Insula Sanctorum et Doctorum Part 46

Manchan had another oratory at Mohill, County Leitrim.

This shrine is at present preserved in the Catholic Church of Boher, near the Prospect Railway Station, on the Athlone and Portarlington line; and a _fac-simile_ may be seen in the Royal Irish Academy. We need not describe it at length here. It is in the usual form of such Celtic shrines, somewhat like the roof of a house--24 inches long, 15 broad, and 19 inches high. On each side there is a large and beautiful cross composed of five bosses, at the extremities elaborately ornamented, and united by the arms of the cross which were covered with plates of enamel, fixed in a yellow ground with red border lines. Above and below the crosses there must have been originally as many as fifty human figures, but at present only ten remain. The metal work throughout was richly gilt, and ornamented with the usual interlaced figures, characteristic of our Celtic ornamentation.

When the shrine was opened it was found to contain a few small fragments of bones, and some pieces of the original box of yew in which they were enclosed, with a few of the silver plates which adorned the original reliquary. As Lemanaghan was originally given to Clonmacnoise as an "Altar-sod," about the year A.D. 645, there can hardly be any doubt that St. Manchan was sent from Clonmacnoise to occupy it, and that it always continued to be a daughter of Clonmacnoise. Hence we are justified in concluding that Rory O'Conor had this beautiful work of art executed by some of the _cerds_ of that famous monastery.

CHAPTER XXIII.

IRISH SCHOLARS ABROAD.

"O, pilgrim, if you bring me from some far-off land a sign, Let it be some token still of the green Old Land once mine; A sh.e.l.l from the sh.o.r.es of Ireland would be dearer far to me, Than all the wines of the Rhine-land, or the art of Italie."

--_M'Gee._

We do not, by any means, propose at present to give an account of the Irish Saints and Scholars, who founded so many monasteries and schools in foreign countries, from the seventh to the eleventh century. The subject is too wide and too important to be discussed in this volume. It will be necessary, however, to give a brief account of a few of those celebrated men, in order to show the character of the scientific and theological training which they received in the Schools of their native land.

I.--ST. VIRGILIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF SALZBURG.

St. Virgilius, Archbishop of Salzburg, is one of the most celebrated of those learned men, whom our Irish schools sent forth in swarms during the eighth and ninth centuries. And he was not merely a learned prelate, and a successful champion of orthodox doctrine; he was also a great astronomer, far in advance of his own age, for he taught the sphericity of the earth, and the existence of antipodes, long before Copernicus or his system was known to the scholars of Europe.

The exact place and date of his birth cannot be ascertained, but that he was an Irishman may not for a moment be questioned. In the first place we have the express testimony of the celebrated Alcuin, an almost contemporary writer, who declares that Virgilius was born, reared, and educated in Ireland.[414] Then the author of the poetical epitaph over Virgilius, in his own church of Salzburg, bears the same testimony,[415]

affirming that it was the 'Hibernian land' that sent him, under G.o.d's guidance, to Salzburg. His Life, too, written about the year A.D. 1190, by a disciple of Ebenhard, Archbishop of Salzburg, expressly affirms the Irish birth of Virgilius; and such, we may add, has been the unvarying tradition of the church and city of Salzburg.

In our domestic Annals we have first the testimony of the Four Masters, who, A.D. 784, record that "Ferghil, _i.e._, the Geometer, abbot of Achadh-bo, died in Germany in the thirteenth year of his bishopric;" and as we shall presently see, this was the date of the death of Virgil, the Archbishop of Salzburg, and thirteen years was the duration of his episcopacy. In the _Annals of Ulster_, under date of A.D. 788, we find that:--"Fergil, abbot of Achadh-bo, died"--the year corresponds to A.D.

784 of the Four Masters, and that appears to be the true date.

