Fiecus

ON ST. FIECUS, BISHOP OF SLETTY AND CONFESSOR, IN IRELAND,

ABOUT THE END OF THE FIFTH CENTURY, AS IT APPEARS.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Fiecus, bishop of Sletty, confessor, in Ireland. (S.)

BY C. B.

§ I. The sacred cult of the Saint; three different Encomia or Elogia of his Life, and one of these, although not of entire credit in all things, to be edited.

Ireland, a most celebrated island of Europe, facing Great Britain where this looks to the West, Of the Saint, who sat and was buried in the place assigned here, is divided, according to the custom used by the ancients, into four chief parts or provinces, namely Leinster, Munster, Connaught or Connacht, and Ulster, most authors also counting Meath as part of Leinster, which others separate from it and make a fifth province of Ireland; and further each of these comprises various smaller regions or counties into which they were divided in more recent times. One of these, sometimes distinguished by the name of Leix, but generally by that of Queen's County, and included in Leinster, is watered from its very source by the river Barrow, in Latin Birgus or Barroius, called Berbha in Ussher, De Britannicarum ecclesiarum Primordiis, page 864, by the ancient author of the Tripartite Work. Beside this, as that ancient author reveals in the same place, in the White Plain, which, with our Papebroch in the manuscript Notes extant with us on the seventh Life of St. Patrick in Colgan, I think is not different from the plain of Queen's County lying between the roots of the hill or mountain called Slepehill by Speed in his Geographical Map of Leinster and the place, not far thence, where the river just mentioned takes its rise from two rivulets flowing together from West and East, was situated the city of Sleaty, in which, now called Sletty, if Ware, De Scriptoribus Hiberniæ, book 1, observes rightly, the first to occupy the episcopal see, and to obtain burial, was he who had been established bishop there by St. Patrick, apostle of the Irish, St. Fiecus, or Fiacus, or something slightly different again, and in Irish named Fiec or Fiac, and often also Fiag, as Colgan says in the Trias Thaumaturga, page 7, note 2.

[2] This Saint of ours, that I may now, these things premised, gird myself for what I have proposed, and for reasons to our Work is undoubtedly distinct, as the same Colgan adds in the place just cited, from St. Fiechus or Fiachus, venerated on the 27th day of December, although only the aspiration, with which that name, but not likewise this one, is written, distinguishes his name from the name of St. Fiecus or Fiacus; but although this is so, I long and much doubted whether he should be brought into our Work. Nor could I at once be moved to grant him a place in it here without any scruple, either by the Irish Martyrologies, in which, as Colgan repeats more than once, he is celebrated on this 12th day of October, or by the second or fifth Life of St. Patrick in Colgan, in each of which the veneration of his relics is intimated. For Ercus or Hercus, bishop of Slane in Ireland, the veneration of whose relics is likewise intimated in the fifth of the Patrician Lives in Colgan, is also clearly indicated in the third of them to enjoy sacred cult; and yet we did not on that account bring him into our Work on the second day of October, on which he stands inscribed in some Irish Martyrologies, but deferred him to the second day of November, on which he is likewise recorded in some Irish sacred Fasti, requiring also surer indications of public cult before we do so then.

[3] But we judged that this was to be done because we do not know whether the third Life of St. Patrick in Colgan, adduced here in which, as has been said, Ercus is clearly indicated to be venerated, can be trusted safely enough; and because, since he is nowhere honoured with the title either of Saint or of Blessed in the Patrician Lives in Colgan in which he is recorded, it can with reason be called into doubt whether, at the time when these were written, he enjoyed sacred cult, and consequently whether he was brought into the Irish Martyrologies in which he stands inscribed on account of this, and not on account of the mere fame of holiness by which he became illustrious. And although it is also very greatly to be feared that the fifth of those Lives too, in which, from what has been said, the veneration of the relics both of Ercus and of Fiecus is intimated, cannot be trusted safely enough, yet that a different judgment is to be made of the second, in which this very thing is done, at least as regards the relics of our Saint, is persuaded by what our Papebroch pronounces about it in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts or Life of St. Patrick, number 16. Moreover, the scholiast in Colgan, Trias, page 4, who is to be praised several times hereafter and who, from what is to be said below, is very ancient, adorns Fiecus, on whom he comments, with the title of Saint; and the same honorific appellation is liberally attributed to him, at repeated times and indeed more than once, by Jocelin, who at the end of the twelfth century composed the sixth of the Patrician Lives in Colgan, and by another writer who, as it appears, much earlier still composed the Tripartite, or seventh; and this they would most probably have done less frequently and more sparingly on account of the mere fame of holiness by which he had become illustrious while he lived, unless, at the time when they wrote, Fiecus had enjoyed the cult proper to Saints.

[4] These things therefore being so, and Fiecus being moreover said by Jocelin to have been conspicuous for holiness of life and for miracles, it appears in no way foreign to the appearance of truth, nay not even to the truth, that he in actual fact obtained after death the honours proper to Saints among his Irish nation, which was by no means rigid in establishing the cult of its Saints; he is inserted today, and since there is therefore no reason why he should not be believed to have been brought on account of these into the Irish Martyrologies in which he is inscribed, we judged that Fiecus or Fiacus, whom moreover, as must also be noted here, the things alleged in the same place make it probable is not different from the bishop Foceus, referred by us today among the Passed Over from the Echternach apograph of the Hieronymian in Florentinius, was to be inserted in our Work here on this day on which this is done in them, being impelled also by the fact that our predecessors indicated in more than one place that this would be done today. But there is no reason why anyone should at once think on that account that his son Fiacrius is to be added here to his father Fiecus. For he, whom of the printed ancient monuments none other than the Acts of St. Patrick record, is nowhere in these given the title either of Blessed or of Saint; and although he too, on Colgan's testimony, stands inscribed today in some Irish Martyrologies, yet nothing at all persuades that he is recorded in these, not yet published by the benefit of type, by reason of a sacred cult which he either enjoys on this day or once enjoyed.

