impetuous man, fond of
strife and prodigal of blood.

Cormac's greatest fault was weakly yielding against his own better
judgment to the counsels of this evil adviser, who urged him to prosecute
a war which Cormac in his own conscience believed to be unjust. The
Leinster King had sent an embassy to Cormac offering to submit the
questions at issue to the decision of a friendly conference--meantime
asking a cessation from arms, and offering to give as a hostage the abbot
of Cormac's own monastery of Disert-Diarmada. Cormac was willing to accept
these terms; but the abbot of Inniscathy spurned them and declared he
would alone fight the Leinster men. "Then," said Cormac, "I will not
desert you, but I feel the issue of this battle will be fatal to me and
mine." Thereupon he made his will, leaving rich gifts in gold and
vestments to many churches, and desiring that his body should be buried,
if possible, at Cloyne; if not, in Disert-Diarmada, where he was educated,
and had spent so many quiet and happy years before he was called to bear
the burden of a crown.

The battle was fought at Ballaghmoon, close to the ancient Campus Albus,
where the great Synod was held in A.D. 630 with reference to the Paschal
question. On this historic field the old quarrel of North against South
was once more to be fought out. Flann, the King of Erin, and Cathal, son
of Conor, King of Connaught, came to aid the King of Leinster with all
their forces. On the other side were, besides Cormac and his chiefs,
Ceallach, King of Ossory who, like Cormac himself, had suffered much from
Flann's previous incursions, and other subordinate kings. From the first
the tide of battle turned against the South. The gallant chieftains of
Leath-Mogha would not desert their king, but they had no stomach for the
fight. Ceallach of Ossory fled ingloriously from the field, and it is said
that one Munster prince, a friend of the king, turned his horse's head
from the foe, crying out bitterly, "It is a battle brought on by
clerics--let the clerics fight it out." Cormac's horse, it is said,
slipped in the blood pools, and fell upon his rider, who was thereupon
seized and beheaded by a soldier of the North, on a stone which is still
shown at Ballaghmoon. The nobles of the South fell thick around him, and
the White Field was made red with the blood of the men of Munster. Amongst
the slain were several abbots and other ecclesiastics who had followed the
King-bishop to the field, but Flaherty, abbot of Inniscathy, the author of
all the mischief, succeeded in effecting his escape.

The head of Cormac, after the battle, was carried by some soldiers to King
Flann, but he rebuked them for their brutality, and ordered the body of
his fallen foe to be sought for on the field of battle, and buried with
the head at Disert-Diarmada, which was not far from the fatal field.[448]

IV.--WRITINGS OF CORMAC MAC CULLINAN.

Cormac Mac Cullinan is described by the Four Masters "as a king, a bishop,
an anchorite, a scribe, and profoundly learned in the Scotic tongue." The
_Martyrology of Donegal_ adds that although he had been married to the
celebrated Gormlaith, daughter of Flann, his conqueror, he had always
lived a perfect virgin, sleeping covered only with his thin tunic, and
frequently immersed in cold water whilst chanting his psaltery. We,
however, are more concerned with the king's writings than with his
penances. Enough of his works still remain to prove the truth of the
Masters' statement, that he was profoundly versed in the Scotic tongue,
and we may add, not only in the language, but in the laws, the literature,
the history, and the antiquities of his native country.

Cormac's _Glossary_ is a work that is now well known to Irish scholars,
thanks to the diligent labour of John O'Donovan and of Dr. Whitley Stokes,
by whom it was translated and published in 1868. The book is now a rare
and dear one, but invaluable for a student of the Celtic language and
literature. It contains quotations from Latin authors, from Irish
chronicles, and from the poems of our native bards and ollaves. There are
also numerous references to the laws, romances, druidism, and mythology of
ancient Erin. From another point of view the work is interesting, not so
much for its philological learning, as because it shows the extent and
variety of the scholarship, cultivated in our Irish Schools during the
ninth century. As O'Curry says--"The author (of the Glossary) traces a
great many of the words, either by derivation from, or comparison with,
the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin, the British, and (as he calls it) the
Northmantic language, and it contains at least one Pictish
word--_Cartait_--almost the only word of the Pictish language that we
possess."[449] There is no work in any living European language that gives
such evident proof of high culture in the ninth century as this most
interesting monument of Celtic learning.