There can be no reasonable doubt, therefore, that Virgilius of the Latin is equivalent to Fergil of the Irish, as the root-words sufficiently imply; and that Ferghil the Geometer, who died in Germany as a bishop, having been previously abbot of Aghaboe, is the celebrated Virgilius, Archbishop of Salzburg, so widely known to fame as an astronomer and theologian.

Virgil, with a few companions from Ireland, one of whom was a priest--Sidonius or Sedna--arrived in France about the year A.D. 741--the year in which Charles Martel died, and was succeeded in his office of mayor of the palace by the famous Pepin le Bref, father of the still more renowned Charlemagne. Virgil spent some two or three years in the Court of Pepin, who sent him, about A.D. 743, with strong letters of recommendation to the Court of Ottilo, Duke of Bavaria. At this period Bavaria had been partially converted to the faith, by the zealous labours of St. Boniface, the apostle of Germany, afterwards Archbishop of Mentz and Legate of the Apostolic See. Much, however, still remained to be done; and it was the wish of Pepin that Duke Ottilo should avail himself of the services of the two Irish priests, of whose zeal and learning he had ample proofs in the conversion of his own half-Christian subjects. The duke received the friends of Pepin with much consideration; for he seems to have kept them near himself, and entrusted them with his confidence, as we may fairly infer from subsequent events.

The zeal of the Irishmen, however, soon got them into trouble; but what was a source of trouble to them has since proved a useful lesson to all theologians of the Church.

Many of the priests of the period in Germany were by no means learned; so it happened that one of them when baptizing a catechumen made use of this form:--"Ego te baptizo in nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritua Sancta"--which even a boy learning the Latin Grammar can perceive is very different from the orthodox form. The case was referred to Boniface, who declared that the baptism was invalid, and ordered those so baptized to be baptized again. Virgil and his friend, Sidonius, afterwards Archbishop of Bavaria, knew how jealous the Church has always been about re-baptizing those once validly baptized; and they declared that in their opinion the baptism in question was valid. Boniface, however, persisted in his opinion. He was, as he himself says, an Englishman from _Saxonia transmarina_--and though it is highly probable that he was of Irish origin, he did not wish to accept the teaching of the Irish theologians on this occasion. So the matter was referred to Rome; and it so happened that Pope Zachary, a Calabrian Greek, and a man, too, of great learning and holiness, then filled the Chair of St. Peter. His decision, sent by letter to Boniface, declares distinctly that if the minister of the sacrament, through ignorance of Latin, and not from any heretical purpose of introducing a new form, p.r.o.nounced the words as given above, the baptism must be held to be valid.[416]

This clear and emphatic expression of Catholic doctrine, as every theological student knows, we owe to Virgil and Sidonius. They rightly deemed that this error in the form was not _substantial_ but _accidental_; it was not introduced from malice, with a view to pervert the form of the sacrament, but from ignorance; the priest evidently had the intention of doing what the Church does; he corrupted the integrity of the form, but it remained perfectly intelligible to any bystander acquainted with the Latin language, and hence the baptism itself was valid.

Boniface yielded prompt obedience to the Apostolic See, but, although a saint and martyr, he felt sore at the victory gained over him by the Irish strangers,[417] who intruded into his spiritual domain, and seemed to supplant him in favour with the Duke Otillo. And, no doubt, there were not wanting interested parties who strove to foment dissensions between these two saints and servants of G.o.d. No one, indeed, who knows the history of Boniface, will endorse the spiteful remark of Basnage that he was--"Vir si quis unquam superbus sive zelotes." But he was human like others, and his own letters clearly showed that he felt keenly the victory of Virgil. He waited, however, for a while, and then sent a friend of his, Buchardus of Wirzburg, to Rome with letters for the Pope, in which he brought four serious charges against Virgil. He accused him, as we know from the Pope's answer, first, that this Virgil was making malicious accusations against him, Boniface, because he had been convicted by Boniface of teaching erroneous doctrine;[418] secondly, Boniface charged him with whispering false things to the Duke, with a view of sowing dissension between him, Boniface, and the Duke;[419] thirdly, he accused Virgil of giving out that he was dismissed by the Pope from Rome,[420] in order to get one of the four bishoprics of Bavaria just then vacant. Lastly, he brings against him the most formidable charge of all, that Virgil taught that there was another world, and _other_ men under the earth, and another sun and moon.[421] And, in the same letter, Boniface complains that a certain Samson, an Irishman--"genere Scottus"--erred from the way of truth, teaching that a man could become a Christian merely by the imposition of hands, without baptism. Clearly Boniface was hard on the Irishmen then in Bavaria; and the whole tone of the letter shows that he had not forgotten his previous contest with Virgil and Sidonius.