[5] three different elogia exist, indicated here. Of these the last, Setting aside, therefore, Fiacrius, son of St. Fiecus, whom we have not even reported above among the Passed Over, because he is celebrated only in sacred Fasti still in manuscript, and because our plan does not require that every single such Servant of God destitute of cult be reckoned among the Passed Over, we are now to treat here of the last alone. No writer or author, at least whom I have seen, has of set purpose committed to writing the Acts or Life of St. Fiecus; but of the last six Lives of St. Patrick in Colgan, all of which, the fourth alone excepted, speak of St. Fiecus, the last two, doing so even at greater length, supply so many things concerning him that both what is read in the former of these two, written by Jocelin, and what is read in the latter, can be held as a fair compendium of his life. Further, to these two compendia of the Acts or Life of St. Fiecus there can be added also a third, composed by the ancient scholiast of our Saint, or rather of the hymn usually attributed to him, and recited entire in continuous order by Colgan in the Trias, page 4, column 1. But in what esteem are those three compendia, each of which you might not unfittingly call also an elogium or encomium of the Saint, to be held? The scholiast already recorded most probably flourished, as it seemed to Colgan in the same place, who not obscurely intimates in the Work just cited, page 7, note 1, that he found the last of them prefixed in the manner of a Preface to the Hymn composed, as is commonly believed, by Fiecus in praise of St. Patrick, either before the end of the sixth century, or at any rate, as indeed it appears to me, not later than when the seventh century had not long begun.

[6] [by the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to St. Fiecus, who about the end of the sixth century] For after he has narrated that St. Fiecus was instituted archbishop of Leinster by St. Patrick, he presently subjoins these following words, Which office also his Comorbans or successors discharge from then on, and thus clearly indicates that, while he was writing, the archiepiscopal, or rather, on account of what is to be said below, the metropolitan dignity of Leinster still remained with the successors of St. Fiecus in the see of Sletty, or had not yet ceased to exist at Sletty; and since this, inasmuch as after the year 598, as in our Work at the 1st day of February in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Brigid, Scottish virgin, number

XI, may be seen, Brandubh, king of Leinster, transferred it from Sletty to Ferns and granted it to St. Maedoc, established bishop there, it must most probably, if that prince truly died in the year 601, as Colgan writes in the Trias, page 8, note 8, have ceased to exist at Sletty before the end of the sixth century, or at any rate, if Brandubh lived some years more after that year, about the beginning of the seventh century, at which St. Maedoc died, as we taught in our Work at the 31st day of January when treating of this Saint; it is necessary, therefore, that the scholiast of whom we speak here, who, as has been said, clearly indicates that the metropolitan dignity had not yet ceased to exist there while he was writing, flourished either before the end of the sixth century or at any rate when [ ] had not long begun.

[7] But although indeed among the bishops of Ireland there were always some or at the beginning of the following who had something of ampler dignity or ecclesiastical jurisdiction than the others and could hence rightly be called primates, they nevertheless did not begin to be called archbishops before about the twelfth century, as we have already taught at the 17th day of June in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Moling, bishop of Ferns, number 8; wherefore, since the scholiast of St. Fiecus nevertheless attributes to St. Fiecus the title of archbishop, and moreover to Dubthach, whose disciple he is held to have been, the honorific appellation of archpoet, which savours of the eleventh or twelfth century, who will believe that this writer flourished, as I have already determined, before the end of the sixth century or only a little after? So, more or less, our Papebroch too in his manuscript Notes, which I have praised above, on the seventh or Tripartite Life of St. Patrick in Colgan; but if this can be concluded from that, as this predecessor of ours seems to wish, for what reason, then, did it come about that he judged, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Patrick, number 33, that the Notes composed by the scholiast of St. Fiecus on the Hymn usually attributed to him belong not to the eleventh or some other later century but to the eighth? That I surely do not see.

[8] Since, therefore, the argument by which I have shown above that the scholiast of our Saint flourished before the end of the sixth century or about the beginning of the following he seems to have flourished, composed, deserves full credit; seems able to be refuted or weakened by no reason at all solid enough and fit to satisfy a learned reader in any way whatever, it can surely not unfittingly be answered to those who object, against the time at which we have determined that ancient writer to have flourished, the names of archpoet and archbishop used by him, as Papebroch himself in the said manuscript Notes seems to acknowledge, that these proceeded not from the scholiast himself of our Saint, or of the Hymn attributed to him, but from bold copyists who thrust them into the compendium or encomium of the Life of St. Fiecus composed by him. Further, the same, or at any rate something similar, is to be said as regards other things likewise occurring in it which perhaps seem to savour of an author later than the seventh century. Now since that compendium of the Life of our Saint, composed by an author so ancient, and therefore removed by scarcely a hundred years from the age of our Saint, who, from what is to be said below, died about the end of the fifth century, contains nothing either which appears, I will not say incredible, but even difficult to believe, there is surely reason why full credit should be attached to it in those things which cannot be proved from elsewhere to be foreign to the truth.

[9] [but although the matter seems otherwise both as regards the elogium written by Jocelin,] But of the first of the two other compendia of the Life, or elogia of our Saint, recorded above, one must speak somewhat differently. For since Jocelin, author of the sixth Life of St. Patrick in Colgan, in which it is included, flourished only in the twelfth century, as may be seen with us at the 17th day of March in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Patrick, number 23 and following, and was therefore more than six centuries removed from the age of our Saint, as follows from what has just been said, it surely draws no great authority and credit from the time at which it was written. Moreover, although indeed Jocelin, as we taught in the Commentary just cited, number 15, had four contemporary writers, who were eyewitnesses of the things committed by them to writing, lighting his way, that not all that he narrates was received from authors so approved is persuaded by some miracles mingled with these, so unusual and foreign to every appearance of truth that it seemed to Papebroch that they should be cut out of the text of the said Life of St. Patrick, which he was editing, lest those who were to read it should be offended thereby, and be thrown back into the Appendix subjoined to the same Life, in which, together with the fair and at the same time sharp censure by which they are criticised there in § III, they might be read harmlessly.

