St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of St. Malachy of Armagh Part 35

C.--Malachy's Contest with Niall.

_Life_, -- 22-31.

The narrative of the series of events between the death of Murtough and the consecration of Gelasius, both in St. Bernard's _Life_ and in _A.F.M._, is obscure, and our two main authorities contradict each other in some particulars. In this note, I propose to attempt a reconstruction of the story.

1. Among the native authorities _A.F.M._ stand alone in giving what approximates to a full account of the struggle between the rival abbots.

_A.T._ record only three incidents; the _Chronicon Scotorum_ also records three incidents belonging to the year 1134, and then breaks off, to be resumed in 1142; in _A.U._ and _A.I._ there are hiatus which cover the whole period; the other Annals ignore the events with which we are concerned. The information supplied by _A.F.M._ runs as follows:

[Sidenote: 1134.]

(1) Malachy O'Morgair made a visitation of Munster and obtained his tribute.

(2) A chapel, which was erected by Cormac Mac Carthy, king of Cashel, was consecrated by a synod of clergy a.s.sembled at that place.

(3) Murtough died 17 September.

(4) Niall was installed in the coarbate of Patrick.

(5) A change of abbots at Armagh, _i.e._ Malachy O'Morgair in place of Niall.

(6) Malachy afterwards made a visitation of Munster and received his tribute.

[Sidenote: 1135.]

(7) Flann Ua Sinaich, keeper of the Staff of Jesus, died after good penance.

(8) Malachy O'Morgair purchased the Staff of Jesus, and took it from its cave 7 July.

[Sidenote: 1136.]

(9) A visitation of Munster was made by Malachy O'Morgair, coarb of Patrick.

(10) A change of abbots at Armagh, _i.e._ Niall in place of Malachy.

(11) Malachy O'Morgair resigned the coarbate of Patrick for the sake of G.o.d.

[Sidenote: 1137.]

(12) A change of abbots at Armagh, _i.e._ the erenach (_recte_ abbot) of Derry in place of Niall.

[Sidenote: 1138.]

(13) Christian O'Morgair died.

_A.T._ record the second and fifth of the above events, and subjoin to the latter notice the pa.s.sage quoted p. 51, n. 4. The _Chronicon Scotorum_ records, the second, third and fifth.

There is obvious confusion in the narrative of the Masters. They put the death of Christian O'Morgair under 1138, which is a year too early (see p. 66, n. 1), and they credit Malachy with having made three visitations of Munster within three years, which he is very unlikely to have done.

But it is to be observed that the notices of the visitations are not mere repet.i.tions, for they differ from each other verbally. Thus we may suspect that the Masters copied those entries from three different sources, and that they refer to the same visitation, which, in at least one of the sources, appeared under the wrong year. Now the consecutive sentences 9, 10 are probably connected with each other: the absence of Malachy in Munster would give his opponents opportunity to reinstate his rival. In like manner entries 1, 2 (not consecutive) may be connected.

It would not be surprising if Malachy, even at some risk to the security of his tenure of the abbacy at Armagh, took part in the consecration of his patron's church at Cashel. And it may be added that he would not improbably make this visit to the south the occasion of a circuit in Munster. The visitation, on that hypothesis, must have taken place in 1134 or early in 1135. Again, the note of time in entry 6 implies that it was made not very long after the appointment of Malachy, recorded in the immediately preceding entry 5. Finally, entry 8 mentions an event which must have greatly strengthened his hands. Having possessed himself of the more important and revered of the abbatial insignia he was at length more than a match for his antagonist. Probably, therefore, the restoration of Niall (10) should be placed rather before than after it.