The Pope in his answer deals with these charges with the greatest prudence. He had very great respect for Boniface, but it is clear he is not prepared to accept all his statements without proof. He makes no special remark on the two first charges, for they could be easily explained. But, as to the third, he declares that the alleged statement of Virgil is false, that he was not (_absolutus_) dismissed, or sent home by the Pope in order to get a bishopric in Bavaria. Indeed, as to this charge, there is no evidence that Virgil was ever in Rome at all; but it is highly probable that both Pepin and Ottilo were anxious for his advancement to a See in Bavaria, and that their zeal was attributed to the time-serving ambition of Virgil himself. The charge is entirely inconsistent with his character; and it is hardly necessary to observe that it is no proof of its truth that it was made in these letters sent to Rome by Boniface. Too many unfounded charges of the kind have been made in Rome both since and before.

As regards the fourth charge, that of teaching that there was another world, and other men, and another sun and moon, it deserves fuller notice at our hands.

It is clear that Virgil held the doctrine of the Antipodes, and that Boniface, not unwilling to find him erring in doctrine, formulated his teaching as above. The words of the Pope thereupon are noteworthy.[422]

"Concerning this charge of false doctrine, if it shall be established,"

says the Pope, "that Virgil taught this perverse and wicked doctrine against G.o.d and his own soul, do you then convoke a council, degrade him from the priesthood, and drive him from the Church." But what is this doctrine as represented to the Pope? Certainly not that taught by Virgil, and which he learned in the schools of his native land. The doctrine censured by the Pope, was that there is another world, and another race of men quite different from us, _not children of Adam_, and hence not redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. This was the sense in which the Pope understood the doctrine of the Antipodes, this was the sense in which it was understood by St. Augustine, and for that reason reprobated by him as well as by the Pope. And the very words, in which the accusation against Virgilius is formulated, clearly point to this "perverse and wicked" teaching. The truth of the matter was, that neither Boniface nor the Pope knew astronomy as well as Virgil, and hence they imagined he taught doctrines which were quite different from his real opinions.

It is well to observe that great diversity of opinion prevailed concerning the existence of Antipodes, both amongst the ancient philosophers and the Fathers of the Church.

Plato is said to have been the first who held the existence of Antipodes, and used the word in its present signification. But there is no evidence that he himself believed in their actual existence, even though he invented the term which so accurately describes them.

Lactantius, however, in his treatise "De falsa Sapientia Philosophorum,"

ridicules the notion of Antipodes, and, as he clearly regards it as a philosophical error, we may fairly conclude that some of the ancient philosophers taught their existence.

It would be easy enough to show how unpalatable the doctrine of the Antipodes was to the ecclesiastical authorities of the eighth century; and in what sense the Pope must have understood the alleged teaching of St.

Virgilius. What the Pope declared to be perverse and wicked doctrine--not heretical--was that there is another world, and another _race of men_--alii homines--and therefore not Sons of Adam, and another sun and moon to shine upon them. But this certainly was not the teaching of Virgilius, for according to him it was the same world, and the same sun and moon, and the same race of men who dwelt in the opposite regions of the world.