[10] and as regards the other inserted in the Tripartite As regards now the second of the two compendia or elogia of the Life of our Saint recorded above, it surely, since the seventh Life of St. Patrick in Colgan, into which it is woven, usually going under the appellation of the Tripartite because it is divided into three parts, also contains very unusual miracles, and therefore likewise thrown back by Papebroch into the Appendix subjoined to the Acts of St. Patrick, and no more credible than those which the Life composed by Jocelin supplies, cannot be esteemed consonant with the truth in all things without any fear that it may be otherwise. And although that Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, written partly in Latin, partly in Irish, from which the Tripartite Work on the Acts of St. Patrick, composed in the Latin language alone and cited by Ussher in the place cited above and often elsewhere, is likewise different, seems to have as its author St. Evin, who flourished in the seventh or even the sixth century, it was nevertheless variously interpolated, as may be seen with us in the Commentary prefixed to the Life of St. Patrick, number 17 and following, by a writer, either one or several, who flourished either in the tenth century or not much earlier. Nor does it labour under this blemish only when it relates the miracles, of which I have already made mention, of no or at any rate very slight credit, but also when it displays the compendium or elogium itself of the Life of St. Fiecus, part 3, number 21 and the three following, and again afterwards when it relates a miracle, credible after a fashion and therefore not thrown back by Papebroch into the Appendix subjoined to the Acts of St. Patrick, likewise in the third part, number 86.

[11] it seems to have, yet only For in that place it narrates that two horses, sent to Fiecus so that he might use them, since for failure of strength he was not able to go on foot, for visiting his diocese and fulfilling his other duties, came to him by divine nod with no one leading them, and affirms that he limped on account of a foot swelling from the stroke and sting of a scorpion. But who would easily persuade himself that this was written by St. Evin, since the soil of Ireland, as Papebroch teaches in the Appendix subjoined to the Acts of St. Patrick, number 25, neither itself produces nor sustains any venomous animal brought in from elsewhere, and he, being an Irishman, undoubtedly had a thorough knowledge of the nature of the Irish soil in that respect, nor did he believe, with Jocelin, who, as it appears, first set it down in writing, that all venomous animals, of which there had previously been a huge multitude there, were first banished from Ireland by St. Patrick? Nor do I think it will be easier for anyone to suppose that it is from Evin, and not from the interpolator, that there come both the honorific appellation of archpoet, which, as I have already noted above, savours of the eleventh or twelfth century, attributed to Dubthach in the compendium or elogium of the Life of our Saint just recorded, and the words by which the Works of the same Dubthach are commended there for their antiquity.

[12] For how, says Papebroch in his Annotations on this place of the Tripartite, I shall subjoin this last to the Commentary, the elogium also could they be called ancient by Evin, who was scarcely one or two centuries older than they, in that nation which from its very beginning held poets in particular honour? Since, therefore, as the Life of St. Patrick written by Jocelin, so also the one called the Tripartite, does not everywhere deserve full credit, as everyone will acknowledge from what has already been said, one must certainly not adhere without any scruple in all things to the elogia with which these adorn our Saint; and although as regards the third elogium, which the scholiast of Fiecus, or rather of the Hymn attributed to him, composed, the matter seems to be otherwise for the reasons already given above, yet I shall not subjoin it entire to this Commentary, in which meanwhile, for a reason to be alleged below, it will be recited in its principal part; judging that this should be done because, since the elogium put together by the interpolator of the Tripartite contains nearly all that it contains and other things besides, it seemed sufficient that this alone should be displayed to the reader in that place. Nor, although the elogium composed by Jocelin likewise contains some things which the elogium of Fiecus composed by the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to him contains, and further seems in places also to be superior to the elogium woven into the Tripartite, did it seem good to give it at the end of the Commentary in preference to this.

[13] I judged, namely, that this should be done, first indeed about to omit the one written by Jocelin chiefly because in those things because, since the Life of St. Patrick written by Jocelin already stands printed in our Work at the seventeenth day of March, the elogium of our Saint which this displays at number 100 and the two following can be read there, and thus it will come about that the studious reader, having in readiness not only this but also that which the Tripartite supplies, can compare the one with the other and at the same time decide which of the two is rather to be trusted in those things in which they disagree with each other; and then, and indeed chiefly, because, although it seems, as has been said, to be superior in places to the elogium inserted in the Tripartite, yet generally, speaking of itself, it deserves less credit than it, both because it contains some miracles, absent from the elogium of our Saint just mentioned woven into the Tripartite, not easily to be believed by anyone, and because in the things which it relates near the beginning it seems certainly also to stray from the truth, as will become plain from what is now to be said. The elogium of our Saint which the Life of St. Patrick composed by Jocelin contains begins with these following words: There was a certain young man of good morals, subtle in intelligence, flowery in eloquence, comely in form, Fiechus by name, a disciple of Dubhtach the poet. He a few years before had taken in marriage a certain girl, who had now recently died, and of whom he had also received an only son. St. Patrick met him travelling with his aforenamed master, and in a moment and in the twinkling of an eye, the spirit revealing it, knowing his conscience, he said before all: "Behold a Man of one wife only, who according to the Apostle could worthily be promoted to the priesthood and even to the episcopate."

[14] which are set forth here, He began therefore to expound to him the reason of the faith, and to admonish him to receive Baptism. The Young man marvelled at the words of grace which proceeded from the mouth of St. Patrick, and especially because his secret could so quickly be penetrated by him and his life discerned. Believing, therefore, he received Baptism and, his master at first long resisting but afterwards assenting, betook himself to the discipleship of the holy pontiff. If, therefore, credit is to be given to Jocelin here, St. Patrick, when Fiecus met him by chance as he was making a journey with his master Dubthach, and was first seen by him, knew, God revealing it to him, that he was the husband of one wife, and other secrets concerning him; and when Fiecus then, having received Baptism, wished to give himself into the discipleship of St. Patrick, Dubthach long resisted this wish of his. But Patrick learned what he says about Fiecus not from divine revelation but from Dubthach, his master, with whom, as one who had already embraced the Christian faith and was especially dear to him, he had lodged on arriving in Leinster; and at the time when this happened he did not meet Fiecus by chance as he was making a journey with Dubthach, nor did Dubthach long resist him when he desired to give himself into Patrick's discipleship.

