Nevertheless the palls came. They were brought to Ireland by a legate specially commissioned by Pope Eugenius III., John Paparo, cardinal priest of St. Laurence. A synod was held at Kells to receive them in March 1152,[91] of which the joint presidents were Paparo, as legatus a latere, and Christian, first abbot of Mellifont, and now bishop of Lismore, who had lately succeeded Malachy as legatus natus.

Of this synod Keating gives a short account, abridged from the Annals of Clonenagh,[92] from which he had also derived his knowledge of the proceedings at Rathbreasail. He preserves a list of the bishops who attended. It includes twenty-two names, if we count two vicars who represented absent bishops. There were besides, as Keating informs us, five bishops-elect. And there was certainly one bishop of a diocese who was neither present nor represented, Edan O'Kelly, bishop of Oriel. So it appears that in 1152 there were at least twenty-eight dioceses in Ireland—a number considerably larger than was contemplated at Rathbreasail. The increase in number is partly accounted for by the presence of the bishop of the recently formed diocese of Kilmore, the division of the diocese of Connor into Connor and Down, and, a most striking addition, the inclusion of Gregory, bishop of Dublin, among the assembled prelates. It is remarkable that the bishop of Kells is not mentioned, though the synod was held in his own city. How was the bishop of Dublin induced to throw in his lot with the Irish Church? We shall see in a moment.

Much business was transacted at this Synod. But that which concerns us most nearly is the giving of the palls. Cardinal Paparo brought the Irish bishops more than they had asked for; more indeed than they desired. He presented, not two palls but four, Dublin and Tuam, as well as Armagh and Cashel, being recognized as archiepiscopal sees. This excessive generosity caused much displeasure among the Irish bishops. "For Ireland," says Keating, apparently paraphrasing the Annals of Clonenagh, "thought it enough to have a pall in the church of Armagh and a pall in Cashel; and particularly it was in spite of the church of Armagh and the church of Down that the other palls were given." The cause of this discontent is not far to seek. The chief gravamen no doubt was that Dublin was included among the four. The constant friction which had subsisted for many years between the diocese of Dublin and the Irish Church sufficiently explains the indignation of the archbishop of Armagh, aggravated by the fact that the creation of new archbishops imposed a limit upon his authority. It also enables us to understand why his displeasure was shared by the Irish generally. That a see whose bishops had behaved so haughtily in the past should, at the very moment of its entrance into the Irish Church, receive so signal an honour, long denied to Armagh and Cashel, and that in the person of its bishop it should be given jurisdiction over bishops whom till now it had treated with contempt, could not but be regarded as unreasonable, or even insulting. But on the other hand, recalling the early history of the Church in Dublin, we can comprehend why, in spite of all this, special favour was bestowed upon it. Dublin, as we have seen, was a not too submissive suffragan of Canterbury. Its ambition was that its bishop should have the status of a metropolitan. The opportunity had come for gratifying its desire, and at the same time bringing it under the Irish ecclesiastical regime. The pall at once separated it from Canterbury and united it with Ireland. It was the price paid for its submission to the Primacy of Armagh. Gregory therefore became archbishop of Dublin, and had the right—which his predecessor had long before illegally assumed—to have the cross carried before him. With the gift of the pall Paparo bestowed upon him "the principal part of the bishopric of Glendalough as his diocese," promising him the remainder on the death of the bishop who then ruled it. All this was done, we are told, because it was fitting that the place "in which from ancient time had been the royal seat and head of Ireland," should be made a metropolitan see.[93]

There was at last one Church in Ireland, which embraced within it not only the Celtic parts of the island, but all the Danish dioceses as well. And the whole Church was ruled by the bishops. The Reformation may not have been complete in every detail—there was indeed much left for the Anglo-Normans to do—but the Synod of Kells had set the crown on the work of the Irish reformers. And this consummation was mainly due to the wisdom and the untiring zeal of St. Malachy of Armagh.

* * * * *

A few words more will suffice to complete this too lengthy introduction. The Life of Malachy was certainly written before the Synod of Kells met in March 1152; for Christian, who attended the Synod as bishop of Lismore, is spoken of in the Life as abbot of Mellifont.[94] Its earliest possible date is a couple of months after Malachy's death. The ignorance displayed in Sec. 69[95] of the movements of the Pope in 1148 is so inexplicable on the assumption of a later date that it may be assigned to January 1149.[96] In the following translation the text printed by de Backer[97] is used, with the exception of a few sentences which have been emended. It does not differ to any great extent from that of Mabillon.[98] Following de Backer I have divided the text into chapters, in accordance with the MSS.; but Mabillon's sections have been retained, as more convenient for reference, the numbers of de Backer's sections being added within brackets.

By way of illustration four letters of St. Bernard and his two sermons on St. Malachy have been added. They are translated from Mabillon's edition,[99] with some corrections. The dates of these documents are discussed below.[100]

St. Bernard's numerous quotations from the Bible and other sources are printed in italics, so far as I have recognized them. The scriptural allusions are given as nearly as possible in the words of the Authorized (in the Apocryphal books the Revised) Version, though at times they do not agree with the Vulgate Latin. Where it has been found necessary to depart from their renderings, the symbol "vg." follows the references in the footnotes.

I desire to make grateful acknowledgement of help received from my friends, of whom I must specially mention Dr. L. C. Purser, Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin, Mr. R. I. Best, the Rev. J. E. L. Oulton, the Rev. Dr. J. M. Harden and the Rev. Canon C. P. Price. My wife assisted me in the preparation of the index.

St. Patrick's Day, 1920.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Life, Secs. 6 (end), 7, 16, 17, 39 with notes, and Additional Note A.

[2] E.g. in the doctrine of the Eucharist and of Baptism. See Life, Sec. 57, and Lanfranc's letter to Donnell in Ussher, 495; P.L. cl. 532.

[3] See p. 46, note 1, and Additional Note B.

[4] Life, Sec. 19.

[5] R. King, Memoir Introductory to the Early History of the Primacy of Armagh, 1854, p. 22.

[6] See Lawlor, Psalter and Martyrology of Ricemarch, vol. i., pp. ix-xii.

[7] MS. A. 4. 20.

[8] MS. 199.

[9] Cotton MS. Faustina, C. 1, f. 66.

[10] Lawlor, op. cit., pp. xii.-xvii.

[11] Lanigan, vol. iii. p. 446; vol. iv. pp. 2-8; Reeves, On Marianus Scotus, extracted from the Natural History Review and Quarterly Journal of Science, July, 1860. B. MacCarthy, The Codex Palatino-Vaticanus, No. 830, 1892, pp. 4 ff.

[12] Below, p. 18, note 6.

[13] See below, p. 47, note 3.

[14] p. 73.

[15] Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. J. R. H. Weaver, 1908, p. 16.

[16] p. 18, note 6.

[17] p. 47, note 3, p. 73, note 1. I can name only three bishops of Danish sees who were apparently of Danish extraction; and they all lived at a time when the Reformation was far advanced. They are Erolbh (Erulf?), bishop of Limerick, who died in 1151, and Tostius of Waterford and Turgesius of Limerick, who were in office in 1152. A.F.M. 1151, and Annals of Clonenagh quoted in Keating, iii. 317.

[18] Ussher, 491.

[19] Ware, Bishops, ed. Harris, p. 309; Eadmer, p. 73.

[20] Ussher, 518; and below, Life, Sec. 8.

[21] See p. 47, note 3.

[22] 1115. Eadmer, p. 236. Gougaud (p. 358) infers from this passage that Limerick was at that time a suffragan see of Canterbury. But this seems impossible in view of Gilbert's share in the proceedings of the Synod of Rathbreasail five years earlier. Eadmer is not a very good witness in such matters, and his language is hardly decisive for two reasons. (1) It is not clear that he includes Gilbert among the suffragans who co-operated in the consecration: "Huic consecrationi interfuerunt et cooperatores extiterunt suffraganei ecclesiae Cantuariensis, episcopi videlicet hi, Willelmus Wintoniensis, Robertus Lincoliensis, Rogerus Serberiensis, Johannes Bathoniensis, Urbanus Glamorgatensis, Gislebertus Lumniensis de Hibernia." (2) The word "suffragan" is often used as meaning merely an assistant bishop. Thus in the fifteenth century several bishops of Dromore were "suffragans" of the archbishop of York; but Dromore was certainly not regarded as one of his suffragan sees.

[23] Ussher, 532.

[24] See p. xxxvi.

[25] Ussher, 567; Beati Lanfranci Opera, ed. J. A. Giles, Oxon., 1844, vol. i. p. 24.

[26] See Ussher, 490-497; P.L. cl. 532, 535, 536. This Donnell was probably Donnell O'Heney (Ua hEnna), a Munster bishop who died in 1098 (A. U.).

[27] Ussher, 515-519. The letter to Donnell is also in P.L. clix. 262.

[28] Ussher, 520-527; P.L. clix. 173, 178, 243.

[29] Miscellany of Irish Archaelogical Society, vol. i. (1846), p. 136.

[30] Wilkins, Concilia, i. 547. In the form in which Rochfort quotes it the ordinance applies to the whole of Ireland. But we have no evidence of the transformation of dioceses into deaneries outside Meath; and it is quite probable that a synod held in Meath would have in view, in such a decree, only the conditions which prevailed in that district.

[31] The deanery of Dunshaughlin is now named Ratoath. The deanery of Kells has been divided into Upper and Lower Kells.

