¹ documents (ff. 2-24) has been published by Gwynn, E. J. (Facsimiles Irish manuscripts, iii (Dublin, 1937); see p. iv).Google Scholar According to Lowe, E. (Codices Latini antiquiores, part 11 (Oxford, 1935), pp. 42 Google Scholar, 5 not one, but three contemporary hands wrote this MS about the ye 807; (a) Ferdomnach, ff. 20-104 and 213-221; (b) ff. 105-212; a (c) ff. 2-19. John Gwynn, who had spent many years studying the Bo of Armagh, was not of this opinion (op. cit., p. ci) : ‘ The Confessio written in the same hand as the Gospel [of St Matthew], and the ro of the book ‘. R. I. Best has kindly informed me that Ferdomnach u the scribe of the Confessio. For an analysis of the contents see Grosje, P. (Analecta Bollandiana, lxii (1944), 33–41).Google Scholar

² See Kenney, p. 338; J. Gwynn, op. cit., pp. xiv-xvi, cxiv, cxvi; cf. also Hyde, D., A literary history of Ireland (London, 1899), pp. 137–139.Google Scholar

³ See J. Gwynn, op. cit., p. 48. It was doubtless the presence of this scribal note that induced some former owner to erase the Ferdomnach entries and to pass this codex off as an autograph of Patrick. The book had come to be known as the Canóin Pátraicc; cf. Kenney, p. 339. It is much to be desired that these erasures, and those occurring in the Book of Durrow and other Irish MSS, should be submitted to ultra-violet rays. It is possible that by such treatment the Irish origin of the Book of Durrow could be firmly established against the endeavours of Lowe (op. cit., pp. 43, 53) and of others to claim it for Northumbria. There is no evidence whatever to show that this book ever left Ireland (cf. Kenney, PP. 630-1, and R. I. Best in Ériu, x (1928), 135-42). The often quoted colophon on f. 12b making mention of Patrick and of Columba has been shown by J. A. Bruun (Celtic illuminated manuscripts (1897), p. 46) ‘ to have been partly erased and re-written in later years'. This interesting discovery, which has escaped Lowe and his predecessors, Lindsay and Lawlor, has been recently confirmed by Bieler, L. (The life and legend of St Patrick (Dublin, 1949), p. 140).Google Scholar The fact was pointed out to me many years ago by R. I. Best.

⁴ Ludwig Bieler, Cf., Libri Sancti Patricii, pt I (Dublin, 1952), pp. 20–21, 25n :Google Scholar ‘Does this mean that Ferdomnach copied the text from the author's autograph? Most scholars have been reluctant to assert this, and with good reason … it was not Patrick's autograph … The colophon in D is not an ordinary scribal explicit. It is an iambic octonar, ith only one violation of prosody under the influence of prose accent (!). am inclined to regard it as a redactor's note, which was copied by rerdomnach from his exemplar. ¹ All this explains nothing. What does the writer mean by ‘ a redactor's note ? It seems strange to suppose that Ferdomnach or some previous scribe was attempting in this explicit to compose iambics. (For the accepted contractions for this MS (A, or LA) this editor substitutes D.)

⁵ Op. cit., pp. lxxix-lxxx. The italics are mine.

⁶ Newport J. D. White, Editiomajor, in R.I.A. Proc, xxv (1905), sect- C, p. 206. White's mathematical speculation has been borrowed by L. Bieler (op. cit., pt. 1, pp. 18-19), but with the same negative result.

⁷ Op. cit., p. lxxx. It is well to bear in mind that Ferdomnach was a faithful transcriber of what was before him. Instead of trying to correct Patrick's obvious blunders, he actually drew attention to them in his margins.

⁸ Op. cit., p. xciii.

⁹ I have met with but two modern scholars who would seem to attach some credence to Ferdomnach's words : Douglas Hyde writes ﹛Literary history of Ireland, p. 139) : ‘ It would appear highly probable that Ferdomnach actually copied from St Patrick's autograph, which had become defaced or faded during the three previous centuries … the omitted passages were probably omitted because they were undecipherable \ This explanation is contradicted by the fact that the scribe in his marginal annotations has made no reference whatever to these lacunae. We must conclude that the exemplar was neither defaced nor mutilated. In the words of Newport White ﹛Editio major, pp. 206-7) : ‘ The note at the end [of A] cannot be pressed as proof that Ferdomnach had before him the actual autograph, since it might have been merely repeated from a copy of the autograph. But all the facts can be explained by the supposition that we have in the Book of Armagh all that remained of the autograph, or what was thought to be the autograph, in the year 807 … The marginal notes incertus liber and z (however explained) certainly support the theory that Ferdomnach's exemplar was a very old one … the proofs drawn from the manuscript itself in support of the view that the Confessio is deliberately abridged in A cannot be pressed. ¹

¹⁰ Sources, i. 167: * There are several large gaps in the LA copy, the oldest, of the Confession. White suggests that some leaves of the exemplar had been lost. If so, the Epistle may also have disappeared. It is not copied, but the title, ‘ Incipiunt libri sancti Patricii episcopi' prefixed to the Confession, indicates that the Epistle had also formed part of the exemplar. Bury and Gwynn believed that the scribe of LA omitted sections of his text. It is much more probable that, if omissions were deliberately made, they were due to the scribe of the exemplar. That seems to have been a very old text which, though in reality a poor copy, had come to be regarded as an autograph of Patricius.’ There is no mention of Ferdomnach's colophon. White did not consider the Armagh text as ‘a poor copy'. Quite the contrary : ‘ Apart from its blunders and peculiarities, the text of A is the best’ (Editio minor (London, 1918), p. 2).Google Scholar

¹¹ O'Rahilly, T. F., The two Patricks (Dublin, 1942), pp. 13, 52 Google Scholar; P. Grosjean, numerous articles in Analecta Bollandiana.

