invention of Pre-Patrician story.


In this matter and at this hour it is hardly worth appealing to the
authority of Lanigan and the scholars of the past. Much evidence not
available in Lanigan's day is now at the service of scholars. We are
to look rather at the reasoning of Colgan, Ussher, and Lanigan than
to the mere weight of their names.

Referring in order to our tabulated grounds of argument, pro and
con, and taking the pro arguments first, we may (I.) discard as
evidence for our purpose the Life of St. Ibar which is very
fragmentary and otherwise a rather unsatisfactory document. The Lives
of Ailbhe, Ciaran, and Declan are however mutually corroborative and
consistent. The Roman visit and the alleged tutelage under Hilarius
are probably embellishments; they look like inventions to explain
something and they may contain more than a kernel of truth. At any
rate they are matters requiring further investigation and
elucidation. In this connection it may be useful to recall that the
Life (Latin) of St. Ciaran has been attributed by Colgan to Evinus
the disciple and panegyrist of St. Patrick.

Patrick's apparent neglect of the Decies (II.) may have no special
significance. At best it is but negative evidence: taken, however,
in connection with (I.) and its consectaria it is suggestive. We can
hardly help speculating why the apostle--passing as it were by its
front door--should have given the go-bye to a region so important as
the Munster Decies. Perhaps he sent preachers into it; perhaps there
was no special necessity for a formal mission, as the faith had
already found entrance. It is a little noteworthy too that we do not