[32] The cogency of this argument is enhanced when we observe that there is strong independent evidence for the existence in the twelfth century of one of the six dioceses—the diocese of Kells. (a) Up to the latter part of the sixteenth century (1583) there was an archdeacon of Kells, as well as an archdeacon of Meath; the jurisdiction of an archdeacon (at any rate in Ireland) seems to have been always originally co-extensive with a diocese. The first known archdeacon of Kells was Adam Petit who was in office in 1230 (R.T.A. 279; C.M.A. i. 101); but it is unlikely that he had no predecessors. (b) Among the prelates who greeted Henry II. at Dublin in 1171 was Thaddaeus, bishop of Kells (Benedict of Peterborough (R. S.), i. 26). (c) In the time of Innocent III. (1198-1216) the question was raised in the papal curia whether the bishop of Kells was subject to the archbishop of Armagh or the archbishop of Tuam (Theiner, p. 2). (d) The bishop of Kells is mentioned in a document of the year 1202 (Cal. of Docts. Ireland, i. 168). (e) A contemporary note records the suppression of the bishopric: "When a Cistercian monk ... had been elected and consecrated bishop of Kells by the common consent of the clergy and people, and had been confirmed by the Pope, the impudent bishop of Meath cast him out with violence and dared to [add] his bishopric to his own" (C.M.A. ii. 22). This statement implies that the dispossessed bishop ruled over a diocese. Moreover, when we remember that the see was certainly suppressed before Rochfort's Synod of 1216, that Rochfort was the first person who assumed the title "bishop of Meath" in the modern sense, and that a bishop of Kells died in 1211 (A.L.C.), we need not hesitate to conclude that the "impudent bishop" was Rochfort himself, and that the suppression was accomplished about 1213.

[33] I.e. dioceses. This synod is mentioned in A.T., A.I. and the Annals of Boyle. Particulars of its Acts and of the persons present at it are given in C.S. and D.A.I. C.S. has "parish" in the singular. But this does not seem to yield good sense; for the whole extent of the kingdom of Meath could scarcely have been called a "parish" in the twelfth century. I therefore read "parishes." The singular may have been substituted for the plural at a later time, when the kingdom (or the greater part of it) included only the dioceses of Meath and Clonmacnoise, and their earlier history was forgotten. Cp. the unhistorical statement of St. Bernard about Down and Connor in Life, Sec. 31. D.A.I. have an anomalous form (faircheadh), which may have come from either the singular (fairche) or the plural (faircheadha) in the exemplar, but more probably from the latter.

[34] p. xxiv. f.

[35] See p. 47, note 3.

[36] Ussher, 513.

[37] A small portion of the present diocese of Limerick lies north of the Shannon.

[38] Ussher, 501 ff.; P.L. clix. 995.

[39] See p. 65, note 1.

[40] See Additional Note B, pp. 164, 166. The events of Cellach's life are gathered from A. U.

[41] Life, Sec. 19.

[42] See MacCarthy's Note in A. U. 1101.

[43] A.F.M., Keating, iii. 297. Keating seems to confuse the events of 1101 with those of 1106.

[44] Life, Sec. 33.

[45] See p. 18, note 6.

[46] See next page.

[47] Keating, iii. 299 ff. The date is there misprinted 1100.

[48] I formerly disputed this identification, on the ground that the archbishop of Cashel who was present at Fiadh meic Oengusa was O'Dunan (G. T. Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church, ed. 6, 1907, p. 372). I am now convinced that he was archbishop of Cashel. I was not then aware that all MSS. of Keating date the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110.

[49] On p. 298 read no (or) for is (and) before Dun da Leathghlas; and on p. 306 chathar for chuigear ar fhichid (i.e. twenty-four for twenty-five). On p. 306 a portion of the note on the Leinster diocese has evidently dropped out, which should be restored to bring it into conformity with the corresponding passage on p. 302.

[50] H.E. i. 29.

[51] I.e. diocese.

[52] The parish (using the word in its modern sense) in which is Newtown Stewart, co. Derry.

[53] Ramsay, Paul the Traveller (1907), p. 173.

[54] Some changes of phraseology might have been made here and elsewhere if Professor MacNeill's Phases of Irish History (1919) had come into my hands before this volume went to press. But they would not have affected the argument.

[55] See Irish Church Quarterly, vol. x. p. 234.

[56] Agus is e teampull Muire i Luimneach a priomheaglais.

[57] When Cardinal Paparo came to Ireland in 1151 he found "a see constituted at Dublin in the diocese of Glendalough."—Crede Mihi (ed. Gilbert), p. 11.

[58] Ussher, 488 (P.L. cl. 534), 564.

[59] Ibid. 528, 530; P.L. clix. 109, 216.

[60] See p. 20, note 3.

[61] See p. xxii.

[62] See p. 18, note 6.

[63] See above, p. xxviii.

[64] There was a bishop of Breifne (i.e. Kilmore) in 1136 (A.T.).

[65] R.T.A. p. 269.

[66] Ibid. p. 259.

[67] Ibid. p. 241.

[68] Cal. of Papal Letters, v. 75. For date see Cal. of Documents, Ireland, i. 168.

[69] See p. xxviii, note 1.

[70] R.T.A. p. 71.

[71] Life, Secs. 4-7.

[72] Life, Secs. 8 f., and p. 21, note 1.

[73] See Life, Sec. 12, and p. 27, note 1.

[74] See Life, Sec. 16, and notes.

[75] p. 33, note 1.

[76] Life, Secs. 16, 17.

[77] See Life, Sec. 9, and notes.

[78] Life, Sec. 18.

[79] Ibid. Sec. 19.

[80] See p. xv, and Additional Note B.

[81] Life, Secs. 20-31, with notes, and Additional Note C.

[82] Secs. 31, 32.

[83] See Life, Sec. 34 and notes.

[84] For a fuller account of the beginnings of the diocese of Clogher see L.A.J. vol. iv. pp. 129-159. To the reasons there given for believing that Christian transferred the see from Clogher to Louth should be added the fact that in Tundale (p. 54) he is called Lugdunensis episcopus.

[85] Life, Secs. 33, 34.

[86] Ibid. Secs. 35-41. The reader may be reminded, however, that the two visits of Malachy to Clairvaux, in the course of this journey, produced the friendship between him and St. Bernard, which had its twofold issue in the composition of the important documents included in this volume, and the introduction of the Cistercian Order into Ireland.

[87] Life, Sec. 38.

[88] Sec. 51.

[89] Sec. 47.

[90] Life, Secs. 67-75.

[91] There was no unnecessary delay on the part of the Pope in sending the palls. After the death of Malachy a deputation was sent from Ireland to Rome to demand them. Paparo set out to confer them, and reached England in 1150; but King Stephen would not allow him to proceed to Ireland except on terms which he could not accept. (John of Hexham, p. 326; Historia Pontificalis in M.G.H. xx. 539 f.)

[92] Vol. iii. p. 313 ff.

[93] See Letter of Pope Innocent III. to Henry of London, 6 Oct. 1216, in Crede Mihi (ed. Gilbert), p. 11.

[94] Secs. 14, 52.

[95] See p. 122, note 1.

[96] Cp. R.I.A. xxxv. 258 ff. This conclusion is corroborated by Tundale's Vision, which seems to have been written early in 1149 (see Friedel and Meyer, La Vision de Tondale, 1907, pp. vi-xii; Rev. Celt. xxviii. 411). The writer speaks of the Life of Malachy as already written, and in course of transcription (Tundale, p. 5, 'cuius uitam ... Bernhardus ... transscribit'). He may have derived his erroneous statement (ibid.) that Pope Eugenius went to Rome in the year of Malachy's death from St. Bernard: see p. 122, note 1.

[97] AA.SS., Nov., xii. 1., 143-146.

[98] Sancti Bernardi Abbatis Clarae-vallensis Opera Omnia, ed. J. Mabillon, 1839, vol. i. 2, cols. 1465-1524. Reprinted P.L. clxxxii. 1073-1118.

[99] Op. cit. i. 2, 2221-2231; i. 1, 341, 356, 357, 374; reprinted in P.L. clxxxiii. 481-490; clxxxii. 545 f., 558 f., 579 f.

[100] See notes on pp. 131, 133 f., 137, 141, 157.



THE LIFE OF ST. MALACHY



PREFACE

1. It is indeed always worth while to portray the illustrious lives of the saints, that they may serve as a mirror and an example, and give, as it were, a relish to the life of men on earth. For by this means in some sort they live among us, even after death,[101] and many of those who are dead while they live[102] are challenged and recalled by them to true life. But now especially is there need for it because holiness is rare, and it is plain that our age is lacking in men. So greatly, in truth, do we perceive that lack to have increased in our day that none can doubt that we are smitten by that saying, Because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold;[103] and, as I suppose, he has come or is at hand of whom it is written, Want shall go before his face.[104] If I mistake not, Antichrist is he whom famine and sterility of all good both precedes and accompanies. Whether therefore it is the herald of one now present or the harbinger of one who shall come immediately, the want is evident. I speak not of the crowd, I speak not of the vile multitude of the children of this world:[105] I would have you lift up your eyes upon the very pillars[106] of the Church. Whom can you show me, even of the number of those who seem to be given for a light to the Gentiles,[107] that in his lofty station is not rather a smoking wick than a blazing lamp? And, says One, if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness![108] Unless perchance, which I do not believe, you will say that they shine who suppose that gain is godliness;[109] who in the Lord's inheritance seek not the things which are the Lord's, but rather their own.[110] Why do I say their own? He would be perfect and holy, even while he seeks his own and retains his own, who should restrain his heart and hands from the things of others. But let him remember, who seems to himself to have advanced perhaps thus far, that the same degree of holiness is demanded even of a gentile.[111] Are not soldiers bidden to be content with their wages that they may be saved?[112] But it is a great thing for a doctor of the Church if he be as one of the soldiers; or, if, in truth (as the prophet speaks to their reproach), it be as with the people so with the priest.[113] Hideous! Is it so indeed? Is he rightly to be esteemed highest who, falling from the highest rank can scarce cleave to the lowest, that he be not engulfed in the abyss? Yet how rare is even such a man among the clergy! Whom, likewise, do you give me who is content with necessaries, who despises superfluities? Yet the law has been enjoined beforehand by the Apostles on the successors of the Apostles, Having food and raiment, let us be therewith content.[114] Where is this rule? We see it in books, but not in men. But you have [the saying] about the righteous man, that the law of his God is in his heart,[115] not in a codex. Nor is that the standard of perfection. The perfect man is ready to forgo even necessaries. But that is beside the mark.[116] Would that some limit were set on superfluous things! Would that our desires were not infinite! But what? Perhaps you might find one who can achieve this. It would indeed be difficult; but [if we find him] see what we have done. We were seeking for a very good man, a deliverer of many; and lo, we have labour to discover one who can save himself. The very good man to-day is one who is not utterly bad.

