St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of St. Malachy of Armagh Part 34

[1188] Ps. lii. 8 (vg.).

[1189] Ps. xlv. 7 (vg.).

[1190] Epiphany Collect.

[1191] Cp. _Life_, - 47 (p. 88).

[1192] Isa. xxvii. 6, combined with Hos. xiv. 5, and Ecclus. x.x.xix.

14.

[1193] Ecclus. xlv. 1.

[1194] Ecclus. xxiv. 2, 12 (vg.). The clauses containing the word a.s.sembly (_plenitudo_) are omitted in R.V.

[1195] Ps. cx.x.xvi. 7.

[1196] John i. 4.

[1197] Ps. xlvi. 4.

[1198] Ecclus. l. 6.

[1199] 1 John i. 7, combined with 1 Thess. v. 5.

[1200] Isa. xviii. 4 (vg.).

ADDITIONAL NOTES

A.--St. Bernard's Description of the State of the Irish Church.

_Life_, -- 7, 16, 17.

In two pa.s.sages of the _Life_ serious charges are made against the Irish Church of the early years of the twelfth century. These charges refer primarily to the dioceses of Armagh and Connor; but it is probable that those dioceses were typical of many other districts throughout the country. If St. Bernard's statements are true of them, they may be applied with little reserve to the greater part of Ireland. Indeed he himself gives us more than a hint that the abuses which he condemns were by no means confined to eastern Ulster (- 19). It may be well, therefore, to bring them together and to discuss them.

1. There was no such thing as chanting at the canonical hours. In the whole bishopric of Armagh "there was none who could or would sing" (- 7). "In the churches [of Connor] there was not heard the voice either of preacher or singer" (- 16). We may suspect that there is some exaggeration here; for if church song was absolutely unknown, how could Malachy have "learnt singing in his youth" (- 7)? But that St. Bernard's remarks are substantially correct need not be questioned. He is not speaking of the Irish Church as it was in its earlier period, but of its state at the time when it had probably fallen to its lowest depth. His a.s.sertion, therefore, is not disposed of by references to the chanting at the funerals of Brian Boroimhe in 1014 and Maelsechlainn in 1022 (O'Hanlon, p. 34). Indeed in the notices of those events in _A.F.M._ there is no express mention of ecclesiastical song.

2. At Armagh Confession was not practised (- 7); in the diocese of Connor "nowhere could be found any who would either seek penance or impose it" (- 16). It may be true that Confession had been much neglected among some cla.s.ses of the people: Malachy on one occasion met a woman who had never confessed (- 54), and the very fact that he put the question to her "whether she had ever confessed her sins" suggests that she was not singular in this respect. But it is remarkable that the _anmchara_ (soul-friend), or Confessor, is frequently mentioned in Irish literature. The obits of several persons to whom that t.i.tle is given are recorded in the Annals in the twelfth century. And penance is often alluded to in the obituary notices of distinguished persons, clerical and lay. In his sweeping statement St. Bernard may have had in mind some differences of method in penitential discipline between the Roman and Irish Churches.

3. The sacrament of Confirmation was not celebrated, at any rate in Armagh (- 7). This rite has always been used in the Irish Church, though possibly neglected locally at some periods. St. Patrick tells us that he "confirmed in Christ" those whom he had "begotten to G.o.d" (_Epistle_, 2; cp. _Confession_, 38, 51)--thus giving us one of the earliest instances in literature of the application to the rite of its present familiar name. But in his practice (_Epistle_, - 3), as in the Stowe Missal, about A.D. 800 (ed. Sir G. F. Warner, vol. ii. p. 31), it seems to have consisted of an anointing with chrism without laying on, or raising, of hand, or a direct prayer for the Holy Spirit. According to the Stowe Missal it was administered by a presbyter. It is improbable that St.

Bernard or his romanizing friends would recognize the rite so performed as true Confirmation.