Virgil must have, in his own defence, explained the real meaning of his words to the satisfaction of the Pope, for we find no further mention of the controversy; and we know, too, that in a short time afterwards he was promoted to the See of Salzburg, which would certainly not be sanctioned in Rome if they had any suspicion of his doctrine.

Pagi, indeed, holds that there must have been two different Virgils, one who had the dispute with St. Boniface, and another who was Bishop of Salzburg; and yet he admits that both were in Bavaria in A.D. 746. This hypothesis is intrinsically improbable, and altogether unsupported by evidence. Indeed, the only reason given by Pagi is the silence of the writer of Virgil's Life, published by Canisius, regarding the disputes with Boniface. But the answer is quite simple: the writer of the Life gives very few facts, although he narrates many miracles; and hence from his silence we can infer nothing against the generally received opinion.

Pagi also alleges that Virgil was the fifth Bishop of Salzburg. Here, again, however, he is mistaken, at least if we are to credit the author of the second Life given by Canisius, who makes him the eighth bishop after St. Rudbert. Other writers, however, make him fifth after the founder of the See, following the anonymous author of an old poem on the Bishops of Salzburg, who describes them as:--

"Advena Virgilius statuens quam plurima _quintus_, Multo plura quaerens Arno super omnia _s.e.xtus_."

It is almost impossible to fix the exact year in which Virgilius became Bishop of Salzburg. The metrical epitaph on his tomb declares that for nearly forty years he ruled the church of Salzburg; and as the latest year a.s.signed for his death is A.D. 785, this would bring the beginning of his episcopacy before A.D. 750. Another account represents him as consecrated by St. Stephen, successor of Zachary; and as the former did not begin his reign until A.D. 752, we must place the beginning of Virgil's episcopacy after that event. As he spent some years abbot of St. Peter's Monastery in Salzburg before he became bishop, the date given in his Life, written by the disciple of St. Ebenhard, towards the end of the twelfth century, is much more probable--that he was consecrated bishop in succession to John in A.D. 766 or 767. The same writer tells us that for two years after his nomination to the See, he continued to refuse the appointment; and that during this time the duties of the episcopal office were performed by a bishop called Dowd, _Dobda_, a countryman of the saint, who seems to have come with him from Ireland. At last he was prevailed upon to allow himself to be consecrated, but he yielded only to the earnest entreaties of all the neighbouring prelates.

His life was spent in unceasing labour, not only for his own flock, but for the conversion of the neighbouring provinces, especially Carinthia, which was still pagan. He not only sent missionaries to preach the Gospel amongst these half-civilized people, but towards the close of his life he himself paid frequent visits to the newly-established churches, and did much to confirm them in the faith. Hence Virgilius is venerated to this day as the Apostle of Carinthia.

He rebuilt the monastery of St. Peter in a style of great magnificence, for he always loved the good monks of St. Benedict, who had chosen the Irish stranger to be their abbot and father; and when he died, he left his bones amongst them. He also built a stately church in honour of St.

Stephen, and a splendid basilica dedicated to St. Rudbert, which he made the cathedral of the diocese, and to which he translated the relics of that saint, the founder and first bishop of the church of Salzburg.[423]

When he had these great works completed, he set out on a missionary journey amongst the neighbouring tribes; but finding his end approaching, "he quickly returned," says the writer of his life:--

"And when he came in view of his beloved Salzburg, and its encircling hills, he began to weep copious tears, and he cried out--Haec requies mea, hic habitabo quoniam elegi eam--and having celebrated the Holy Sacrifice, he died without pain--leni correptus morbo--on the fifth day before the Kalends of December, A.D. 784; or according to another, but less probable account, in A.D. 780. His body was buried in the southern wing of the monastery which he himself had spent twelve years in building. There he was honourably buried as became a great High Priest, and his soul went up to enjoy the fellowship of heavenly citizens for endless ages."