2. Wherefore, since the godly man has ceased[117] from the earth, it seems to me that I do not employ myself to no purpose when I recall to our midst, from among those who were redeemed from the earth,[118] Bishop Malachy, a man truly holy, and a man, too, of our own time, of singular wisdom and virtue. He was a burning and a shining light;[119] and it has not been quenched, but only removed. Who would with good right be angry with me if I move it back again? Yes indeed, neither the men of my own age, nor any succeeding generation should be wanting in gratitude to me if by my pen I recall one whom the course of nature has borne away; if I restore to the world one of whom the world was not worthy;[120] if I preserve for the memory of men one whose memory may be blessed[121] to all who shall deign to read; if while I rouse my sleeping friend, the voice of the turtle be heard in our land[122] saying, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.[123] Then again, he was buried among us;[124] this duty is eminently ours. Nay, is it not mine, inasmuch as that holy man included me among his special friends, and in such regard that I may believe that I was second to none in that respect of glory?[125] Nor do I find that intercourse with holiness so eminent misses its reward; I have already received the first-fruits. He was near the end; nay, rather, near the beginning, according to the saying, when a man hath finished then is he but at the beginning.[126] I ran to him that the blessing of him that was ready to die might come upon me.[127] Already he could not move his other limbs; but, mighty to give blessing, he raised his hands upon my head and blessed me.[128] I have inherited the blessing;[129] how then can I be silent about him? Finally, you enjoin me to undertake this task, Abbot Congan,[130] my reverend brother and sweet friend, and with you also (as you write from Ireland) all that Church of the saints[131] to which you belong.[132] I obey with a will, the more so because you ask not panegyric but narrative. I shall endeavour that it may be chaste and clear, informing the devout, and not wearying the fastidious. At any rate the truth of my narrative is assured, since it has been communicated by you;[133] and beyond doubt you assert nothing but things of which you have most certain information.

Here ends the Prologue.

FOOTNOTES:

[101] Ecclus. xlviii. 12 (vg.).

[102] 1 Tim. v. 6. Cp. Rev. iii. 1.

[103] Matt. xxiv. 12.

[104] Job xli. 22 (vg.).

[105] Luke xvi. 8.

[106] Gal. ii. 9.

[107] Isa. xlix. 6.

[108] Matt. vi. 23.

[109] 1 Tim. vi. 5.

[110] Phil. ii. 21; 1 Cor. xiii. 5.

[111] Cp. Matt. v. 47.

[112] Luke iii. 14.

[113] Isa. xxiv. 2; Hos. iv. 9 (inexact quotation).

[114] 1 Tim. vi. 8 (inexact quotation).

[115] Ps. xxxvii. 31.

[116] Gratis.

[117] Ps. xii. 1.

[118] Rev. xiv. 3.

[119] John v. 35.

[120] Heb. xi. 38.

[121] Ecclus. xlv. 1.

[122] Cant. ii. 12. For the meaning compare Cant. lix. 3: The voice of the turtle "is a sign that winter is past, proclaiming nevertheless that the time of pruning has come.... The voice, more like one who groans than one who sings, admonishes us of our pilgrimage." After Eugenius III. had visited Clairvaux St. Bernard wrote, "The voice of the turtle has been heard in our chapter. We had great joy and delight." (Ep. 273.)

[123] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[124] That is, at Clairvaux. See Sec. 75.

[125] Apparently a confused reference to 2 Cor. iii. 10; xi. 17 (vg.).

[126] Ecclus. xviii. 7 (inexact quotation).

[127] Job xxix. 13.

[128] See Sec. 73, end.

[129] 1 Pet. iii. 9.

[130] This abbot, to whom the Life is dedicated, belonged to the Cistercian Order, as the words "reverend brother" imply. He may therefore be identified with Congan, abbot of the Cistercian monastery of the Suir, mentioned in Sec. 64. That he was personally known to St. Bernard is clear; and it is probable that he was one of the Irishmen who by Malachy's desire were instructed at Clairvaux (Sec. 39). Thady Dowling (Annals, s.a. 1147) identifies him with "Cogganus," abbot of Killeshin, near Carlow, stating on the authority of Nicholas Maguire that he wrote the gesta of Malachy and Bernard. Though this statement is probably not accurate, it is possible that our Congan was abbot of Killeshin before he became a Cistercian.

[131] Ecclus. xxxi. 11 (vg.).

[132] Vestra illa omnis ecclesia sanctorum. We should perhaps render, "the whole church of holy persons over which you preside," i.e. Congan's convent. Elsewhere in the Life, ecclesia is used for a local community, such as the church of Armagh (Sec. 20, etc). But see Serm. i. Sec. 3. Vacandard understands the phrase to mean "the Cistercian communities of Ireland" (R.Q.H. lii. 48).

[133] Vobis (pl.); i.e. Congan and others in Ireland.



Here begins the life of Malachy the Bishop

CHAPTER I

The early life of Malachy. Having been admitted to Holy Orders he associates with Malchus

[Sidenote: 1095.]

1. Our Malachy, born in Ireland,[134] of a barbarous people, was brought up there, and there received his education. But from the barbarism of his birth he contracted no taint, any more than the fishes of the sea from their native salt. But how delightful to reflect, that uncultured barbarism should have produced for us so worthy[135] a fellow-citizen with the saints and member of the household of God.[136] He who brings honey out of the rock and oil out of the flinty rock[137] Himself did this. His parents,[138] however, were great both by descent and in power, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth.[139] Moreover his mother,[140] more noble in mind than in blood, took pains, in the very beginning of his ways,[141] to show to her child the ways of life,[142] esteeming this knowledge of more value to him than the empty knowledge of the learning of this world. For both, however, he had aptitude in proportion to his age. In the schools he was taught learning, at home the fear of the Lord,[143] and by daily progress he duly responded to both teacher and mother.[144] For indeed he was endowed from the first with a good spirit,[145] in virtue of which he was a docile boy and very lovable, wonderfully gracious to all in all things. But he was [now] drinking, instead of milk from the breast of a mother, the waters of saving wisdom,[146] and day by day he was increasing in discretion. In discretion, shall I say, or in holiness? If I say both, I shall not regret it, for I should say the truth.[147] He behaved as an old man, a boy in years without a boy's playfulness. And when because of this he was regarded with reverence and astonishment by all, he was not found on that account, as commonly happens, more arrogant, but rather quiet and subdued in all meekness.[148] Not impatient of rule, not shunning discipline, not averse from reading, not, therefore, eager for games—so especially dear to the heart of boys of that age. And he advanced beyond all of his own age[149] in that learning, at least, which suited his years. For in discipline of morals and advance in virtues in a short time he even outshone all his instructors.[150] His unction,[151] however, rather than his mother, was his teacher. Urged by it he exercised himself not slothfully also in divine things, to seek solitude, to anticipate vigils,[152] to meditate in the law,[153] to eat sparingly, to pray frequently, and (because on account of his studies he had not leisure to frequent the church, and from modesty would not) to lift up holy hands everywhere[154] to heaven; but only where it could be done secretly—for already he was careful to avoid vainglory, that poison of virtues.[155]

2. There is a hamlet near the city in which the boy studied,[156] whither his teacher was wont to go often, accompanied by him alone. When they were going there both together, as he related afterwards, he would step back, stop a moment,[157] and standing behind his teacher, when he was not aware of it, spread forth his hands toward heaven,[158] and quickly send forth a prayer, as if it were a dart; and, thus dissembling, once more would follow the teacher. By such a pious trick the boy often deceived him who was his companion as well as teacher. It is not possible to mention all the qualities which adorned his earlier years with the hue of a good natural disposition; we must hasten to greater and more useful matters. One further incident, however, I relate because, in my judgement, it yielded a sign, not only of good, but also of great hope in the boy. Roused once on a time by the reputation of a certain teacher, famous in the studies which are called liberal, he went to him desiring to learn. For indeed he was now grasping after the last opportunities of boyhood, and was longing eagerly for such learning. But when he went into the house he saw the man playing with an awl, and with rapid strokes making furrows in the wall in some strange fashion. And shocked at the bare sight, because it smacked of levity, the serious boy dashed away from him, and did not care even to see him from that time forward. Thus, though an avid student of letters, as a lover of virtue he esteemed them lightly in comparison with that which was becoming. By such preliminary exercises the boy was being prepared for the conflict which awaited him in more advanced[159] age; and already in his own person he was challenging the adversary. Such, then, was the boyhood of Malachy. Moreover he passed through his adolescence with like simplicity and purity; except that as years increased, there increased also for him wisdom and favour with God and man.[160]

