St. Bernard of Clairvaux's Life of St. Malachy of Armagh Part 14

[420] Rom. xiii. 12.

[421] _Spiritus._ Cp. the "spirit of tempests" in - 22 (end).

[422] Ps. cii. 10.

[423] _Song of Three Children_, 27.

[424] Ecclus. x.x.xv. 16 (inexact quotation).

[425] Exod. x. 23 (inexact quotation).

[426] 2 Kings xviii. 41 ff.; Jas. v. 18.

[427] 2 Kings i. 9-12.

[428] John xiii. 31.

[429] This date is incorrect. The entry into the city of Armagh cannot have taken place before October 1134, when Malachy was in his fortieth (possibly thirty-ninth) year. His entry into the province (- 21) was probably made in his thirty-eighth year. This was no doubt the cause of St. Bernard's error; for one of his doc.u.ments may, like _A.F.M._ (p. 48, n. 3), have used words which seemed to imply that he entered Armagh on that earlier occasion.

[430] If "the king" was Cormac Mac Carthy (p. 51, n. 2), the statement that he returned home shortly after Malachy obtained possession of the see, is confirmed by _A.F.M._ For they record, under 1134, the consecration of Cormac's Chapel on the rock of Cashel.

[431] Wisd. iii. 1.

[432] 2 Cor. vii. 5.

[433] Ps. ii. 2; Acts iv. 26.

[434] The flight of Niall seems clearly to imply that he was in the city of Armagh. The natural inference is that "having been driven out"

he was afterwards reinstated. This may have happened while Malachy was absent on a visitation of Munster, mentioned in _A.F.M._, but apparently unknown to St. Bernard. The statement of the latter, that Malachy "remained" in Armagh, ignores it. See further, Additional Note C, p. 168 f.

[435] The _Book of Armagh_, now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. The ma.n.u.script was written at Armagh early in the ninth century by a scribe named Ferdomnach; but at an early date it came to be supposed that it was the work of St. Patrick himself. From this belief, perhaps, arose the name by which it was known for many centuries, and which can be traced back to the year 936--the Canon of Patrick. It is strange that it should be called here a "copy of the Gospels"; for in addition to the complete text of the New Testament it contains two lives of St. Patrick, his _Confession_ and other historical doc.u.ments. But the word _Gospel_ was very loosely used in Ireland (see _R.I.A._ x.x.xiii. 327 f.). Misled by this description, de Backer (n. _ad loc._) identifies the book mentioned by St. Bernard with the so-called "Gospels of St. Patrick," found in the shrine known as the Domnach Airgid, about 1830, which have no connexion with Armagh or St. Patrick (_R.I.A. Trans._ xviii., "Antiquities," pp. 14 ff.; x.x.x. 303 ff.; _R.I.A._ x.x.xiv. 108 ff.). For further information about the _Book of Armagh_ the reader may consult Gwynn, especially pp.

ci.-cxvi.

[436] The staff of Jesus was a wooden crozier (Giraldus, _Top._ iii.

34), richly adorned. The story of its presentation by Christ to St.

Patrick is found in the tenth-century _Trip._ (p. 30), no doubt taken from an earlier source. The staff was much older than the _Book of Armagh_; for we find that it was "profaned" in 789, and it was then apparently regarded as the princ.i.p.al relic of St. Patrick (_A.U._ 788). It seems that there was a still more ancient tradition, that St.

Patrick gave it to St. Mac Cairthinn (_R.I.A._ x.x.xiv. 114), from which it may be inferred that it once belonged to the church of Clogher. It was removed from Armagh to Dublin in 1180, and deposited in Christ Church. It was burnt in 1538 (_A.L.C._). Apparently St. Bernard is the only authority for the statement that it was "fashioned" by Christ. It appears that the staff of Jesus, in the twelfth century, was regarded as a much more important relic than the _Book of Armagh_, and was more closely a.s.sociated with the person and office of the coarb of Patrick.

It is frequently mentioned in such a way as to suggest that it was one of the insignia of his authority (_A.U._ 1015, 1073, 1101, 1113, 1157, 1166, 1167; _A.F.M._ 1135, 1139, 1143, 1148, 1152). Similar references to the _Book of Armagh_ do not occur till near the close of the twelfth century, immediately after the removal of the staff from Armagh (_A.U._ 1179, 1196; Gwynn, p. civ.). A very full account of the later history of the staff may be read in _O.C.C._ pp. viii-xx.

[437] Deut. x.x.xii. 6.

[438] _Gyrovagus._ The word is commonly used of a monk who leaves his proper monastery, and wanders about from one cell to another (see, _e.g._, St. Bernard, _Ep._ 68, - 4), or to a priest who deserts his parish (Du Cange, _s.v._).

[439] Job i. 6, 7; ii. 2.

[440] King (_Primacy of Armagh_, p. 97) thought that this was Conor O'Loughlin. But he could hardly be described as "of the unrighteous race," or as a "prince," which would indicate a petty chieftain.

Probably the conspirator was a local magnate.

[441] Matt. xxvi. 4, combined with Luke xxii. 2.

[442] Cp. Acts xxiii. 12 f.

[443] Matt. xxvi. 48.

[444] 1 Macc. i. 30.

[445] Cp. 1 Cor. xi. 1.

[446] Matt. x. 38, etc.

[447] Acts xxv. 11.

[448] 1 Pet. v. 3 (vg., inexact quotation).

[449] _Formam._ The word occurs in the verse just quoted, and in the context of that which follows (Phil. ii. 7).

[450] Phil. ii. 8.

[451] Ps. lxxviii. 7.

[452] Acts xxi. 13; John xi. 16.

[453] Cp. Apuleius, _Metamorph._ xi. 23.

[454] Eph. vi. 16.

[455] Gen. iv. 6.

[456] Exod. xv. 16.

[457] Ps. xxvii. 2 (vg.).

[458] John iv. 37.

[459] While accepting the facts here narrated, so far as they were capable of being observed, one cannot ignore the probability that they were misinterpreted. It is quite possible that the offer of peace was made in good faith, and that Malachy and his friends were unduly suspicious when they "foresaw guile." The prince may have surrounded himself with armed men as a mere matter of prudence.

[460] Susanna, 62.

[461] Luke xvi. 8.

[462] - 23.

[463] _Mulctatum in corpore._

[464] _Mutatum in corde._

[465] Ps. x. 2.