¹² O'Rahilly, op. eft., p. 13.

¹³ 1 have found White's work (Editio major and Editio minor) more satisfactory—at least for the purpose of the present enquiry—than the recent edition ( Libri epistolarum Sancti Patricii Episcopi by Bieler, Ludwig, pt 1, Dublin, 1952 Google Scholar). In the new edition White's simple and clearly recorded critical apparatus has been complicated and confused by the changing of White's symbols for the MSS and by the introduction a* Greek letters to represent groups. Nothing appears to have been gained by this’ device, and it is not easy to see why the text should have been printed with large gaps and mysterious hyphens. There are certain numerals and Greek letters scattered profusely in the margins without any apparent attempt to explain the meaning of their presence there. ** cannot be claimed that this publication supersedes the work of jNewport White. The second volume (Dublin, 1952) contains a valuable linguistic commentary, and here the editor's training as a classical scholar is seen to advantage. In both volumes there is a tendency to overload the pages with erudition, at times pedantic, and the absence of satis factory indexes makes it difficult to consult this ponderous work, the high cost of which places it beyond the reach of ordinary students. In the latter respect White's Editto minor is a masterly achievement. For the price of sixpence net we have a concise introduction, an almost perfect text based on all the known MSS, complete Biblical references and a most judicious selection of various readings. A companion volume (for the same price) gives us an admirable English translation.

¹⁴ Op. cit., i. 167.

¹⁵ Quoted above, p. 4.

¹⁶ The recent editor, L. Bieler, furnishes a useful list of these marginal notes, and adds the comment: * if these readings were found in Ferdomnach's exemplar, it was not Patrick's autograph ‘ (op. cit., i. 20-21). It seems to me that if Ferdomnach had transmitted to us a text of the Confessio free from faults and written in correct Ciceronian Latinity, I, for one, should have been ready to accept Julius von Pflugk- Harttung's thesis that the two Patrician documents were of a much later epoch, and that the Book of Armagh was, in fact, to be regarded as ’ Irland's pseudo-isidorische Fdlschung ‘ (Neue Heidelberger Jahrbucher, in, Heft i (1893), 71-87).

¹⁷ See on Latinity, Patrick's, Rogers, M., U enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone à Alcuin (Paris, 1905), pp. 218–22;Google Scholar Journal of Theological Studies, xix (1918), 342-6Google Scholar, and Hermathena, XX (1929), 229-30. Reference may also be made to Dr Bieler's recent article (Vigiliae Christianae, vi (1952), 65-98).

¹⁸ Editio major, p. 208. It may well be that Patrick's handwriting was not always easily legible, and that Ferdomnach's * incertus liber hie ‘ refers to this difficulty- We cannot tell what type of script was used by Patrick in his autograph. Dr R. I. Best suggests that it may perhaps have been Traube's quarter uncial.

¹⁹ These passages have been printed consecutively by Gwynn, op. cit., pp. 466-8. They have been very conveniently indicated by the use of a special symbol in Newport White's Editio minor. It is a curious fact that these additions occur in the second half of the Confessio. There is nothing in any of these passages to disprove the conjecture that they are additions inserted later in a revised version.

²⁰ Editto major, p. 207. For the passages added by Patrick in his revised version, see chapters 26-29, 32-34, 35, 36-37, 42-53, 55, 56-61.

²¹ L. Bieler, op. cit., pp. 19, 39. I confess that the allusion to ‘ pre-Romance ‘ Latin in Ireland has somewhat puzzled me. At times this writer fails to make his meaning perfectly clear, but we must not forget that he is using a foreign tongue. In a recent article ﹛I.E.R., Mar. 1953, p. 185) Dr Bieler would seem to imply that St Patrick was an Austrian!

²² Editio major, pp. 317-318.

²³ Op. cit., p. 40. It is a remarkable fact that Patrick of Armagh (O'Rahilly's second Patrick) never refers in his Confessio to the work accomplished by his namesake and predecessor, Palladius-Patrick.

²⁴ It is well to point out, however, that not a few of those spellings classed as ‘ Hiberno-Latin ‘ can be seen in MSS that have no connexion whatsoever with Ireland.

²⁵ R.I.A.Proc, xxxiii (1916), sect. C, pp. 248, 253-6, 329, 397; see also Kenney, i. 629-30. Lowe (op. cit., ii. 41, 52), while observing that the legendary story of the Cathach is discredited by historians, admits that the early date for the MS is palaeographically possible and adopts it.

²⁶ Gougaud, Cf. L., Christianity in Celtic Lands (London, 1932), pp. 133-6.Google Scholar Lawlor notes more than 250 errors in the Cathach.

²⁷ If, as Bury assumed, the Confessio was intended for British or even Gallic readers, it was natural that Patrick should have written it in Latin. Other scholars (White, Kenney), however, believe that Patrick was addressing himself to his followers in Ireland. In this case the fact that he wrote in Latin, and not in Irish with which he was well acquainted, would prove that knowledge of Latin must have been already widespread in Ireland in the second half of the fifth century (cf. Hermathena, xx, 229). It is of course possible that Irish had not yet at that early date become a written language. This point does not seem to have been hitherto raised. The personal history of Patrick is enveloped in mystery. Certain ancient sources have equated him with Pelagius or with Palladius. In modern times Plummer and Zimmer have denied his very existence. O'Rahilly argues brilliantly for two Patricks and it has even been suggested that there were three. A great Celtic scholar claimed that there were two Palladius's. Paul Grosjean, however, will have none of this and remains an incorruptible monopatrician and monopalladian.