3. From this time, that is, from his early adolescence, what was in the man[161] began to appear more plainly, and it came to be seen that the grace of God which was in him was not in vain.[162] For the industrious young man,[163] seeing how the world lieth in wickedness,[164] and considering what sort of spirit he had received, said within himself, "It is not the spirit of this world.[165] What have the two in common?[166] One has no communion with the other any more than light with darkness.[167] But my spirit is of God, and I know the things that are freely given me[168] in it. From it I have innocence of life till now, from it the ornament of continence, from it hunger for righteousness,[169] from it also that glory of mine, by so much more secure because it is more secret, the testimony of my conscience.[170] None of these is safe for me under the prince of this world.[171] Then, I have this treasure in an earthen vessel.[172] I must take heed lest it should strike against something and be broken, and the oil of gladness[173] which I carry be poured out. And in truth it is most difficult not to strike against something amid the stones and rocks of this crooked and winding way and life.[174] Must I thus in a moment lose together all the blessings of goodness with which I have been prevented[175] from the beginning? Rather do I resign them, and myself with them, to Him from whom they come. Yea, and I am His. I lose my very soul[176] for a time that I may not lose it for ever. And what I am and all that I have, where can they be as safe as in the hand of their Author? Who so concerned to preserve, so powerful to hold, so faithful to restore? He will preserve in safety. He will restore in good time. Without hesitation I give myself to serve Him by His gifts. I cannot lose aught of all that I spend on my labour of piety. Perchance I may even hope for some greater boon. He who gives freely is wont to repay with usury. So it is. He will even heap up and increase virtue in my soul."[177]

So he thought—and did; knowing that apart from deeds the thoughts of man are vanity.[178]

[Sidenote: c. 1112.]

4. (3) There was a man in the city of Armagh,[179] where Malachy was brought up—a holy man and of great austerity of life, a pitiless castigator of his body,[180] who had a cell near the church.[181] In it he abode, serving God with fastings and prayers day and night.[182] To this man Malachy betook himself to receive a rule[183] of life from him, who had condemned himself while alive to such sepulture. And note his humility. From his earliest age he had had God as his teacher—there is no doubt of it—in the art of holiness; and behold, he became once more the disciple of a man, himself a man meek and lowly in heart.[184] If we did not know it, by this one deed he himself gave us proof of it. Let them read this who attempt to teach what they have not learned, heaping to themselves disciples,[185] though they have never been disciples, blind leaders of the blind.[186] Malachy, taught of God,[187] none the less sought a man to be his teacher, and that carefully and wisely. By what better method, I ask, could he both give and receive a proof of his progress? If the example of Malachy is for them a very small thing,[188] let them consider the action of Paul. Did not he judge that his Gospel, though he had not received it of man but from Christ,[189] should be discussed with men, lest by any means he was running or had run in vain?[190] Where he was not confident, neither am I. If any one be thus confident[191] let him take heed lest it be not so much confidence as rashness. But these matters belong to another time.

5. Now, however, the rumour of what had happened went through the city, and it was universally stirred by this new and unexpected event. All were amazed, and wondered at his virtue, all the more because it was unusual in a rude people. You would see that then thoughts were being revealed out of the hearts of many.[192] The majority, considering the act from a human standpoint, were lamenting and grieving that a youth who was an object of love and delight to all had given himself up to such severe labours. Others, suspecting lightness on account of his age, doubted whether he would persevere, and feared a fall. Some, accusing him of rashness, were in fact highly indignant with him because he had undertaken a difficult task, beyond his age and strength, without consulting them. But without counsel he did nothing; for he had counsel from the prophet who says, It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth, and adds, He sitteth alone and keepeth silence because he hath borne it upon him.[193] The youth sat at the feet of Imar (for that was the man's name) and either learned obedience[194] or showed that he had learnt it. He sat as one that was at rest, as meek, as humble. He sat and kept silence,[195] knowing, as the prophet says, that silence is the ornament of righteousness.[196] He sat as one that perseveres, he was silent as one that is modest, except that by that silence of his he was speaking, with holy David, in the ears of God: I am a youth and despised, yet do not I forget thy precepts.[197] And for a time he sat alone, because he had neither companion nor example; for who before Malachy even thought of attempting the most severe discipline inculcated by the man? It was held by all indeed to be wonderful, but not imitable. Malachy showed that it was imitable by the mere act of sitting and keeping silence. In a few days he had imitators not a few, stirred by his example. So he who at first sat alone[198] and the only son of his father, became now one of many, from being the only-begotten[199] became the firstborn among many brethren.[200] And as he was before them in conversion,[201] so was he more sublime than they in conversation; and he who came before all, in the judgement of all was eminent above all in virtue. And he seemed both to his bishop[202] and to his teacher,[203] worthy to be promoted to the degree of deacon. And they constrained him.[204]

[Sidenote: 1119(?)]

[Sidenote: 1120.]

6. (4) From this time onwards the Levite[205] of the Lord publicly girded himself to every work of piety, but more especially to those things in which there seemed some indignity. In fact it was his greatest care to attend to the burial of the dead poor,[206] because that savoured not less of humility than of humanity. Nor did temptation fail to test our modern Tobit,[207] and, as in the old story, it came from a woman,[208] or rather from the serpent through a woman.[209] His sister,[210] abhorring the indignity (as it seemed to her) of his office, said: "What are you doing, madman? Let the dead bury their dead."[211] And she attacked him daily with this reproach.[212] But he answered the foolish woman according to her folly,[213] "Wretched woman, you preserve the sound of the pure word,[214] but you are ignorant of its force." So he maintained with devotion, and exercised unweariedly the ministry which he had undertaken under compulsion. For that reason also they[215] deemed that the office of the priesthood should be conferred upon him. And this was done. But when he was ordained priest he was about twenty-five years old.[216] And if in both his ordinations the rule of the Canons seems to have been somewhat disregarded—as indeed does seem to have been the case, for he received the Levitical ministry before his twenty-fifth, and the dignity of the priesthood before his thirtieth year[217]—it may well be ascribed to the zeal of the ordainer and the merits of him who was ordained.[218] But for my part, I consider that such irregularity should neither be condemned in the case of a saint, nor deliberately claimed by him who is not a saint. Not content with this the bishop also committed to him his own authority[219] to sow the holy seed[220] in a nation which was not holy,[221] and to give to a people rude and living without law,[222] the law of life and of discipline. He received the command with all alacrity, even as he was fervent in spirit,[223] not hoarding up his talents, but eager for profit from them.[224] And behold he began to root out with the hoe of the tongue, to destroy, to scatter,[225] day by day making the crooked straight and the rough places plain.[226] He rejoiced as a giant to run everywhere.[227] You might call him a consuming fire burning the briers of crimes.[228] You might call him an axe or a mattock casting down[229] evil plantings.[230] He extirpated barbaric rites, he planted those of the Church. All out-worn superstitions (for not a few of them were discovered) he abolished, and, wheresoever he found it, every sort of malign influence sent by evil angels.[231]

7. In fine whatsoever came to his notice which was irregular or unbecoming or perverse his eye did not spare;[232] but as the hail scatters the untimely figs from the fig-trees,[233] and as the wind the dust from the face of the earth,[234] so did he strive with all his might to drive out before his face and destroy entirely such things from his people. And in place of all these the most excellent legislator delivered the heavenly laws. He made regulations full of righteousness, full of moderation and integrity. Moreover in all churches he ordained the apostolic sanctions and the decrees of the holy fathers, and especially the customs of the holy Roman Church.[235] Hence it is that to this day there is chanting and psalmody in them at the canonical hours after the fashion of the whole world. For there was no such thing before, not even in the city.[236] He, however, had learnt singing in his youth, and soon he introduced song into his monastery,[237] while as yet none in the city, nor in the whole bishopric, could or would sing. Then Malachy instituted anew[238] the most wholesome usage of Confession,[239] the Sacrament of Confirmation, the Marriage contract—of all of which they were either ignorant or negligent.[240] And let these serve as an example of the rest, for [here] and through the whole course of the history we omit much for the sake of brevity.

8. (5). Since he had a desire and a very great zeal for the honouring of the divine offices and the veneration of the sacraments, lest by chance he might ordain or teach anything concerning these matters otherwise than that which was in accordance with the rite of the universal Church, it came into his mind to visit Bishop Malchus,[241] that he might give him fuller information on all points. He was an old man, full of days[242] and virtues, and the wisdom of God was in him.[243] He was of Irish nationality, but had lived in England in the habit and rule of a monk in the monastery of Winchester, from which he was promoted to be bishop in Lismore,[244] a city of Munster, and one of the noblest of the cities of that kingdom. There so great grace was bestowed upon him from above that he was illustrious, not only for life and doctrine, but also for signs. Of these I set down two as examples, that it may be known to all what sort of preceptor Malachy had in the knowledge of holy things. He healed a boy, who was troubled with a mental disorder, one of those who are called lunatics, in the act of confirming him with the holy unction. This was so well known and certain that he soon made him porter of his house, and the boy lived in good health in that office till he reached manhood. He restored hearing to one who was deaf; in which miracle the deaf person acknowledged a wonderful fact, that when the saint put his fingers into his ears on either side he perceived that two things like little pigs came out of them. For these and other such deeds, his fame increased and he won a great name; so that Scots[245] and Irish flowed together to him and he was reverenced by all as the one father of all.