[15] [from the truth, as from the elogium of the Saint which the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to him] So, namely, the matter stood, regarding the things which the author of the Tripartite writes in the encomium of our Saint; and I think that he rather than Jocelin is to be assented to here, nay rather that the things in which the latter conflicts with the author of the Tripartite through the words recited just now are foreign to the truth. For the things just related from the latter, which conflict with those, or with Jocelin, are contained not only in the encomium just mentioned, which is by the author of the Tripartite, but also in the other praised above, which was composed by the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to Fiecus, and which, as I have taught above, attracts to itself the greater credit. That the studious reader may be able to examine how true this is, it will help to have displayed to him here the words of the said encomium or elogium bearing on this, not a few other things that it contains being also added, so that even thus, together with the two elogia of the Saint recorded above, he may have in readiness also the third, which, as has been said, is worthy of credit above the rest, almost entire, or with only those things cut away which no one would greatly miss. Here they are: Fiecus … in the time of his youth was brought up with that celebrated Dubthach, son of Lugar, who in the time of king Loegaire was archpoet or prince of the poets of Ireland; and he was dear and familiar to St. Patrick on account of his singular uprightness of life and piety towards God.

[16] composed, and partly here For this was the Dubthach who, against the command of king Loegaire, who ordered that no one in the hall of Tara should rise to Patrick, who was about to preach the faith of Christ to the Irish for the first time, or show him any sign of honour, rose first of those reclining at table, greeted with veneration the messenger of salvation, and embraced the saving doctrine. Since on account of these and other proofs of signal uprightness he was afterwards very dear and a friend to the holy man, on one occasion Patrick, coming into Leinster, turned aside to his house, and in familiar conversation asked him where he might find, according to the Apostle's prescription, "a Man of one wife, sober, prudent," etc.: and Dubthach asked why the holy Man was seeking a man adorned with such gifts. Patrick answered: "That I may consecrate him to the Lord, initiated into sacred Orders." "I have," said Dubthach, "a disciple, Fiecus by name, but now absent, lately sent off by me into Connaught, in whom the qualities which you desire are found." While they were engaged in this conversation, they see Fiecus returning, the embassy committed to him having been dispatched: seeing whom, Dubthach says: "Behold, the one just praised by me now arrives." And when the holy Man said that perhaps he would not wish to assent to his desire, Dubthach by a pious stratagem suggests a means by which the mind of the pious and modest Disciple might be explored, pretending that he wished then to receive the monastic tonsure from the hand of Patrick.

[17] When Fiecus, coming upon them, thought that the things which had been thus devised in pretence were true, is transcribed, is proved by the elogium, seems to stray. he said to Patrick: Why would he wish to take for those duties this man, already grave with age and necessary in the commonwealth, and not rather think of some other, less necessary to the commonwealth? Patrick answers that he would willingly accept another in his place, provided a suitable one be found. "I," says Fiecus, "gladly offer myself, who am less necessary among the people." Patrick says that this spontaneous offering is very acceptable and pleasing to him. Fiecus therefore, marked by Patrick with the clerical tonsure, turned out a man of most approved and celebrated holiness, and learned ecclesiastical discipline perfectly in the space of one day, or, as others report, of fifteen days, with Patrick as his master. And afterwards he was consecrated bishop by the same, and at length instituted archbishop of Leinster; which office also his Comorbans or successors discharge from then on. Thus far the elogium of our Saint which the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to Fiecus composed, or at any rate the principal or greater part of it. Let the studious reader now weigh it, and he will see that the things it records agree indeed with those which I related at number 14 from the elogium inserted in the Tripartite, but on the contrary conflict with those which I recounted in the same place from the elogium written by Jocelin, and that these are therefore, as I said above, foreign to the truth.

§ II. When he was converted to the faith, how holily and until about what time he lived, and whether he composed the Hymn attributed to him in praise of St. Patrick.

[The Saint, who is said to have risen to St. Patrick when he came to king Loegaire at Tara,] The author of the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick in Colgan's Trias, before he supplies, in part 3 of his work, number 21 and the three following, the compendium or encomium of the Life of our Saint which, as I have already noted, is to be subjoined to this Commentary, having spoken in part 1 of the same work, number 61, of the wonderful entry of St. Patrick, with the doors shut, to Loegaire, while this king, chief in dignity and authority among the several kings then reigning in Ireland, was entertaining the nobles of the realm at a magnificent and royal banquet at Tara, which was the seat of the kings of Ireland in Meath or Midia, presently subjoins: But no one of those at the banquet rose to the wonderful servant of God except Dubthach, son of Lugar, archpoet of the king and of the realm; and one Youth of his disciples, Fiecus by name, who today is in the church of Sletty. This Dubthach is the first who at Tara embraced the faith of Christ and was baptized by the man of God. St. Patrick, having landed in Ireland in the year 432, after many labours first endured there, approached king Loegaire in the year 436, as seemed so to our Papebroch in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Patrick, numbers 32 and 43, although meanwhile Ussher marks the year 433; and since at the time when Patrick did this Dubthach, as Jocelin expressly testifies at number 44, and as appears to be concluded from the words of the author of the Tripartite already given, the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to Fiecus also supporting these through the words recited at number 16, embraced the faith of Christ and was baptized by St. Patrick, it follows that according to the reckoning of Papebroch, to which we adhere, this happened about the same said year 436.

[19] and yet perhaps did not do so, But, to come now to what chiefly concerns this place, was Fiecus too, like Dubthach, converted to the faith and baptized by him when St. Patrick first approached Loegaire, and therefore, from what has been said, about the year 436? The author, or rather the interpolator, of the Tripartite most clearly relates in the words just given that Fiecus rose to Patrick when he approached king Loegaire, staying at Tara; and since St. Fiecus was certainly no longer among the living at the time when this writer flourished, and yet it is indicated by these very words, as will become plain to one who considers them, that he was still living when the writer penned the words recited just now, there seems truly to be reason why that interpolator should be believed to have received them from an author who had written the Acts of St. Patrick while our Saint was still living, and to have brought them into his work with almost no change except the addition of the title of archpoet which he attributes to Dubthach, and therefore why Fiecus should be believed to have risen to Patrick when he approached Loegaire, not indeed on the authority of the interpolator, but of the author from whom these things were taken. But let it be so; let it in actual fact have been committed to writing by an ancient author, who was among the living while Fiecus was still living, that Fiecus then rose to Patrick; it can nevertheless be called into doubt whether this author did not stray from the truth in that matter, both on account of two Lives of St. Patrick in Colgan's Trias, of which the former, or the second there, to be preferred to the five others that follow, as seemed so to our Papebroch, at number 38, and the latter, or the fifth there, at number 41, relate that Dubthach alone then rose to Patrick; and on account of the Acts of Fingar or Guigner written by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, in which this man alone, and not also either Dubthach or Fiecus, is narrated in Ussher, De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, page 851, to have risen to St. Patrick when he had begun to announce the faith of Christ to the Irish.