4. One of the things which was neglected at Armagh was "the marriage contract" (- 7). In the diocese of Connor there was "no entry into lawful marriages" (- 16). By the labours of Malachy this abuse disappeared. In Armagh he "inst.i.tuted anew" the marriage contract; in Connor it came to pa.s.s that "the celebration of marriage" was revived (- 17). Putting these statements together we may conclude that St.

Bernard's meaning is that marriages had ceased to be celebrated in the face of the Church, and that in consequence the vow of a life-long union was often evaded. Now contemporary writers charge the Irish of this period with loose s.e.xual morality, especially in regard of arbitrary divorce, matrimony within the prohibited degrees, exchange of wives, and other breaches of the law of marriage. Such accusations are made, for example, by Pope Gregory VII. (Haddan and Stubbs, _Eccl. Docs._ ii.

160), Lanfranc (Ussher, 490; _P.L._ cl. 535, 536), Anselm (Ussher 521, 523; _P.L._ clix. 173, 178) and Giraldus Cambrensis (_Gest._ ii. 14; _Top._ iii. 19). Their evidence is the more worthy of credence because the usages to which they refer were characteristic of the Irish at an earlier period (_Encycl. of Religion and Ethics_, v. 456, 460), and might be expected to recur in an age of spiritual decline. But both Lanfranc and Anselm testify to the existence of marriage as an inst.i.tution among the Irish. The former speaks of the divorce of a wife "lawfully joined to her husband," and the latter uses terms of similar import. So also does St. Bernard himself. His praise of Malachy's mother (_Life_, - 1) is inconceivable if she did not live in wedlock; and he expressly states that eight "metropolitans" of Armagh were "married men"

(- 19). But if there was nevertheless a revival among large sections of the people of pagan ideas of marriage, which tolerated polygamy, concubinage, incest and easy termination of unions, it can be understood that marriage in the face of the Church, which included a vow absolutely prohibitive of all these things, would be commonly avoided. Malachy's anxiety to restore the marriage ceremony was no doubt due to a desire to purge the nation of immoral customs of which St. Bernard makes no express mention. But, however that may be, we have contemporary native evidence that the rite of marriage had fallen into desuetude, and that Malachy was successful in his effort to restore it. For in the doc.u.ment quoted on p. 170, we are told that in a district which was part of the diocese of Armagh when he was Cellach's vicar (_L.A.J._ iv. 37), and under the rule of his patron, Donough O'Carroll, "marriage was a.s.sented to."

5. "There was no giving of t.i.thes or firstfruits," writes St. Bernard (- 16). He is speaking of the diocese of Connor. But there is no doubt that the remark might have been made of other districts. There was no such custom as the payment of t.i.thes in Ireland before the twelfth century.

They are first mentioned by Gilbert of Limerick, about 1108, in his _De Statu Ecclesiae_ (Ussher, 507); and they were enjoined at the Synods of Kells in 1152 (Keating, iii. 315) and Cashel in 1172 (Can. 3, Giraldus, _Expug._, i. 35). From the doc.u.ment quoted above we learn that in Oriel, under Donough O'Carroll, "t.i.thes were received"--evidently a new impost.

6. "Ministers of the altar were exceeding few" in the diocese of Connor (- 16); and accordingly it is observed that Malachy provided his new churches with clergy (- 17). This is not proved, nor is it in any great degree corroborated by the statement of _A.F.M._ (1148) that Malachy "ordained bishops and priests and men of every order"; but the parallel is perhaps worth noting.

7. The voice of the preacher was not heard in the churches (- 16). This statement cannot, so far as I know, be checked.

8. The same remark must be made about the statements that the people would not come to church (- 16), and that Malachy's exertions at length induced them to do so (- 17), though they are sufficiently probable.

9. That "churches were rebuilt" (- 17) cannot be questioned. No doubt the monasteries of Bangor and Saul would be counted among the number. We have explicit and independent evidence of the fact. The foundation of churches and re-edifying of monasteries were a conspicuous feature of the reign of Donough O'Carroll (see p. 170). And _A.F.M._ (1148) lay great stress on Malachy's activities in this direction. He "consecrated many churches and cemeteries," and "founded churches and monasteries, for by him was repaired every church in Ireland which had been consigned to decay and neglect, and they had been neglected from time remote."