[Sidenote: 1121]

When therefore Malachy, having received the blessing of Father Imar, and having been sent by the bishop,[246] came to him, after a prosperous journey, he was kindly received by the old man; and he remained with him for some years,[247] in order that by staying so long he might draw fuller draughts from his aged breast, knowing that which is written, With the ancient is wisdom.[248] But I suppose that another cause of his long sojourn was that the great Foreseer of all things would have His servant Malachy become known to all in a place to which so many resorted, since he was to be useful to all. For he could not but be dear to those who knew him. In fact one thing happened in that period, by which in some measure he made manifest to men what had been known to God as being in him.

[Sidenote: 1127]

9. A conflict having taken place between the king of South Munster[249]—which is the southern part of Ireland—and his brother,[250] and the brother being victorious, the king, driven from his kingdom, sought refuge with Bishop Malchus.[251] It was not, however, in order that with his help he should recover the kingdom; but rather the devout prince gave place unto wrath[252] and made a virtue of necessity,[253] choosing to lead a private life. And when the bishop was preparing to receive the king with due honour, he declined it, saying that he preferred to be as one of those poor brothers who consorted with him, to lay aside his royal state, and to be content with the common poverty, rather to await the will of God than to get back his kingdom by force; and that he would not for his earthly honour shed man's blood,[254] since it would cry unto God against him from the ground.[255] When he heard this the bishop rejoiced greatly, and with admiration for his devotion satisfied his desire. Why more? The king is given a poor house for his dwelling, Malachy for his teacher, bread with salt and water for his food. Moreover for dainties, the presence of Malachy, his life and doctrine, were sufficient for the king; so that he might say to him, How sweet are thy words unto my taste, yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth.[256] Besides, every night he watered his couch with his tears,[257] and also with a daily bath of cold water he quenched the burning lust for evil in his flesh. And the king prayed in the words of another king, Look upon my affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins.[258] And God did not turn away his prayer nor His mercy from him.[259] And his supplication was heard,[260] although otherwise than he had desired. For he was troubled about his soul; but God, the avenger of innocence, willing to show men that there is a remainder for the man of peace,[261] was preparing meanwhile to execute a judgement for the oppressed,[262] which was utterly beyond his hope. And God stirred up the spirit of a neighbouring king:[263] for Ireland is not one kingdom, but is divided into many. This king therefore seeing what had been done, was filled with wrath; and indignant, on the one hand, at the freedom of the raiders and the insolence of the proud, and on the other, pitying the desolation of the kingdom and the downfall of the king, he went down to the cell of the poor man; urged him to return, but did not succeed in persuading him. He was instant, nevertheless, pledged himself to help him, assured him that he need not doubt the result, promised that God would be with him, whom all his adversaries would not be able to resist.[264] He laid before him also the oppression of the poor and the devastation of his country; yet he prevailed not.

10. But when to these arguments were added the command of the bishop[265] and the advice of Malachy—the two men on whom he wholly depended—at length, with difficulty, he consented. A king followed a king, and according to the word of the king,[266] as was the will in heaven,[267] the marauders were driven out with absolute ease, and the man was led back to his own, with great rejoicing of his people, and was restored to his kingdom. From that time the king loved and always reverenced Malachy; so much the more because he had learned more fully in the holy man the things that were worthy of reverence and affection. For he could not be ignorant of the holiness of him with whom he had enjoyed so much intimacy in his adversity. Therefore he honoured him the more in his prosperity with constant acts of friendship, and faithful services, and he heard him gladly, and when he heard him did many things.[268] But enough of this. Nevertheless I suppose it was not without purpose that the Lord so magnified him then before kings,[269] but he was a chosen vessel unto Him, about to bear His name before kings and princes.[270]

FOOTNOTES:

[134] Malachy was born in 1095, before November. See below, p. 130. n. 2.

[135] Urbanum, citizen-like.

[136] Eph. ii. 19.

[137] Deut. xxxii. 13.

[138] A.T. make the curious statement that "Mael Maedoc o Mongair and his father Mughron" died in 1102. This is perhaps sufficient evidence that Malachy's father was Mughron Ua Morgair, who according to A.U. was ard fer legind (chief professor) at Armagh, and died at Mungret, Co. Limerick, on October 5, 1102. Malachy was then only seven or eight years of age. Thus we may account for the large part taken by his mother in his early education. But a poem attributed to Malachy (L.B. 88) calls his father Dermot. The form of the surname varies. It is usually written Ua Morgair; but A.T., A.I. (Ua Mongain), L.B. (l.c.), and the Yellow Book of Lecan (T.C.D. MS. H. 2. 16, p. 327 c), have Ua Mongair. The form Ua Morgair is certainly right, for it appears in the contemporary Book of Leinster (R.I.A. xxxv. 355-360); and Ua Mongair obviously arose out of it through confusion of the similar letters r and n. The name must have been unfamiliar, if it had not died out, when the mistake was made. Therefore we may accept Colgan's statement that the family was known as O'Dogherty in his day (Trias, p. 299). If so, they had probably only resumed an earlier surname: for according to MacFirbis (Royal Irish Academy MS. 23 P. 1, p. 698) Malachy was of the same stock as St. Mael Brigte, son of Tornan. The latter, as well as the O'Doghertys, were of the race of Conall Gulban (Adamnan, Genealogy opp. p. 342).

[139] 2 Sam. vii. 9.

[140] It is interesting to note the emphasis laid by St. Bernard on the influence of Malachy's mother on his life. How much he himself owed to his mother Aleth is well known. See V.P. i. 1, 2, 9, 10. Malachy's mother was probably a member of the family of O'Hanratty. See below, p. 27, n. 2.

[141] Prov. viii. 22.

[142] Ps. xvi. 11.

[143] Ps. xxxiv. 11.

[144] The description of Malachy's boyhood by St. Bernard may be compared with that given of his own boyhood in V.P. i. 3. It was written before the Life of Malachy.

[145] Neh. ix. 20; Ps. cxliii. 10.

[146] Ecclus. xv. 2, 3 (vg.).

[147] 2 Cor. xii. 6.

[148] Eph. iv. 2.

[149] Gal. i. 14.

[150] Ps. cxix. 99.

[151] 1 John ii. 20.

[152] Ps. lxxvii. 4 (vg.).

[153] Ps. i. 2.

[154] 1 Tim. ii. 8.

[155] Virus uirtutum.

[156] Armagh. See Sec. 4.

[157] Cp. Virg. Aen. vi. 465.

[158] 1 Kings viii. 22, 54.

[159] Fortiori.

[160] Luke ii. 40, 52.

[161] John ii. 25.

[162] 1 Cor. xv. 10.

[163] 1 Kings xi. 28.

[164] 1 John v. 19.

[165] 1 Cor. ii. 12.

[166] Cp. John ii. 4 (vg.).

[167] 2 Cor. vi. 14.

[168] 1 Cor. ii. 12.

[169] Cp. Matt. v. 6.

[170] 2 Cor. i. 12 (vg.).

[171] John xiv. 30, etc.

[172] 2 Cor. iv. 7.

[173] Ps. xlv. 7.

[174] Collect of Mass for Travellers.

[175] Ps. xxi. 3.

[176] Matt. x. 39.

[177] Ps. cxxxviii. 3 (vg.).

[178] Ps. xciv. 11.

[179] His name was Imar (Sec. 5). He was no doubt Imar O'Hagan, who founded the monastery of St. Paul and St. Peter at Armagh, and built a stone church for it which was consecrated on October 21, 1126. It was placed, either at its foundation or subsequently, under the rule of the regular canons of St. Augustine. Imar died on pilgrimage at Rome in 1134, and is commemorated in Gorman on August 13, and in Usuard on November 12. He was at this time evidently leading the life of an anchoret. Reeves (Churches, p. 28) inferred from his Christian name that he had some Danish blood in his veins. There is no certain indication of Malachy's age when he became his disciple. But he had reached adolescence (Sec. 3), and was old enough to choose his own teachers (Sec. 2). In 1112 he was seventeen years of age. We shall see that he long acknowledged Imar as his master: Secs. 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16.

[180] 1 Cor. ix. 27 (vg.).

[181] That is, apparently, the great stone church (daimliac mor), on which Cellach put a shingle roof in 1125. According to Reeves (Churches, pp. 14, 28) it was probably on the site of the present Cathedral, from which the Abbey of St. Paul and St. Peter was distant 130 yards to the north. It was the principal church of Armagh till 1268. For an account of the life of such recluses as Imar the reader may be referred to B. MacCarthy, Codex Palatino-Vaticanus No. 830, p. 5 f.

[182] Luke ii. 37.

[183] Formam. The word, as used by St. Bernard, seems to include the two notions of rule and example. It would seem that Malachy received some sort of monastic rule from Imar. Cp. Sec. 7, "his monastery," and the reference to "the first day of his conversion" in Sec. 43. Both passages imply that he belonged to a religious order. So in Sec. 5 he is said to have been before the other disciples of Imar "in conversion." On later occasions he was subject to Imar's "command" (Secs. 14, 16). It is not improbable that the disciples who gathered round Imar were the nucleus of the community which he founded at Armagh (note 1). If so, the inference is reasonable that Malachy became a regular canon of St. Augustine.

[184] Matt. xi. 29.

[185] Cp. 2 Tim. iv. 3.

[186] Matt. xv. 14.

[187] Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 45.

[188] 1 Cor. iv. 3.

[189] Gal. i. 11, 12.

[190] Gal. ii. 2.

[191] Printed text, hoc scit. I read sit with K (hec sit), and two of de Backer's MSS.

[192] Luke ii. 35.

[193] Lam. iii. 27, 28 (inexact quotation).

[194] Heb. v. 8.