[20] Moreover, even if we granted for a moment that not only Dubthach but also Fiecus rose to Patrick by him not then in that place, but afterwards in Leinster, when he approached Loegaire, it could not nevertheless be concluded from this, contrary to what someone perhaps may suppose, that Fiecus was converted and baptized then equally with Dubthach. For why could it not have come about that our Saint then rose to Patrick, and yet did not at once embrace the faith of Christ which he was announcing? And indeed the very interpolator of the Tripartite who writes that Fiecus rose to the Apostle of the Irish when he approached Loegaire records in the elogium of our Saint that Fiecus was baptized by him not at the time when he came to Loegaire at Tara, but afterwards, when St. Patrick had proceeded from Meath into Leinster, writing thus of Patrick on his arrival in Leinster: Fiechus … since before he had been only a catechumen, he first baptized and afterwards tonsured. But since Fiecus is thus said, before he was baptized by Patrick in Leinster, to have been a catechumen, or one of those who, aspiring to the grace of Baptism, were imbued with the elements of the Christian faith, there will perhaps be someone who judges that, although he was not baptized at Tara by Patrick when the latter approached king Loegaire, he nevertheless conceived there at that time the will to believe in Christ, and thus embraced His faith after a fashion. That this was done either then or not very long afterwards may surely be seen to be not altogether foreign to the appearance of truth, because, since Dubthach, the master of Fiecus, while he was staying at Tara when Patrick came to Loegaire, embraced the faith of Christ, as has been said, a force not small can in some way persuade that Fiecus likewise did so either then or not very long afterwards,

through the example of their masters, which is wont to have weight with disciples.

[21] But the author of the Tripartite, who narrates in part 1, number 61, that Fiecus together with his master Dubthach rose to Patrick when he approached king Loegaire the will to believe in Christ having been conceived only a little before, while this king was entertaining the nobles of the realm at Tara, relates only in part 3, number 21, that Fiecus was baptized by the Apostle of the Irish after he had proceeded into Leinster, and records so many things which Patrick accomplished between those two events that it does not seem that all of them could have been done even within the space of three or four years; wherefore, since Patrick approached Loegaire, staying at Tara, only in the year 436, as I have taught above, it appears that it must be said that Fiecus was baptized by him in Leinster not before about the year 440, and that he was made a catechumen, the will to believe in Christ having been conceived, only a little before he was baptized. Indeed, if Fiecus was ordained bishop only in the year 448, as Ussher notes at this year in the Chronological Index, it will be necessary to believe that he was baptized and conceived the will to believe in Christ not very long before this very year, since he was created bishop when only a short time had elapsed after he had been baptized, as the author of the Tripartite teaches when he says in the elogium of our Saint that Fiecus, after he had been baptized and then tonsured as a cleric, or, as the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to Fiecus speaks, marked with the clerical tonsure, made such progress in holiness and in the study of letters within a brief interval of time that he seemed to Patrick worthy to be ordained bishop first of all the men of Leinster.

[22] [he was baptized between the years 440 and 450, and, then ordained bishop, he converts the people of Kinsella,] Jocelin indeed, after he has said at number 115 that Fiecus was baptized by Patrick, presently subjoins in the same place these following words: St. Patrick promoted him to the ecclesiastical grades, and, when he had ministered worthily in each, at length consecrated him bishop and set him over the church of Sletty; and thus he seems to indicate that Fiecus was ordained bishop not so short a time after he had been baptized as the author of the Tripartite intimates. But whether Jocelin, with whom the scholiast of the Hymn ascribed to Fiecus also agrees, is to be assented to here, as I think, or not, it appears beyond doubt that Fiecus was baptized between the year 440 and 450, and then ordained bishop and set over the church of Sletty. Let us now set before our eyes what the Saint did when already a bishop. There was in Leinster an ample region lying between the Barrow and the Irish sea, called Hi-Kenselagh, or (for Hi signifies in Irish the same as regio in Latin) the region of Kinselagh. This, which Fiecus, already ordained bishop, had undertaken at the command of St. Patrick to illuminate with the light of the Gospel, he happily brought to the faith of Christ, as the author of the Tripartite Work in Ussher, De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, page 363 and following, teaches us, writing thus in that place: St. Patrick ordained from the people of the Leinstermen another bishop, Fyacha by name, a most religious man: who at the command of the most blessed Patrick converted to the faith and baptized the people of Ceanselach; which people is the greater and more powerful part of the Leinstermen. Which bishop Fyacha bravely wore down his flesh with its vices and concupiscences, and in his city of Sleibhti beside the river Berbha in the White Plain finished the course of his most holy life.

[23] he was also appointed supreme prelate of all Leinster, and building two Further, from the fact that Fiecus converted that people to the faith, it perhaps came about that he was constituted by Patrick supreme bishop of all Leinster. Whence (the words are Ussher's in the Chronological Index, after he has premised in the same place that the people of Ceanselach was converted to the faith by Fiecus) they report that the archiepiscopate of all Leinster (or rather, as it should have been said, the office of supreme bishop or metropolitan) was conferred on him (namely on Fiecus) and on his successors in the see of Sleibti. But was Fiecus truly raised to the metropolitan dignity of all Leinster for the reason alleged in these words? Nothing indeed is at hand by which I may give it as proved; but, persuading myself that the Saint was indeed constituted by Patrick supreme bishop or metropolitan of all Leinster on account of the author of the Tripartite, who expressly asserts it and has also the scholiast of the Hymn attributed to Fiecus agreeing with him in that matter, I turn my discourse to other things which, besides those just said, concern Fiecus when already a bishop. Since he had already turned out, before he was created bishop, a Man of most approved and celebrated holiness, as the scholiast so often praised above says in the words recited at number 17, afterwards he practised with still greater zeal the works which became a holy Bishop. That he might do this more surely, he built two monasteries, in which he might lead the monastic life with monks, as Jocelin and the author of the Tripartite relate in the elogia of our Saint.