On the whole it appears that St. Bernard's strictures are at least not without foundation in fact, in so far as they can be tested. But he can scarcely be acquitted of some measure of exaggeration in the rhetorical pa.s.sages in which they occur.

B.--The Hereditary Succession of the Coarbs Of Patrick.

_Life_, -- 19. 20, 30.

The a.s.sertions of St. Bernard in _Life_, - 19, concerning the coarbs of Patrick are controlled by _A.U._ The ninth predecessor of Cellach, Cathasach II. (+957) is described in them (_s.a._ 956) as "coarb of Patrick, learned bishop of the Goidhil." None of the following eight is said to have been a bishop, though all are called coarbs of Patrick. Moreover Cellach himself was appointed abbot before he "received holy orders," and the record of his ordination on St.

Ad.a.m.nan's Day (September 23) 1105, several weeks after his "inst.i.tution," seems to indicate that it was unusual for the abbots to be ordained. All this corroborates the statement that his eight predecessors were "without orders." It is true, indeed, that according to _A.F.M._ Amalgaid, one of the eight, anointed Maelsechlainn king of Ireland, on his deathbed in 1022. But it does not follow from this that he was a priest. In early times, as is well known, unction was administered to the sick by laymen; and there appears to be no evidence that this office was confined to the priesthood till well on in the ninth century (_Dict. of Christ. Antiquities_, ii. 2004). It is at least possible that the older usage lingered on in Ireland to a much later date than on the Continent. But the statement of _A.F.M._ as to the anointing of Maelsechlainn is not confirmed by the more reliable authority of _A.U._

That at least five of the eight were, as St. Bernard says, "married men"

is shown by the following table, compiled from _A.U._ and MacFirbis (_R.I.A._, MS. 23 P. 1, p. 308). The persons whose names are printed in italics were coarbs of Patrick.

Cellach |-------------| | | Eochaid _Dubdalethe II_ +998 | _Mael Muire_ +1020 | |--------------------------------------------------| | | | _Amalgaid_ +1049 _Dubdalethe III_ +1064 Aed +1042 | | | Aed +1108 | |----------------------------------------------------------| | | | | _Mael Isa_ +1091 _Domnall_ +1105 Dubesa +1078 Eochaid(?) +1038 | | |-------------| _Muirchertach_ (- 20) +1134 | | Aed +1095 Flannacan +1113 | |----------------------| | | _Cellach_ +1129 _Niall_ (- 22) +1139

This table also confirms the statement that the abbots all belonged to the same family, and so obtained office by a sort of hereditary right.

St. Bernard gives no hint which would enable us to identify this family.

But the genealogy given by MacFirbis enumerates the ancestors of Cellach in a direct line up to Fiachrach, son of Colla fo Crich, and is headed "Genealogy of Ui Sinaich, _i.e._ the coarbs of Patrick." The Bodleian MS., Rawl. B. 502,[1201] has the same genealogy, and ent.i.tles it "Genealogy of Clann Sinaich." The family then from which the abbots of Armagh were taken was the princ.i.p.al branch of that sept. From the genealogy it appears that the sept was derived from Sinach, from whom the fifth in descent was the Cellach whose name appears at the head of foregoing table.

St. Bernard represents Malachy to have said in 1132, when he was induced to oppose Murtough, that the system of hereditary succession had already lasted nearly two centuries (- 20). This statement is in accord with known facts. The genealogical table gives sufficient evidence that it began not earlier than the accession of Dubdalethe II. (965), and continued to the accession of Murtough. If there is no evidence that the three predecessors of Dubdalethe were of the Clann Sinaich, neither is there anything to disprove it. But their immediate predecessor, Joseph, was certainly not of that sept; for _A.U._ (MS. A, 935) tells us that he was of the Clann Gairb-gaela, and the list of coarbs in the Book of Leinster notes in addition that he came from Dalriada (_R.I.A._ x.x.xv.