A second great work that has been usually attributed to Cormac is the
_Psalter of Caiseal_. O'Donovan in his learned Introduction to the _Book
of Rights_ explains, we think, very satisfactorily the conflicting
statements that have been made by Irish scholars with reference to this
famous compilation. Colgan and Keating, two eminent authorities, both
ascribe to Cormac Mac Cullinan the composition of that noble work,
"which," says Colgan, "has always been held in the highest estimation." On
the other hand, Connell Macgeoghegan, the translator of the _Annals of
Clonmacnoise_, ascribes it to Brian Boru, and that, too, in the most
formal language. Stranger still, Colgan himself, in another passage
attributes the famous Chronicle called the _Psalter of Caiseal_ to St.
Benignus, the favourite disciple of St. Patrick; but he cautiously adds
that Benignus began its composition--inchoavit et composuit--which can be
well reconciled with what he says of Cormac Mac Cullinan's share in the
work. In a word, Benignus began it, and made it suitable to his own time;
Cormac enlarged and perfected it, making all the necessary changes in
point of language and matter, which the lapse of 350 years imperatively
demanded; and finally, in the time of King Brian Boru it may, as
Macgeoghegan asserts, have been still further corrected and enlarged to
suit the needs of the time, and then formally approved of by that monarch,
as well as by his bishops and his nobles.

St. Benignus, though born in Meath, was of Munster origin. St. Patrick
sent him to preach especially in those districts which he did not himself
visit. Hence Benignus, we are told, went through Kerry and Corcomroe in
his missionary labours; but particularly devoted himself to Southwestern
Connaught, and built his chief church at Kilbannon, near Tuam. He also
specially blessed that province, the natives of which still affectionately
revere the memory of the gentle saint with the sweet voice and winning
gracious ways.

Now, when the Munstermen heard of the preference and the blessings which
Benignus gave to Galway, they were jealous, and complained that he
slighted his own kindred. So to please them, Benignus went down to
Caiseal, and remained there from Shrovetide to Easter, composing in his
own sweet numbers a learned book, which would immortalise the province of
his kinsmen, and be useful, moreover, both to her princes and to her
people.

Such was the beginning of the _Psalter of Caiseal_, the great Domesday
Book of the South, written in verse, and recording the sub-divisions of
the kingdom, the rights and privileges of its various sub-kings, the gifts
they were entitled to receive from the King of Caiseal, the boundaries of
their territories, and so forth. A portion of this primitive _Psalter of
Caiseal_ appears to have been embodied in the existing work, the
authorship of which, although not in its present form, has been rightly
attributed to the same St. Benignus.

Cormac Mac Cullinan in his own day undertook to re-edit this _Psalter of
Caiseal_, and no man was better qualified for the purpose, both by his
office and by his learning. In the accomplishing of his task he was
assisted by his secretary, Selbach, the Sage, a Munster poet, whom Colgan
describes as a man of singular piety and learning,[450] and also by Ængus,
another sage, of whom nothing else is known. Several poems have been
likewise attributed to Cormac, but their authenticity is very doubtful.

Colgan, Keating, and Sir James Ware all speak of the _Psalter of Caiseal_
as extant in their own time; but it has since unhappily disappeared,
although a very considerable fragment is contained in a MS. now in the
Bodleian Library of Oxford. That MS. was, O'Donovan tells us, transcribed
in A.D. 1453 for Mac Richard Butler, by Shane O'Cleary, doubtless a member
of the famous antiquarian family of that name. It contains several ancient
poems and other treatises which undoubtedly formed part of the _Psalter of
Caiseal_ as compiled by King Cormac.

Besides his share in the composition of the _Psalter of Caiseal_, Selbach,
Cormac's learned secretary, is also said to have been the author of a work
well known to Irish scholars as the _Naoimh-Senchus_, or poetical history
of the saints of Erin. It is one of the authorities which Michael O'Clery
constantly quotes in the _Martyrology of Donegal_; and Colgan expressly
attributes its authorship to Selbach the Sage, or, as he calls him in
Latin, Selvacius, and he frequently cites that work under his name.[451]
The _Naoimh-Senchus_ has also, but with less probability, been attributed
to Ængus Ceile De, of whom we have already spoken.

There is an excellent copy of this ancient poem in the _Book of
Leacan_;[452] there was another copy in the Burgundian Library of
Brussels, which is, we believe, now in the Franciscan Convent, Merchants'
Quay, Dublin.

CHAPTER XXIV--(_continued_).

OTHER DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS OF OUR GAEDHLIC SCHOOLS.

  "I'd rather turn one simple verse
    True to the Gaelic ear,
  Than classic odes I might rehearse
    With Senates list'ning near."
                              --_M'Gee._

I.--GAEDHLIC SCHOLARS OF THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH CENTURIES.