[24] And of these he built the first within and the last outside the city of Sletty, monasteries, sixty Saints of his disciples to heaven, if Jocelin is to be heard; but on the contrary the first outside and the last within the same city, if the interpolator of the Tripartite is to be heard. Moreover, the author of the Tripartite writes that the Saint moved from the first monastery that he had built to the second while St. Patrick was still living, and that before he did so he remained in that first monastery until he had sent sixty Saints of his disciples before him to heaven; but on the contrary Jocelin relates that Fiecus sent sixty Saints to God before him, not before he moved from the one monastery which he had occupied to the other, but before he departed from the living; and this certainly shrinks far less from the appearance of truth than what the author of the Tripartite says. For since from the middle of the space of time between the year 440 and the year 450, about which, or at any rate not much earlier, as everyone will easily gather from what has been said above, Fiecus built the first of the two monasteries erected by him, until the year 460, in which St. Patrick departed from the living, as our Papebroch teaches in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of this Saint, twenty years elapsed, who, I ask, will easily persuade himself that it came about that, before he moved from that first monastery built by him before the death of St. Patrick, he sent before him to the Lord, in so short a space of time, sixty Saints from among the disciples whom he had received into it, in no great number, as it appears?

[25] On the contrary, since from the said space of time until the death of Fiecus, [not before he moved from one of those monasteries to the other, but before he departed from life, he sent before him,] which, from what is to be said below, happened about the end of the fifth century, not fewer than about fifty years elapsed, everyone will without difficulty persuade himself that it could very easily have come about that the Saint, before he died, within that space of time sent to heaven before him sixty Saints of the disciples whom he had received, in no great number, as it appears, into the first monastery built by him about the year 440. But although this is so, and there is therefore surely reason why the Saint should be believed to have sent sixty Saints of his disciples before him to heaven not within the narrow interval of time which runs from about the year 440 until the death of Patrick, or the year 460, but within the much more extended one which flowed from the same year 440 until the end of the fifth century, or the time about which he himself ended his life, it nevertheless still remains for me as uncertain as possible whether the Saint built the first of his monasteries within or outside the city of Sletty. Nor am I any more able to declare in which of those two monasteries — to which Jocelin affirms, the author of the Tripartite also agreeing with him as regards the one founded at Sletty, that heavenly visions gave rise, but visions born, unless I am most greatly mistaken, solely from popular tradition or from the uncertain rumour of the common people — he exchanged this mortal life for the immortal. Jocelin stands for the monastery which he affirms was built outside Sletty in the place called Forrach, and which, as the author of the Tripartite says, was distinguished from the name of the Saint as Domnach-Fiec, or, since the word Domnach signifies in Irish the same as ecclesia in Latin, by the appellation of the church of St. Fiecus; on the contrary, the author of the Tripartite pronounces for the monastery founded at Sletty.

[26] and this (in which of the same monasteries is uncertain) And with the latter indeed the author of the Tripartite Work so often praised by Ussher agrees through the words recited at number 22; but what is handed down by these he most probably received from the Tripartite itself, which he seems to have followed, and it therefore cannot cause us to assent to him and to the author of the Tripartite rather than to Jocelin in that matter. Nor is there reason either why anyone should think this to be done from the fact that the Saint was buried at Sleibti or Sletty; for since the monastery built by Fiecus outside this city was situated not far from there, the body of the Saint, if he died in the monastery, could easily have been carried out from there to Sletty for burial. But the Saint, in whichever of the two said monasteries he at last ended the course of his life, made it illustrious by a wonderful holiness of life, as, besides the author of the Tripartite Work so often praised by Ussher, Jocelin and the interpolator of the Tripartite reveal with unanimous consent. The former does this in the elogium of our Saint in these words: The holy Fiechus himself … presided in this monastery (built outside Sletty in the place called Forrach) in the office of abbot, and nonetheless fully exercised the episcopal office in his diocese. This Prelate was accustomed every year at the beginning of the Fast to go out of the cenobium alone, and, taking with him for his sustenance five barley loaves mixed with ashes, to stay in a more secret wilderness for the whole of that sacred season. But on Palm Sunday, or sometimes on the Lord's Supper, he was accustomed to return to his own to perform his office, having with him still half of one loaf uneaten.

[27] led most holily Let us now hear the latter. He sets out this same thing, not indeed in the elogium of our Saint, but in his work itself, in which it is woven, in Colgan's Trias, part 3, number 87, in the following manner: This most holy Prelate (namely Fiecus) was accustomed every year at the beginning of the Fast, or on the Saturday before the first Sunday of Lent, to go out alone from the monastery (built at Sletty), and, taking only five loaves for sustenance, to move to the hiding-places of a more secret wilderness, and to hide himself in a certain underground cave on the side of the mountain Druim-chobla, and to pass the whole time in vigils and prayers and the contemplation of heavenly things until Holy Saturday, on which he was accustomed to return to his own, always with some remainder of his scanty provision. O wonderful mirror and specimen of abstinence and continence, for whom it was not only an excess to eat of bread baked under the ashes sparingly and rarely according to necessity, but who completed so prolonged a fast even without the remainder of a rare and moderate refreshment, withdrawn from the utmost necessity. Thus both the writers praised just now

encomiasts of our Saint; and although they thus supply grounds from which you may gather that the Saint surely led his life most holily, they add nothing, however, from which the time at which he departed from it can be determined aptly enough. But although this is so, it will nevertheless help to have determined here in some fashion the time about which this happened.

[28] In the Hymn already so often praised above, which, [about the end of the fifth century, but not when the Hymn, from which it would follow,] as was said there, is usually attributed to St. Fiecus, St. Patrick is spoken of as one dead; and since this is so, it is necessary that that Hymn was composed after the death of this Saint, and that consequently St. Fiecus, to whom that little work is commonly ascribed, was then still among the living. But the Saint, who, as follows from this, prolonged his life beyond the year 460, the year of Patrick's death from what has been said above, seems also to have remained surviving in it until the end of the fifth century, or until about the year 490. For the first of the two monasteries which he built, recorded before, was not built, as appears from what has been said above, before about the year 440; and since, as everyone will gather from what has been alleged before, the Saint did not depart from the living before he had sent before him to heaven sixty Saints from the disciples whom, after its foundation, he had received into his discipline, in no great number, as it appears, and since it cannot easily have come about that he sent sixty Saints of his disciples before him to heaven within an interval of only twenty years, but very easily, on the contrary, within the interval of fifty years which flowed from the year 440 until about the year 490, it appears probable that Fiecus prolonged his life until about this last year. Indeed he survived in it much longer still, if he is to be held the true author of the Hymn just recorded again, which is commonly attributed to him.