For these reasons we seem to be justified in placing the recorded incidents in the following order. When Malachy secured possession of the see (5) he remained long enough in Armagh to establish himself in the abbacy. During this time may have occurred the abortive conspiracy against him related in _A.T._, but not alluded to in _A.F.M._ He then went to Cashel for the consecration of the Chapel (2), and held his visitation of Munster (1, 6, 9). When he returned he found that Niall had once more entered Armagh (10). By July 1135 the power of his rival had considerably decreased, and Malachy got possession of the Staff of Jesus (8). Finally he resigned his office (11) and Gelasius was appointed to it (12). If this is a true account of the course of events, one statement of the Annals needs correction. They tell us that Gelasius succeeded Niall; on our hypothesis he succeeded Malachy. But that the Masters should have subst.i.tuted the former for the latter was to be expected; for according to their previous (as I believe misplaced) statement Niall, not Malachy, was in possession in the latter part of 1136.

2. We now turn to St. Bernard's narrative of these transactions.

Sections 22 and 23 present no difficulty. They are simply an amplification, with differences in detail, of what we learn from _A.T._ In the early part of - 24 it is stated that Malachy remained in Armagh after the king, with whose aid he had "ascended the chair of Patrick,"

had returned home; and in the succeeding narrative it is implied that he never left it till he went to Down. That is to say, the visitation of Munster is ignored. This need cause no surprise. It is quite possible that St. Bernard had never heard of it. Again, there is no explicit mention of the reinstatement of Niall. But it seems to be implied in - 24 (see p. 53, n. 9). The whole story becomes more intelligible if we a.s.sume that Niall was in possession for a short time, and then fled, but continued to exercise his functions outside the city, as Malachy himself had done in a previous period (- 21). If we suppose that the visit to Munster took place shortly after the episode of - 23 we can explain the only difficulty in the narrative, the return of Niall after he had been driven out. The latter part of - 24 seems to intimate a lessening of opposition to Malachy's rule. The whole pa.s.sage, -- 24-27, with the exception of the last two sentences of - 27, must relate to the period before July 1135, inasmuch as Niall is represented as carrying about with him the Staff of Jesus as well as the Book of Armagh.

Up to this point St. Bernard's narrative harmonizes admirably with the story as it has been reconstructed above from the Annals. But we must carry our comparison of the two accounts a little further. They agree in giving 1137 as the date of the appointment of Gelasius as coarb of Patrick; but while St. Bernard puts the resignation of Malachy in the same year the Masters record it under 1136 (p. 61, n. 7). Now their phrase (11), that he "resigned for the sake of G.o.d," in its present context (10) can have only one meaning. Malachy, seeing that his contest with Niall was hopeless, determined to retire rather than continue the strife, and left Niall in possession. But apart from entry 10, which seems to have been misplaced, the words have no such implication, and are in harmony with the reason given by St. Bernard for Malachy's return to his former diocese (-- 20, 21). Since the dates of the Masters for this period are already suspect we need not hesitate to follow St.

Bernard's guidance here. But we may go further. The annalists were compelled, if they would be consistent, to suppose that there was a considerable interval between the retirement of Malachy and the accession of Gelasius. How was it possible that when Niall had finally routed his formidable rival, who was in possession of the Staff of Jesus, another should at once step in and, apparently without any difficulty, deprive him of the fruits of his victory? The difficulty is increased if we accept the statement of St. Bernard--not contradicted by the Annals, and not easy to dispute--that Gelasius was nominated by Malachy himself, and was therefore presumably favourable to his cause.

Thus we perceive that there was good reason that the annalists should separate the two events as far as possible, by antedating Malachy's resignation, and by connecting it rather with Niall's restoration than with the appointment of Gelasius.

3. In weighing the respective claims of St. Bernard and the annalists to credence in this part of Malachy's life it is well to remember that of it St. Bernard may be a.s.sumed to have had full and first-hand information. The main facts were probably communicated to him by Malachy himself, though some particulars were no doubt added by other Irish informants. It is true, we must also allow for bias on St.