[195] The rule of silence was very strictly observed by the Cistercians. This explains the stress laid by St. Bernard, here and elsewhere, on Malachy's practice. Cp. the Preface of Philip of Clairvaux to V.P. vi.: "In truth I have learned nothing that can more effectively deserve the riches of the grace of the Lord than to sit and be silent, and always to condescend to men of low estate."

[196] Isa. xxxii. 17 (vg.).

[197] Ps. cxix. 141 (vg.).

[198] Lam. iii. 28.

[199] John i. 14, 18.

[200] Rom. viii. 29.

[201] The technical word for entry into a religious order.

[202] Cellach, archbishop of Armagh (Sec. 19), son of Aedh, and grandson of Maelisa, who was abbot of Armagh 1064-1091. He was born early in 1080. Of his childhood and youth we know nothing, for the statement of Meredith Hanmer (Chron. of Ireland (1633), p. 101) that he is said to have been "brought up at Oxford" is probably as inaccurate as other assertions which he makes about him. Cellach was elected abbot of Armagh in August, 1105, and in the following month (September 23) he received Holy Orders. In 1106, while engaged on a visitation of Munster, he was consecrated bishop. Thus he departed from the precedent set by his eight predecessors, who were without orders (Sec. 19). He was one of the leaders of the Romanizing party in Ireland, and attended the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 (Keating, iii. 307). He died in his fiftieth year, at Ardpatrick, in co. Limerick, on April 1, 1129, and was buried on April 4 at Lismore. These facts are mainly gathered from the Annals. For more about Cellach, see p. xxxiv.

[203] Imar. See above p. 11, n. 1.

[204] Luke xxiv. 29.—Malachy can hardly have been more, he was probably less, than twenty-three years of age at this time. See p. 16, n. 2.

[205] I.e. deacon.

[206] It does not appear that deacons as such were specially concerned with the burial of the dead. The present passage, indeed, implies the contrary. Malachy was made deacon against his will; his care for the dead poor is mentioned as a work of piety, voluntarily superadded to the duties of his office. His sister (see below) would have been unlikely to ask him to abandon a practice which he could not decline. But there was ancient precedent for a deacon engaging in such work, of which Malachy may have been aware. At Alexandria throughout the persecution of Valerian, one of the deacons, Eusebius by name, not without danger to himself, prepared for burial the bodies of "the perfect and blessed martyrs" (Eus., H.E. vii. 11. 24).

[207] Tobiae. The Greek of the Book of Tobit, followed by the English versions, calls the father Tobit, and the son Tobias; the Vulgate calls both Tobias. The text of chap. ii. is longer in the Vulgate than in the Greek and English, and neither of the verses (Vulg. 12, 23) from which St. Bernard here borrows words is represented in the latter.

[208] Tobit ii. 12 (vg.).

[209] Cp. Gen. iii. 12 f.

[210] She is mentioned again in Sec. 11.

[211] Matt. viii. 22.

[212] Tobit ii. 23 (vg.).

[213] Prov. xxvi. 5.

[214] Ps. xii. 6.

[215] Cellach and Imar.

[216] Malachy completed his twenty-fifth year in 1120. See p. 130, n. 2. For the date of his ordination to the priesthood see p. 16, n. 2.

[217] For the canons of councils which regulated the minimum age of deacons and priests reference may be made to the article "Orders, Holy," by the late Dr. Edwin Hatch in the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 1482 f. From a very early date they were respectively twenty-five and thirty years, in accordance with the statement of the text, though there were some exceptions in remote places. The eighth-century Irish Canons, known as the Hibernensis, prescribe the same minimum ages for the diaconate and presbyterate, and add a clause, the gist of which seems to be that a bishop at the time of his consecration must be thirty or forty years of age (Wasserschleben, Irische Kanonesammlung, 1885, p. 8). As late as the year 1089, at the Council of Melfi, presided over by Pope Urban II., it was decreed (can. 5, Mansi, xx. 723) that none should be admitted deacon under twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, or priest under thirty. But at the Council of Ravenna, 1315 (can. 2, ibid. xxv. 537), the ages were lowered to twenty and twenty-five respectively.

[218] Cellach would hardly have understood the need for this apology. It is more than probable that he was ignorant of the canons referred to. He himself was ordained, apparently to the priesthood, in 1105, when he was under twenty-six, and consecrated bishop in 1106, when he was under twenty-seven years of age. St. Bernard himself seems to have been ordained priest when he was about twenty-five years old (Vacandard, i. 67).

[219] In other words he made him his vicar. This may well have been in 1120; for the Annals record that in that year Cellach made a visitation of Munster. It was quite natural that during a prolonged absence from his see he should leave its administration in the hands of one who had proved himself so capable as Malachy. And we shall see that this date harmonizes with other chronological data. If, then, we place the beginning of Malachy's vicariate in 1120, his ordination as priest, which appears to have been not much earlier, may be dated in 1119, when he was "about twenty-five years of age," i.e. probably soon after his twenty-fourth birthday. His admission to the diaconate may be placed at least a year earlier, i.e. in 1118. Indeed, if we could be sure that in Ireland the normal interval between admission to the diaconate and to the priesthood was at all as long as in other countries we might put it further back.

[220] Luke viii. 5.

[221] 1 Pet. ii. 9.

[222] Rom. ii. 12.

[223] Rom. xii. 11.

[224] Cp. Matt. xxv. 24 ff.

[225] Jer. i. 10 (vg.).

[226] Isa. xl. 4.

[227] Ps. xix. 5.

[228] Cp. Isa. x. 17.

[229] Ps. lxxiv. 6 (vg.).

[230] Cp. Ignatius, Trall. 11.

[231] Ps. lxxviii. 49 (vg.: inexact quotation).

[232] Ezek. v. 11, etc.

[233] Cp. Rev. vi. 13.

[234] Ps. i. 4 (vg.).

[235] Malachy acted in accordance with the aims of Gilbert, bishop of Limerick, who about the year 1108, wrote these words (De Usu Ecclesiastico, in Ussher, 500): "I have endeavoured to describe the canonical custom in saying the hours and performing the office of the whole ecclesiastical order ... to the end that the various and schismatical orders, with which almost the whole of Ireland has been deluded, may give place to the one Catholic and Roman office."

[236] Armagh.

[237] This was probably the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul. See p. 11, n. 5. J. de Backer's suggestion (AA.SS., Nov. ii. 1, p. 147), that "his monastery" was Bangor is negatived by the whole context, which refers only to Armagh.

[238] The word "anew" (de nouo) seems to indicate St. Bernard's belief that it was only in comparatively recent times that the usages to which he refers had fallen into desuetude.

[239] It is interesting to observe that Confession is here not ranked as a sacrament.

[240] For the statements in this section see Additional Note A.

[241] Mael Isa Ua hAinmire, who is always called Malchus in Latin documents, though a native of Ireland, had been a monk of Winchester, as we are here told. He was elected first bishop of the Danish colony of Waterford in 1096, and was consecrated by Anselm, assisted by the bishops of Chichester and Rochester, at Canterbury on December 28, having previously made his profession of obedience to the archbishop as one of his suffragans (Eadmer, p. 76 f.; Ussher, pp. 518, 565). He signed the Acts of the Synod of Rathbreasail in 1110 as archbishop of Cashel (Keating, iii. 307). He had probably been translated to that see shortly after its foundation in 1106 (see below, p. 65, n. 4). The Synod of Rathbreasail enlarged the Danish diocese of Waterford by adding to it an extensive non-Danish area, which included the ancient religious site of Lismore, on which St. Carthach or Mochuta had founded a community in the early part of the seventh century (Lanigan, ii. 353). The Synod decreed that the see of this diocese should be either at Lismore or at Waterford, apparently giving preference to the former (see p. xlvii). It would seem that after organizing the diocese of Cashel Malchus retired to his former "parish," just as at a later date Malachy retired from Armagh to Down (Sec. 31), placing his see at Lismore. There, at any rate, he was established when Malachy visited him, and there he died in 1135 "after the 88th year of his pilgrimage" (A.F.M.). An attempt has been made to distinguish Mael Isa Ua hAinmire from the Malchus of the text (Lanigan, iv. 74), but without success. It is interesting to observe that both A.F.M. and A.T. style him bishop of Waterford in the record of his death.

[242] Gen. xxxv. 29; 1 Chron. xxiii. 1; Job xlii. 16.—Malchus was in his 75th year when Malachy visited him in 1121. See preceding note, and p. 20, n. 3.

[243] 1 Kings iii. 28.

[244] An error for Waterford. It is explained by, and confirms, the suggestion that Malchus transferred the see to Lismore.

[245] Throughout the Life, Scotia is used, in its later sense, for the country now called Scotland; and here the Scots are evidently its inhabitants. But traces of earlier usage remain in Sec. 14, "a Scotic (i.e. Irish) work," Sec. 61 "We are Scots," and Sec. 72 where Ireland is called "further Scotland" (ulterior Scotia).

[246] Cellach. Note Imar's share in the matter, and cp. p. 11, n. 1.

[247] Malachy must have been the archbishop's vicar for a considerable time if the account of his labours in that capacity (Sec. 7) is not grossly exaggerated. Hence, if his vicariate began in 1119 or 1120 his departure for Lismore can hardly have been earlier than 1121; and as he spent "some years" there before he was raised to the episcopate (1124; see Sec. 16), it cannot have been later. Samuel O'Hanley, bishop of Dublin, died on July 4, 1121, and Cellach at once made an attempt, which proved unsuccessful, to take possession of the vacant see. Samuel's successor, Gregory, was duly elected, and was consecrated at Lambeth on October 2. (O.C.C. p. 31; A.U. 1121; John of Worcester, ed. J. H. R. Weaver, 1908, p. 16; Ussher, 532). It may have been in August or September, on the return of Cellach from Dublin, that Malachy was released from his office and went to Lismore.