[29] But although that Hymn is ascribed to this Saint by Ware, De scriptoribus Hiberniæ, pages 2 and 3, St. Fiecus, as the reasons and likewise by Colgan in the Trias, page 217, and indeed by our scholiast of Fiecus, as he is called, our Papebroch, in the Commentary prefixed to the Acts of St. Patrick, number 15, calls into doubt whether this is not wrongly done by them; and not without reason, as it appears to me if only for this, that, since in that Hymn, at verse 22, through the words Nor is it pleasing that Tara is deserted, mention is made of the desolation of Tara, which took place after the year 540, Fiecus, who, when he was ordained bishop by Patrick about the year 440, most probably counted not fewer than thirty years from his birth, would necessarily, if he is truly the author of that Hymn, have lived beyond the said year 540 and would therefore have to have reached a scarcely probable age. Colgan indeed, lest he make Fiecus older than is fair, interprets those words of the Hymn which treat of the desolation of Tara as uttered by a prophetic spirit, as of a thing to come, in the Trias, page 6, in the sixteenth Note on Fiecus; but such an explanation is forced, and it appears that it must be concluded from the Hymn itself that it cannot be applied to the said words. For in it the tenth verse consists of these following words: The Seers of Ireland prophesied that a new time of peace would come, which would endure for ever; whence Tara would be deserted in silence; and since it is then indicated by other verses which are subjoined that, while the Hymn was being written, the things which the seers of Ireland had foretold would follow the coming of Patrick into Ireland had already been fulfilled, and at length Nor is it pleasing that Tara is deserted is sung at verse 22, so, as it appears, it is indicated that, while the Hymn was being written, what the seers of Ireland had foretold about Tara being deserted or made desolate had likewise already been fulfilled.

[30] adduced here in the midst, Moreover, the author of the Hymn, as is plain from what has already been said, speaks of the desolation of Tara in two different places; and since in the former of these, or verse 10, in which the desolation of Tara is most certainly treated not as already accomplished but as to come, he does so through words signifying a thing to come, as will become plain to one who considers them, he seems likely to have done the same in the latter of them, or verse 22, if there too he had spoken not of a thing already accomplished or taking place, but only of one to come; and since by the words Nor is it pleasing that Tara is deserted, which he uses in the verse just cited, considered in themselves, a thing already accomplished or taking place, and not merely one to come, is signified, and the author of the Hymn therefore treats in them of the desolation of Tara as already accomplished and not merely to come, it follows from this and from the other things already said that he composed that little work of his only after the desolation of Tara, which took place after the year 540, as I have already indicated. But that we may determine somewhat more nearly the time after which he must have done this, let us now examine here how long after the year 540 the desolation of Tara occurred. We are taught from what Colgan adduces in the Trias, page 6, that it happened after the death of Diarmait, king of Ireland, which the same writer there affirms is referred in the Annals of the Four Masters to the year of Christ 558.

[31] persuade, the author And indeed that the desolation of Tara happened in actual fact after the death of Diarmait, or the year 558, is persuaded by the fifth Life of St. Columba, presbyter and abbot of Iona, in Colgan, received in all its parts in the best faith, as this writer teaches in the Trias, page 446, in his Notes on it, number 1, from various disciples of that Saint and contemporary writers, in which at number 84 the following words are read of St. Columba: Having once set out for Tara, he knew from heaven and foretold that that city, however much at that time thronged with people, powerful in soldiery, noble with its great men, exalted by royal dignity, abundant in provisions, sumptuous at its tables, pleasant in its courts, markets and the rest, would nevertheless in the end of times be altogether desolate, destitute of a king, and entirely empty of the other goods, namely an example of human instability; for since St. Columba, whom we have already inserted in our Work at the 9th day of June, snatched from the living in the year 597, was born in the year 520 or the following, as we taught there in the Commentary prefixed to his more extensive Acts, number 19, and was not, as everyone will easily persuade himself, endowed with the spirit of prophecy before about the twenty-fifth year of his age, the prophecy by which he foretold that Tara would be made desolate most probably did not take place before about the year 550; and since it nevertheless, as one may gather from the very words just recited in which it is expressed, preceded the desolation of Tara by some years at least, it follows that this most probably happened only after the year 558. Now, since this is so, and it is therefore necessary that the author of the Hymn, by whom, as has been said, the desolation of Tara is treated, lived not only beyond the year 540 but also beyond the year 558, and it is in no way probable that Fiecus, who from what has been said above probably counted not fewer than thirty years of his age about the year 445, prolonged his life beyond the year 558, it follows that he is to be judged different from the author of the Hymn.

[32] But, someone will perhaps now say, although it can easily have come about that Ware and Colgan, does not have, holding Fiecus, as I said above, to be the author of the Hymn, strayed from the truth, being removed from his age by several centuries, yet the matter stands otherwise as regards the scholiast of Fiecus, who, as has been said, likewise attributes the Hymn to Fiecus; for he, as I have taught above, was among the living about the end of the sixth century or the beginning of the following, and so flourished certainly only about a hundred years, if, as I think, Fiecus died about the end of the fifth century, or even, if he prolonged his life beyond the year 540, only about sixty years after the age of St. Fiecus. But the Hymn is only a little work or a lucubration of lesser bulk, and it has not seldom come about that little works of this kind, when they were written, were not marked with the name of their authors, and yet afterwards were ascribed to certain or determined authors, not from certain knowledge but only from conjectures, which are very often wont to deceive. Thus the Hymn composed in praise of Blessed Brigid, Scottish virgin, and beginning with these following words, Hear the praises of the virgin, although from the beginning, when it was written, it had not been marked with the name of its author, was nevertheless afterwards ascribed also to St. Fiecus by the scholiast of the same Hymn, most probably not from certain knowledge but only by conjecture.