We hear no more of St. Virgil for four hundred years, until near the end of the twelfth century, when his Life was written by one who was himself a witness of many of the facts which he relates. "In the year of our Lord's Incarnation, A.D. 1171," he says in the opening paragraph:--

"On the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the twenty-first year of the Pontificate of our Lord Pope Alexander III., the most Serene Prince Frederic being august Emperor of the Romans, and Otto of Witelens.p.a.ch, most renowned Duke of Bavaria; when the edifice of the aforesaid monastery of St. Peter, which had some years before been destroyed by fire, was being rebuilt at the expense and by the command of the ill.u.s.trious Pastor Chunrad, Archbishop of Salzburg, Legate of the Apostolic See in Germany, and Cardinal Priest of St. Marcellus, through the co-operating grace of the Holy Spirit, and the suffragant clemency of the Divine Majesty, it came to pa.s.s that the body of the blessed Virgilius, which had been hidden from all persons for many centuries, was wonderfully brought to light."

"It happened on a certain day that some stones having fallen from the wall, gave an opportunity to the pa.s.sers-by to look into the opening, in which they noticed signs of a hollow s.p.a.ce, and the outlines of an ancient picture were observed drawn in gold. Thereupon the canons of the church made an investigation; and upon further opening the wall, the tomb and image (depicta imago) of St. Virgilius, eighth Bishop of Salzburg after St. Rudbert, was discovered, with the following inscription:--'Virgilius templum construxit schemate pulchro.' And moreover the day of his death was marked, the fifth before the Kalends of December (27th Nov.) Anno 781."

Then the writer goes on to narrate how the archbishop and the clergy, and all citizens, crowded to the tomb to venerate the sacred relics; and he gives a long list of most extraordinary miracles which were daily performed at the tomb, but which we cannot stay to transcribe.

The name of St. Virgilius is not found in the Roman Martyrology, says Basnage, but he is always spoken of as a saint in the _Annals of the Benedictines_; and in the Canons of a Council of Salzburg, held in A.D.

1274, the a.s.sembled prelates declare that they recognise Rudbert, Virgil, and Augustine, as the patrons of that church, and command, under penalty of excommunication, their feast days to be kept as holidays. It is hardly necessary to add that the festival of Virgilius, Bishop and Confessor, is celebrated by the Irish Church on the 27th November.[424]

II.--SEDULIUS, COMMENTATOR ON SCRIPTURE.

Another eminent Irish scholar of the Dispersion was Sedulius, the Commentator on Scripture. Sedulius the Elder, of whom we have already spoken at length, is known as the Poet; the present Sedulius is, for the sake of distinction, commonly called Sedulius the Younger, or the Commentator.

Of his personal history unfortunately we know only two facts--first, that he was an Irishman; and secondly, that he was, as his writings abundantly prove, a most distinguished scholar. We cannot even identify him for certain amongst the many Irish scholars, who are known to have borne this name during the eighth and ninth centuries.

There was a Sedulius, who is supposed to have been Bishop of Strathclyde in Scotland, and who was certainly present at a Council held in Rome, A.D.

721.[425] He describes himself under his own hand as a British Bishop of Irish birth;[426] and he was accompanied by another prelate who calls himself Fergustus Episcopus Scotiae Pictus--that is a Pictish Bishop of Scotia, which at that time must mean a Bishop of the Irish Picts. Both happened to be in Rome together, and were invited to a.s.sist at this Council and subscribe their names. It is another of the many proofs that indicate the close union between Rome and the Celtic Churches at this period.

The Four Masters, A.D. 785 (_recte_ 789), make mention of the death of Siadhal, or Sedulius, 'Abbot of Dublin.' The same entry (A.D. 789) is in the _Annals of Ulster_, but in the _Martyrology of Donegal_ he is described as Bishop of Dublin, and in the _Tallaght Martyrology_ on the same day (12th Feb.) he is simply called 'Siadal Bishop;' but nothing more is known about him. If there was a Bishop in Dublin, there certainly was no See of Dublin at this period; for the See was certainly of Danish origin.