[248] Job xii. 12.

[249] I read rex australis Mumoniae, for rex Mumoniae in the printed text, restoring the word australis from two of de Backer's MSS. The king is said in Sec. 18 to have been Cormac, i.e. Cormac Mac Carthy, son of Teague Mac Carthy, who succeeded his father as king of Desmond (South Munster) in 1124. He was never king of the whole of Munster. That he went to Lismore in 1121 is very probable. For the Annals tell us that in that year Turlough O'Conor, king of Connaught, invaded Desmond, and "arrived at the termon of Lismore" (A.I. say that he destroyed Lismore, which can hardly be true). What more likely than that one of the sons of Teague, the reigning monarch of Desmond, should fly before that formidable warrior to the sanctuary of Mochuta? But St. Bernard errs in supposing that he was then king of Desmond. On Cormac, see also p. 43, n. 5.

[250] Donough Mac Carthy. See next note. There is a brief notice of him in Tundale, p. 42.

[251] That the narrative of this and the following section is historical, but that St. Bernard has misplaced it, is proved by the following extract from A.T. under the year 1127: "A hosting by Toirdelbach, king of Ireland [really of Connaught], till he reached Corcach, he himself on land and his fleet at sea going round to Corcach, ravaging Munster by sea and by land so that he drove Cormac mac meic Carthaig into Lismore in pilgrimage. And Toirdelbach divided Munster into two parts, the southern half [Desmond] to Donnchad mac meic Carthaig; and the northern half [Thomond] to Conchobar o Briain.... Cormac mac meic Carthaig came from his pilgrimage, and made an alliance with Conchobar o Briain and with all the men of Muma, save those of Tuathmuma. Donnchad mac meic Carthaig came from them—for he was not in the alliance—with 2000 men."

The other Annals have notices to the same effect. These events occurred in 1127, three years after Malachy returned from his long stay at Lismore, and was made bishop of Connor (Sec. 16). If he had the part which is ascribed to him in the restoration of Cormac, he must therefore have paid two visits to Lismore, which St. Bernard has confounded. That he was in the south of Ireland for a considerable time prior to 1129 will appear later (p. 40, n. 2).

[252] Rom. xii. 19.

[253] Necessitatem in uirtutem conuertit. Apparently a proverbial expression. Cp. Quintilian Declam. iv. 10: "Faciamus potius de fine remedium, de necessitate solatium"; Jer. Adv. Rufin. iii. 2: "Habeo gratiam quod facis de necessitate uirtutem"; Ep. 54. 6 (Hilberg): "Arripe, quaeso, occasionem et fac de necessitate uirtutem." Chaucer's "To maken vertu of necessitee" is well known (Knightes Tale, 3042, Squieres Tale, 593, Troilus and Criseyde, iv. 1586).

[254] Gen. ix. 6.

[255] Gen. iv. 10.

[256] Ps. cxix. 103.

[257] Ps. vi. 6 (vg.).

[258] Ps. xxiv. 18.

[259] Ps. lxvi. 20.

[260] Ecclus. li. 11.

[261] Ps. xxxvii. 37 (vg.).

[262] Ps. cxlvi. 7.

[263] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22.—Conor O'Brien. See p. 21, n. 3. It appears from the last sentence of the passage there quoted that Donough MacCarthy, to whom Turlough O'Conor had given the kingdom of Desmond, had driven out O'Brien from Thomond. This explains the anxiety of the latter to make alliance with Cormac. His action was less disinterested than St. Bernard represents it.

[264] Luke xxi. 15.

[265] Malchus.

[266] Judas Maccabaeus.

[267] 1 Macc. iii. 60.

[268] Mark vi. 20.

[269] Ps. cxix. 46.

[270] Acts ix. 15.



CHAPTER II

Malachy's pity for his deceased sister. He restores the Monastery of Bangor. His first Miracles.

11. (6). Meanwhile Malachy's sister, whom we mentioned before,[271] died: and we must not pass over the visions which he saw about her. For the saint indeed abhorred her carnal life, and with such intensity that he vowed he would never see her alive in the flesh. But now that her flesh was destroyed his vow was also destroyed, and he began to see in spirit her whom in the body he would not see. One night he heard in a dream the voice of one saying to him that his sister was standing outside in the court, and that for thirty entire days she had tasted nothing; and when he awoke he soon understood the sort of food for want of which she was pining away. And when he had diligently considered the number of days which he had heard, he discovered that it went back to the time when he had ceased to offer the living bread from heaven[272] for her. Then, since he hated not the soul of his sister but her sin, he began again the good practice which he had abandoned. And not in vain. Not long after she was seen by him to have come to the threshold of the church, but to be not yet able to enter; she appeared also in dark raiment. And when he persevered, taking care that on no single day she should be disappointed of the accustomed gift, he saw her a second time in whitish raiment, admitted indeed within the church, but not allowed to approach the altar. At last she was seen, a third time, gathered in the company of the white-robed, and in bright clothing.[273] You see, reader, how much the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth.[274] Truly the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force.[275] Does not the prayer of Malachy seem to you to have played the part as it were of a housebreaker to the heavenly gates, when a sinful woman obtained by the weapons of a brother what was denied to her own merits? This violence, good Jesus, Thou who sufferest dost exercise, strong and merciful to save,[276] showing mercy and strength with thine arm,[277] and preserving it in thy sacrament for the saints which are in the earth,[278] unto the end of the world.[279] Truly this sacrament is strong to consume sins,[280] to defeat opposing powers, to bring into heaven those who are returning from the earth.

12. (7). The Lord, indeed, was so preparing His beloved Malachy in the district of Lismore for the glory of His name. But those who had sent him,[281] tolerating his absence no longer, recalled him by letters. When he was restored to his people,[282] now better instructed in all that was necessary, behold a work prepared and kept by God[283] for Malachy. A rich and powerful man, who held the place of Bangor and its possessions, by inspiration of God immediately placed in his hand all that he had and himself as well.[284] And he was his mother's brother.[285] But kinship of spirit was of more value to Malachy than kinship of the flesh. The actual place also of Bangor, from which he received his name,[286] the prince[287] made over to him, that there he might build, or rather rebuild, a monastery. For indeed there had been formerly a very celebrated one under the first father, Comgall,[288] which produced many thousands of monks, and was the head of many monasteries. A truly holy place it was and prolific of saints, bringing forth most abundant fruit to God,[289] so that one of the sons of that holy community, Lugaid[290] by name, is said to have been the founder—himself alone—of a hundred monasteries. I mention this in order that the reader may infer from this one instance what an immense number of others there were. In fine, to such an extent did its shoots fill Ireland and Scotland[291] that those verses of David seem to have sung beforehand especially of these times, Thou visitest the earth and blessest it; thou makest it very plenteous. The river of God is full of water: thou preparest their corn, for so thou providest for the earth, blessing its rivers, multiplying its shoots. With its drops of rain shall it rejoice while it germinates;[292] and in like manner the verses that follow. Nor was it only into the regions just mentioned, but also into foreign lands that those swarms of saints poured forth as though a flood had risen;[293] of whom one, St. Columbanus, came up to our Gallican parts, and built the monastery of Luxovium, and was made there a great people.[294] So great a people was it, they say, that the choirs succeeding one another in turn, the solemnities of the divine offices went on continuously, so that not a moment day or night was empty of praises.[295]

13. (8) Enough has been said about the ancient glory of the monastery of Bangor. This, long ago destroyed by pirates,[296] Malachy eagerly cherished on account of its remarkable and long-standing prestige, as though he were about to replant a paradise,[297] and because many bodies of the saints slept there.[298] For, not to speak of those which were buried in peace,[299] it is said that nine hundred persons were slain together in one day by pirates.[300] Vast, indeed, were the possessions of that place;[301] but Malachy, content with the holy place alone, resigned all the possessions and lands to another. For indeed from the time when the monastery was destroyed there was always someone to hold it with its possessions. For they were both appointed by election and were even called abbots, preserving in name but not in fact what had once been.[302] And though many urged him not to alienate the possessions, but to retain the whole together for himself, this lover of poverty did not consent, but caused one to be elected, according to custom, to hold them; the place, as we have said, being retained for Malachy and his followers. And perhaps, as afterwards appeared,[303] he would have been wiser to have kept it all; only he looked more to humility than to peace.

14. So, then, by the command of Father Imar, taking with him about ten brethren, he came to the place and began to build. And there, one day, when he himself was cutting with an axe, by chance one of the workmen, while he was brandishing the axe in the air, carelessly got into the place at which the blow was aimed, and it fell on his spine with as much force as Malachy could strike. He fell, and all ran to him supposing that he had received a death-wound or was dead. And indeed his tunic was rent from the top to the bottom,[304] but the man himself was found unhurt, the skin so very slightly grazed that scarcely a trace appeared on the surface. The man whom the axe had laid low, stood unharmed while the bystanders beheld him with amazement. Hence they became more eager, and were found readier for the work. And this was the beginning of the miracles[305] of Malachy. Moreover the oratory was finished in a few days, made of smoothed planks indeed, but closely and strongly fastened together—a Scotic work,[306] not devoid of beauty.[307] And thenceforward God was served in it as in the ancient days; that is, with similar devotion, though not with like numbers. Malachy presided over that place for some time,[308] by the ordinance of Father Imar,[309] being at once the ruler and the rule of the brethren. They read in his life how they should behave themselves, and he was their leader in righteousness and holiness before God;[310] save that besides the things appointed for the whole community he did many things of an exceptional kind, in which he still more was the leader of all, and none of the others was able to follow him to such difficult practices.