Besides Cennfaeladh and Cormac Mac Cullinan, there were from the sixth to
the seventh century at least twelve or thirteen other Gaedhlic writers,
whose names cannot be passed over without some notice in a work like this.
Our account of these writers, however, must necessarily be very brief, for
in many cases little or nothing is known of the history of their lives,
and to a great extent their writings are still unpublished. O'Curry[453]
and O'Reilly[454] are the two principal authorities in this part of our
subject.

The first on O'Curry's list is Amergin Mac Awley (Amalgaidh), the author
of the celebrated work known as the _Dinnsenchus_. This ancient and highly
interesting topographical poem was, it is said, compiled at Tara, so early
as the year A.D. 550, that is, during the reign of Diarmaid Mac
Cearbhaill, but it has certainly received some additions from later hands.

Amergin himself is described as chief poet of that monarch; but according
to O'Reilly, he must not be confounded with another Amergin Mac Awley, who
flourished towards the end of the seventh century, and was the author of
some law tracts, copies of which are still extant in the library of
Trinity College. The _Dinnsenchus_ has been recently published in _fac
simile_ by Professor Atkinson of Trinity College. The work is specially
interesting and valuable on account of the incidental historical
references, which it contains, and the topographical information which it
supplies. The stories themselves, though in many instances far-fetched and
improbable, are not without their value in illustrating the habits and
thoughts of our Celtic ancestors. Copies of this ancient tract are found
in the _Book of Leinster_, the _Book of Ballymote_, and there is also an
imperfect copy in the _Book of Leacan_, which shows the value that was set
upon it by our ancient scholars. The published _fac simile_ copy is taken
from the _Book of Leinster_.

Of Dallan Forgaill, who flourished towards the end of the sixth century,
we have already spoken in connection with the Columbian Schools. Besides
the _Amhra Cholumchille_, which is still extant, Dallan also composed an
_Amhra_, or Elegy, on the death of St. Senan, or Senanus, of Scattery
Island, in the estuary of the Shannon. He was recognised during his life
as chief poet of all Erin, and he appears to have been on terms of
friendly intimacy with Columcille. His death is said to have taken place
in A.D. 598, shortly after that of Columcille himself.

Senchan Torpeist, then a young poet of known talents, was called upon to
pronounce the usual bardic elegy on the death of the Chief Poet of Erin,
and acquitted himself so creditably that he was unanimously chosen to take
the vacant chair of Dallan Forgaill.[455] He was not insensible to the
responsibilities of his high office; and hence, according to the account
in the _Book of Leinster_, shortly after his acceptance of the post of
chief poet, he called a meeting of all the _Files_ of Erin in order that
they might take measures to recover the lost work known as the _Cuilmenn_,
and which, it appears, contained the only complete copy of the celebrated
historical tale known as the _Tain bo Chuailgne_. How it was recovered is
told in prose by O'Curry, and by Ferguson[456] in a poem of marvellous
imaginative power, which might have been fitly pronounced, if written in
Gaedhlic, by Senchan himself. Senchan flourished during the first half of
the seventh century, and though his travelling school was a large one, he
appears to have always found a welcome in the court of the King Guaire the
Hospitable, who dwelt at Durlus, near Gort, in the county Galway. O'Reilly
says that one of Senchan's poems, in which he celebrates the victories of
Fergus Mac Roy, is still extant in the _Book of Leacan_.

II.--GAEDHLIC SCHOLARS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES.

The ninth was more remarkable than the eighth century for Gaedhlic
scholars of distinction. Of these one of the most celebrated was Maelmura
of Fathan, called also Maelmura of Othan, for it is the same name when the
letter _F_ is aspirated and omitted as silent in the pronunciation.
Maelmura merely means servant of Mura, the patron saint of Fathan. The
parish of Fahan, which takes its name from St. Mura's ancient monastery
near the village, is situated on the eastern shore of Lough Swilly, under
the shadow of Slieve Snaght, the loftiest mountain of Inishowen. The death
of Maelmura is noticed by the Four Masters, A.D. 884, and he is described
as "a truly intelligent poet, and erudite historian in the Scotic
language." The Masters also quote a _rann_, which declares that--

  "There trod not the charming earth, there never flourished at affluent
        Tara,
  The great and fertile Erin never produced a man like the mild fine
        Maelmura;
  There sipped not death without sorrow, there mixed not a nobler face
        with the dead;