327, 359). Thus the succession cannot have been established before the death of Joseph (936). Hence it lasted for a period of between 167 and 196 years. A period of 167 years, or a period of 196 years, might be described as "well-nigh two hundred years" (_annos ferme ducentos_), though the latter suits St. Bernard's language better than the former.

But how can this be harmonized with the statement that "fifteen quasi-generations had pa.s.sed in this wickedness" (- 19)? Obviously a "quasi-generation" is not a generation of human life: apart from the facts just mentioned, the very word _quasi_ forbids the supposition.

Colgan (_Trias_, p. 301) suggested that the word indicates the period of office of a coarb; and this is very probable. The figure of generations, so applied, is in line with St. Bernard's conception of a bishop as "the seed" of his predecessor (- 34). But the first of a series of coarbs, of which Murtough was the fifteenth, was Maelcoba, the second predecessor of Joseph. So that, even on Colgan's hypothesis, St. Bernard's two statements are irreconcilable. Yet it is difficult to believe that an error so manifest was in his source. I suggest that he wrote "fifteen"

in error for "twelve": in other words his doc.u.ment had _xii_, and he misread it _xu_. The confusion of _u_ with _ii_ is very common in ma.n.u.scripts. If this explanation is accepted, St. Bernard's authority implied that the hereditary succession was upheld without interruption from the death of Joseph to the accession of Murtough, which is "well-nigh two hundred years."

This investigation may convince us that St. Bernard depended on an excellent doc.u.ment for his knowledge of the history of Armagh. But he certainly went astray in the interpretation of the doc.u.ment when he styled the predecessors of Cellach metropolitans (see p. 45, n. 1). And he goes further when he a.s.serts that none were allowed to be bishops who were not of their family (- 19); thus leaving the impression that under the rule of the eight lay abbots--that is, for a century and a half--Armagh was deprived of episcopal ministrations. But this is wholly unhistorical. The Ulster Annals mention six bishops of Armagh, contemporary with the lay abbots. They seem to have followed one another in regular succession, and there is no indication that any one of them belonged to the Clann Sinaich. They were no doubt monastic bishops, such as are found in the Irish Church from the sixth century onwards, who exercised the functions of their order at the bidding of the abbots.

They were probably not referred to in St. Bernard's doc.u.ment; and if they were, one who had been trained in an entirely different ecclesiastical system would have been at a loss to understand their position.

Thus we conclude that St. Bernard, in the pa.s.sage which we are considering, used good material with conscientious care, but that he was misled by lack of knowledge of Irish ecclesiastical methods. This result is important because it may apparently be applied to the whole of his memoir of St. Malachy. His statements, as a rule, stand well the test of comparison with the native records; and when he is at fault we can usually explain his errors as misunderstandings, due to ignorance of conditions of which he had no experience.

St. Bernard has been charged with gross exaggeration in another pa.s.sage.

"A great miracle to-day," he writes (- 30), "is the extinction of that generation, so quickly wrought, especially for those who knew their pride and power." It is an extravagant hyperbole to say that either the O'Neills, or the great tribe of the Oirgialla, represented to this day by the Maguires, the O'Hanlons and the MacMahons, was blotted out when the _Life of St. Malachy_ was written. So argued some in the time of Colgan (_Trias_, p. 302). But they misrepresented St. Bernard. The word "generation" obviously means in the sentence before us what it meant in - 19 ("adulterous generation")--not an extensive tribe, nor even the Clann Sinaich as a whole, but the branch of that sept which provided abbots for Armagh. The speedy extinction of a single family is not a thing incredible. And it is worthy of remark that neither the Clann Sinaich, nor any person described as ua Sinaich or mac Sinaich is mentioned in the Annals after 1135 (see p. 58, n. 9).

For a more detailed treatment of the subjects discussed in this note reference may be made to _R.I.A._ x.x.xv. 232-238, 340-353.