At that time and place a certain man was sick, and the devil stood by him and suggested in plain speech that he should never heed the admonitions of Malachy, but if he should enter his house, he should attack and kill him with a knife. And when this became known, those who ministered to him, the sick man himself informing them, brought word to Malachy and warned him. But he, seizing his accustomed weapons of prayer, boldly attacked his enemy, and put to flight both disease and demon. But the man's name was Malchus.[311] He is brother according to the flesh of our Christian, abbot of Mellifont.[312] For both are still alive, now brothers yet more, in spirit.[313] For when he was delivered, immediately he was not ungrateful, but in the same place, having turned[314] to the Lord,[315] he changed both his habit and his mind. And the brethren knew that the evil one was envious of their prosperity; and they were edified and made more careful henceforth.

15. (9). At the same place he healed a cleric, named Michael, who was suffering from dysentery and despaired of, by sending him something from his table. A second time, when the same person was smitten with a very grave disorder, he cured him both in body and mind. And from that moment he clave to God[316] and to Malachy His servant, fearing lest a worse thing should come unto him,[317] if once more he should be found ungrateful for so great a benefit and miracle. And at present, as we have heard, he presides over a monastery in the parts of Scotland; and this was the latest of all Malachy's foundations.[318] Through such deeds of Malachy both his reputation and his community increased daily, and his name became great both within and without the monastery, though not greater than the fact. For indeed he dwelt[319] there even after he was made bishop, for the place was near the city.[320]

FOOTNOTES:

[271] See Sec. 6. Malachy's sister is here said to have died while he was at Lismore; but whether during his earlier or later visit to that place cannot be determined.

[272] John vi. 51.

[273] Acts x. 30.

[274] Jas. v. 16.

[275] Matt. xi. 12.

[276] Cp. Isa. lxiii. 1.

[277] Luke i. 51.

[278] Ps. xvi. 3.

[279] Matt. xxviii. 20.

[280] Ps vii. 9 (vg.).

[281] Cellach and Imar (Sec. 8).

[282] That is to Armagh. But see p. 36, n. 5.

[283] Eph. ii. 10 (vg.).

[284] This person was apparently the coarb of Comgall, the founder of Bangor. It would seem that he had been but a short time in office, for Oengus O'Gorman, coarb of Comgall, died at Lismore in 1123 (A.U.), probably during Malachy's sojourn there. It is not impossible that the unnamed coarb, mentioned in the text, was Murtough O'Hanratty, who died at Armagh in 1131 (A.F.M.). The statement that he gave "himself" to Malachy seems to mean that he placed himself under his rule in the new community.

[285] If the identification suggested in the preceding note is correct, Malachy's mother belonged to the family of O'Hanratty, which in the eleventh and twelfth centuries held the chieftaincy of Ui Meith Macha or Ui Meith Tire, now the barony of Monaghan, in the county of the same name.

[286] Cognominabatur. This verb occurs seventeen times in the Vulgate, and almost always indicates a new or alternative name. In the present passage it certainly applies, not to Malachy's baptismal name, but to its Latin equivalent, Malachias, which he probably assumed when he became abbot of Bangor, or bishop of Down. The remark that he received it from Bangor is to be explained thus. A legend, which has a place in Jocelin's Life of St. Patrick (Sec. 98) and is therefore at least as old as the twelfth century, relates that Patrick, viewing the valley in which the monastery of Comgall was afterwards constructed, perceived that it was "filled with a multitude of the heavenly host." From this story, no doubt, came the name "Valley of Angels (Vallis Angelorum)," by which it was known in the early seventeenth century, and probably long before (Reeves, p. 199). If this name, or the legend on which it was based, was known to Malachy it is quite conceivable that on account of his connexion with Bangor, he adopted, as the Latin alternative of Mael Maedoc, a name which is only the Hebrew for my angel with a Latin termination. That St. Bernard was aware of the significance of the name, and liked to dwell upon it, is clear from Sermon ii. Sec. 5. It may be added that the legend just mentioned is connected with a folk-etymology of the word Bangor (Bennchor) which explained it as "white choir." For the true etymology see Kuno Meyer, "Zur Keltischen Wortkunde," Sec. 66 (Preuss. Akad. Sitz., 1913).

[287] Princeps. This word does not necessarily imply that the donor of Bangor was a secular chieftain. St. Bernard is somewhat arbitrary in his use of such titles; and princeps occurs very frequently in A.U. up to the tenth century as an equivalent of abbot.

[288] Comgall, who was a Pict of Dal Araide (Adamnan, i. 49), was born at Magheramorne, near Larne, co. Antrim (Reeves, p. 269), between 516 and 520. He founded the monastery of Bangor when he was about forty years old, probably in 559, and presided over it till his death in 602 (A.U.). According to his Latin Life (Sec. 13, Plummer, ii. 7), so great a number of monks came to him there that there was not room for them; "he therefore founded very many cells and many monasteries, not only in the district of Ulaid, but throughout the other provinces of Ireland." There were as many as 3000 monks under his rule. On the last leaf of an ancient service book of the monastery, known as the Antiphonary of Bangor (Facsimile edition by F. E. Warren, 1893, vol. ii. p. 33), there is a hymn which gives a complete list of the abbots—fifteen in number—from Comgall to Cronan (+691), in whose period of office it was written. The site of St. Comgall's monastery is beside the Rectory of the parish of Bangor, co. Down, about half-a-mile from Bangor Bay, near the entrance to Belfast Lough.

[289] Rom. vii. 4.

[290] Luanus. This is probably Lugaid, or Molua, the founder of Lismore in Scotland, who died in 592 (A.U.) and is commemorated on June 25 (Oengus, Gorman). He was a Pict and of the same tribe as St. Comgall, both being descended from Fiacha Araide (L.B. 15 c, e); and in later times was the patron saint of the diocese of Argyll (Adamnan, p. 371). He may be the Bishop Lugidus who ordained St. Comgall, and afterwards restrained him from leaving Ireland (Plummer, i. p. lix.; ii. pp. 6, 7). But there is no evidence, apart from the statement of St. Bernard, that either this bishop or Lugaid of Lismore was a member of the community at Bangor. There is a Life of Lugaid of Lismore in the Breviary of Aberdeen (Prop. Sanct. pro temp, aest. ff. 5 v. 7; summarized in Forbes, Kalendars of Scottish Saints, p. 410). His principal foundation after Lismore was Rosemarkie in Ross. Mr. A. B. Scott (Pictish Nation, 1918, p. 347 f.) mentions also Mortlach (Banffshire) and Clova (Aberdeenshire); and Bishop Forbes (l.c.) adds other sites with which his name is connected.

[291] St. Comgall himself is said to have been minded in his earlier days to go on pilgrimage to "Britain," and to have been dissuaded therefrom by Lugaid (Latin Life, Sec. 13, Plummer, ii. 7). Seven years after the foundation of Bangor he went to Britain to visit "certain saints" (ibid. Sec. 22, p. 11). It was probably on this occasion that he spent some time on the island of Hinba (Eilean-na-naomh?) in the company of SS. Columba, Canice and others (Adamnan, iii. 17). It was somewhat later, apparently, that St. Columba went with some companions on a mission to Brude, king of the Picts (ibid. ii. 35); and we need not question the statement that Comgall and Canice were among those who went with him, though there is reason to doubt that Comgall was the leader of the band, as his Life implies (Sec. 51, p. 18), and though the Life of St. Canice, which frequently refers to his visit, or visits, to Scotland (Secs. 17, 19, 21, 23, Plummer, i. 158), never mentions the incident. It is probable, therefore, that the founder of Bangor took part in the evangelization of Scotland; but the memory of very few monasteries founded by him in that country, besides the community in the island of Tiree (Life, Sec. 22, p. 11; see Scott, op. cit. p. 239), has been preserved to later ages. Mr. Scott credits members of the community of Bangor with the foundation of Paisley, Kingarth and Applecross (ibid. p. 337 ff.). See also previous note.

[292] Ps. lxv. 9, 10 (vg., inexact quotation).

[293] Luke vi. 48.

[294] Gen. xii. 2.—St. Columbanus was the greatest of the Irish missionaries on the Continent of Europe. Born in Leinster, according to Bruno Krusch (Ionae Vitae Sanctorum, p. 22) in 530, or as others hold in 543, he entered the community of Bangor not long after its foundation, and after spending "many cycles of years" there, he sailed for France about 590. His principal monasteries were Luxeuil (Luxovium) in the department of Haute Saone, and Bobbio in Lombardy. At the latter place he died, November 23, 615. His Life was written by Jonas, about 640. It was critically edited by Krusch in M.G.H. (Script. rerum Merovingic., vol. iv. 1-152) and subsequently as a separate volume (Ionae Vitae Sanctorum Columbani, Vedastis, Iohannis, 1905). The story of his labours has been told by G. T. Stokes in his Celtic Church in Ireland, Lect. vii., and by many other modern writers. See also the collection of documents in Patrick Fleming's Collectanea (Lovanii, 1667). Luxeuil is about eighty miles from Clairvaux, and less than seventy from St. Bernard's early home at Dijon. Fifty years after the death of St. Columbanus it adopted the rule of St. Benedict. It was a well-known establishment in St. Bernard's day, though by that time its glory had declined. It was suppressed in 1789 (M. Stokes, Three Months in the Forests of France, p. 67).