THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
came from a monastery of southeastern Ireland, it is easy to understand how his books were brought thither and how they came to be preserved. But, whatever may have been the nationality of Pelagius, his celebrity in Ireland is incompatible with the Patrick legend. Pelagianism was annihilated in the Roman State and See by Honorius and Zosimus in 418. In 429 Germanus successfully combated it in Britain. If, then, Ireland was wholly heathen in 431 and Patrick Christianized the land and organized its Church, he must himself have carried Pelagianism thither — which is, of course, absurd. But if the South was already Christian in the first quarter of the fifth century, it is quite comprehensible how Pelagianism found its way to the island. (4) Linguistic facts prove that Christianity came to Ireland from Britain. British and Irish are Celtic tongues, but certain differences of sound had developed by the fourth century. Ecclesiastical and other loan-words, introduced into Irish from Latin with the Christian religion, show forms hard to explain if they came directly from the Latin, but quite comprehensible if they came, through the medium of British (cf. Giiterbock, Lateinische Lehniciirter im Irischen, pp. 91 sqq. Leipsic, LSS2). Patrick himself was a Briton, it is true; but he is said to have studied on the Continent, and his associates are represented as of Romance origin (Tripartite Life, ii. 273, 305; Haddaa and Stubbs, ii. 292). (5) Among the writings attributed to the supposed apostle of Ireland are two, the so-called " Confession " and the " Epistle Concerning Coroticus," which are undoubtedly authentic. They are the work of a man " unlearned and rustic, not at all such a one as later times extolled with the highest praises " (Scholl, p. 71; cf. p. 68), or one who could have founded in the fifth century the Irish Church — a Church in which from the sixth to the ninth century Christian and classical learning were united as nowhere else in the West. Moreover, the " Confession " is the work of a man looking back upon a long life, complaining bitterly of ingratitude, trying to defend himself from the reproach of having presumed to undertake a calling above his capabilities, and threatening to turn his back on Ireland because he recognizes the failure of his life's work there. And he makes not the slightest mention of ever having consecrated a bishop or established a single church in the island. (6) Finally there is the definite statement of Prosper of Aquitaine (Chron., anno 431) that Pope Celestine " ordained Palladius and sent him as their first bishop to the Irish believers in Christ." Prosper was probably in Rome in 431 and issued the first edition of his " Chronicle," which contains the statement quoted, in 433. Here then is a record, as certain and credible as may be, which confirms the supposition that the Irish, in part at any rate, were Christians in 431. The meaning of Prosper's expression " first bishop " is clear, bearing in mind the organization of the Irish Church. Palladius was the first bishop canonically ordained according to Prosper's view, in distinction from the missionary and monastic bishops of the Irish Church during the fifth century. In his later Liber contra collatorem (written probably about
437), in the course of a fulsome eulogy of Celestine, Prosper states that '' while he [Celestine] endeavored to keep the Roman island [Britain] Catholic, he made also the barbarous island [Ireland] Christian " (in MPL, li. 271b-c). But a rhetorical statement of this sort does not impair the value of the careful entry in the " Chronicle." Moreover, the supposition that Celestine ordained a simple deacon — for such Palladius still was in 431 — as bishop of a land considered wholly heathen is in itself untenable. It was not customary to consecrate "bishops" for lands where there were no Christians. Augustine was sent by Gregory to preach to the Angles; but he was not consecrated till he had made converts among them.
Before attempting to reconstruct the early history of Christianity in Ireland, it must be noted that the historical Patrick and Prosper's 3. Prosper's paHadius are the same. Various tif S 1US reasons may De mentioned: (1) Palas Pat- Radius went from Rome to the Irish rick. Christians in 431; Patrick appeared in Ireland in 432. In view of the difficulties of travel of the time, it is hardly conceivable that two different persons should have been despatched to Ireland within the space of one year. (2) Palladius went as the ordained bishop of the Irish Christians; Patrick (in the first sentence of the " Epistle ") calls himself with emphasis the appointed bishop for Ireland. (3) Palladius is first mentioned by Prosper under the year 429 as instigating the mission of Germanus against Pelagianism, from which it may be inferred that Palladius was a Briton and stood in somewhat intimate relations with Germanus. This is true of Patrick according to his own testimony and statements of the lives (" Confession," Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 309, 11. 1-4; Tripartite Life, ii. 370, 11. 9-14; lives, ib. ii. 272, 11. 4-5; 302, 11. 19-23). (4) If Palladius was a Briton, his Romanized name, according to the general custom of the time, should be a translation of his native name. Hence the latter should have some such signification as " warlike " or " having to do with war." Patrick's British name was Sucat (Muirchu, Tripartite Life, ii. 494, 1. 6; Tirechan, ibid. 302, 1. 5; Fiacc's Hymn, ibid. 404—405), composed of su, " good," and cat, " war," a word still in use in modern Welsh in the form hygad, signifying " warlike." If, as was but natural, he resumed his native name on reaching Ireland and the name Palladius first became known there from Prosper's work, it is easy to understand how the idea of two persons arose. As for the name Patrick, it is not improbable that Sucat-Palladius assumed it himself. He was especially proud of his alleged aristocratic descent (cf. his words in Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 316, 11. 15-17; 306, 11. 26- 27; Tripartite Life, ii. 377, 11. 19-22; 368, 11. 1-2), which, however, was not so distinguished as he would make out. In Rome at that time the title Patricius was often conferred upon high officials of the empire to indicate rank. The somewhat narrow-minded Sucat, applying Roman conditions to the little British country town of Bannaventa, where his father had been senator or mayor, may have taken to himself the title Patricius, and so