Bernard's part in favour of his friend. Such bias in fact displays itself in -- 25, 26. But bias, apart from sheer dishonesty, could not distort the whole narrative, as it certainly must have been distorted in the _Life_, if the narrative of _A.F.M._ is to be accepted as it stands.

4. It is important to observe that in the earlier stages of Malachy's conflict with Niall the lord of Oriel was Conor O'Loughlin, who was apparently not friendly to the reformers of the Irish Church (cp. -- 18, 20, p. 40, n. 2, and p. 46, n. 5). No doubt his defeat by O'Brien and Mac Carthy in 1134 (p. 43, n. 5) made him a less ardent supporter of Niall than he had been of Murtough; but it is not likely that he entirely discouraged his attempts to seize the abbacy. The ultimate success of Malachy was in fact probably due to O'Loughlin's murder at the end of May 1136 and the rise to power of Donough O'Carroll (see p.

58, n. 11), his successor in the kingdom of Oriel. St. Bernard never mentions O'Carroll by name, though he possibly alludes to him in one pa.s.sage (- 28: see note there). But we may infer from other sources that he was a zealous friend and helper of Malachy. The most important of these is a contemporary doc.u.ment, part of which has been copied on a blank page of a fourteenth-century Antiphonary of Armagh (T.C.D. ms. B.

1. 1.) opposite the first page of the Calendar. Unfortunately the scribe laid down his pen at the end of a line and in the middle of a sentence.

The doc.u.ment was first published by Petrie (p. 389) with a translation.

As it is referred to several times in the notes to the _Life_ it may be well to print here, with a few slight alterations, Dr. Whitley Stokes'

revised rendering (Gorman, p. xx.).

"_Kalend. Januar. v feria, lun. x. Anno Domini mclxx._ A prayer for Donnchad Ua Cerbhaill, supreme King of Oirgialla, by whom were made the book of Cnoc na nApstal at Louth and the chief books of the order of the year, and the chief books of the Ma.s.s. It is this ill.u.s.trious king who founded the entire monastery both [as to] stone and wood, and gave territory and land to it for the prosperity of his soul in honour of Paul and Peter. By him the church throughout the land of Oirgialla was reformed, and a regular bishopric was made, and the church was placed under the jurisdiction of the bishop. In his time t.i.thes were received and marriage was a.s.sented to, and churches were founded and temples and bell-houses [round towers] were made, and monasteries of monks and canons and nuns were re-edified, and _nemheds_ were made. These are especially the works which he performed for the prosperity [of his soul]

and reign in the land of Oirgialla, namely, the monastery of monks on the banks of the Boyne [as to] stone and wood, implements and books, and territory and land, in which there are one hundred monks and three hundred conventuals, and the monastery of canons of Termann Feichin, and the monastery of nuns, and the great church of Termann Feichin, and the church of Lepadh Feichin, and the church of...."

O'Carroll, then, was an ardent supporter of Malachy. Is it likely that after his long struggle to secure the Chair of Patrick, and when he was in actual possession of it, Malachy should voluntarily surrender his claim to Niall at the very moment when the new king of Oriel had come to his aid? Yet, unless we are prepared to place his resignation before June 1136, that is the a.s.sumption we must make if we adhere to the statements of _A.F.M._

5. There are other doc.u.ments of high authority which must be taken into account: the contemporary record of the succession of coarbs of Patrick in the Book of Leinster, and the copy of a similar record in the Yellow Book of Lecan. The former of these seems to have been written by a partizan of Malachy, since it ignores Murtough. The latter a.s.signs to that abbot a rule of three years, in agreement with St. Bernard (-- 20, 21). But neither of them so much as mentions Niall; and both make Gelasius the successor of Malachy. Thus they contradict _A.F.M._ and corroborate the narrative of St. Bernard. See _R.I.A._ x.x.xv. 355 f.

FOOTNOTES:

[1201] See Kuno Meyer's Facsimile edition, p. 146, e. The genealogy there begins with Amalgaid, not with Cellach.

APPENDIX.