[33] So I think, if only because the same Hymn after the year 540, ended, is attributed not to St. Fiecus, but by some to Nimidus Lainidan, that is, the Bright, and by others to Ultan of Ardbraccan, as Ware says in the place last cited; nor does Ussher, in De Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, seem to have been averse to this opinion as regards the Hymn composed in praise of St. Patrick and usually attributed to Fiecus; for although he cites it there in not a few places, yet, not at all moved by the authority of the ancient scholiast by whom it is expressly ascribed to Fiecus, he praises it nearly everywhere as attributed or usually attributed to Fiecus, but nowhere as composed by him. As therefore Ussher, as appears if only from this, called into doubt at least whether that Hymn was composed by Fiecus, so the things already adduced above clearly show, as I at least think, that it is to be altogether adjudged away from Fiecus. Now, since this is so, and it therefore cannot be proved from the Hymn which he might have composed in praise of Patrick that Fiecus prolonged his life beyond the year 540, nothing remains but that he be believed, on account of what has already been alleged above, to have died about the end of the fifth century, the year meanwhile in which this happened remaining altogether uncertain. But although neither this, nor in which of the monasteries built by him Fiecus ended his life, can be defined by any reasoning, it nevertheless appears beyond doubt that the Saint was buried at Sletty or Sleibti.

[34] For this Jocelin expressly affirms in the Life of St. Patrick, number 117, no one at all to whom greater credit is due certainly opposing it, and obtained burial at Sletty. and that the author of the Tripartite also agrees with him in that matter everyone will be certainly persuaded from what he writes in the Encomium of our Saint which, as I have already noted more than once, is to be subjoined to this Commentary. To this opinion indeed two Irish Hagiologies praised by Colgan in the Trias, page 155, of which one is distinguished by the appellation of the Calendar of Cashel, the other by that of the Martyrology composed by St. Aengus and augmented by Maguire, dean of Clogher, may seem in some fashion to be opposed. For the first of these has thus today in that place: *Fiachrius, son

of Fiecus, and both rest in Minbeag, that is, in the wood which is between Cluain-mor Maodhoc and Achadh abhall; and the second is expressed in these words: Fiachrius is the son of Fiecus, and is together with him in Minbeag, namely in the little cell which is in the wood between Cluainmor Maodhoc and Achadh-abhall, in which St. Fiecus also lies.* But since of the writers who compiled those two Irish Hagiologies, not yet published in type, the former, as Colgan teaches in volume 1 of the Saints of Ireland, in the Notes subjoined to the Encomium of St. Fanchea, virgin, flourished in the tenth century, and the latter only in the fifteenth, it can easily have come about that, since the body of St. Fiecus had by then already been translated from the city of Sletty, where it had first been buried, to Minbeag, they therefore, when they wrote, indicated through the words just now recited that St. Fiecus rested, or was kept, and further also venerated, not at Sletty but in Minbeag. And indeed I think that this was in actual fact done by them for that reason, and that consequently what I have shown above about the cult customarily rendered to St. Fiecus among the Irish is confirmed from this as well.

ENCOMIUM,

Taken from the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick.

SOLE CHAPTER.

He is baptized by St. Patrick, ordained bishop, appointed supreme prelate of all Leinster, and, building two monasteries, places the episcopal see in one of them.

Fiecus, bishop of Sletty, confessor, in Ireland. (S.)

[Fiecus in Leinster, St. Patrick having been informed by Dubthach the poet, with whom he had lodged here,] Patrick ^b then set over all Leinster as supreme Bishop Fiechus, a man of most celebrated holiness, whose first conversion and ordination came about in this manner. When St. Patrick had set out from Tara into the region of Southern Leinster called Hy Kennselach ^c, he met, in the plain commonly called Mag-criethar, where afterwards the church of Domnach-mor was built, that royal poet Dubthach, son of Lugar ^d, who, both on account of his supreme piety towards God and devotion to Patrick, and on account of his rare excellence in the metrical art and his ancient and elegant works ^e, is of far-celebrated memory and fame among the historians of Ireland. To him, who had already embraced the Christian faith ^f, the blessed pontiff was greatly attached and devoted, on account both of the singular uprightness of the man and of his skill, on account of which he was archpoet, or prince of the poets, of that realm and age.

[2] Dealing familiarly with him at that time, the blessed man asked him being informed what kind of man this Disciple of his was, where he might find, according to the Apostle's prescription, a man of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, hospitable, a teacher ^g, whom, ordained bishop, he might set over that province. Dubthach answered that all those qualities were found in a certain disciple of his, Fiecus, son of Ericus ^h, whose wife had lately died, leaving an only son, Fiachrius by name, and whom he himself had sent in those days into Connaught to present certain poems of his to the princes of that land. And while they were engaged in this conversation, they see Fiecus returning; and when Dubthach saw that Patrick's mind was drawn to him, he resolved to draw him on to consent to the wishes of the holy man, although he himself would otherwise only with difficulty do without his presence: and to this end St. Patrick and Dubthach devise such a pious stratagem: for they pretend that Dubthach is soon to be tonsured as a Cleric by Patrick's hand.

[3] When Fiecus, coming upon them, understood this, he said to the holy pontiff: [he is baptized, and after being tonsured as a cleric, is created bishop first and then supreme prelate of all Leinster,] "Holy Father, would it not be better to tonsure me rather as a cleric, who am younger in age and less necessary to the commonwealth, than my master, grave with age, very necessary to his children, and held in great esteem among the nobles of the realm?" Patrick answered that this spontaneous offering was acceptable and pleasing to him. Fiechus therefore, since before he had been only a catechumen, Patrick first baptized ⁱ and afterwards tonsured; and he delivered to him an Alphabet written with his own hand ^k, and imparted to him a blessing, having obtained which he learned the whole psalter in one day ^l; and within a short interval of time, with the helping grace of the Holy Spirit, he made such progress in the pursuits of holiness and of letters that he seemed to his master worthy not only to be ordained bishop first of all the men of Leinster, but also to be set over that whole province as supreme prelate ^m. His son Fiachrius too ⁿ, after he had become mature in years and learning, Patrick ordained with his own hand.

[4] St. Fiechus first built a church in the place a church, called from his name Domnach-Fiec, which from his name was afterwards called Domnach-Fiec, that is, the church of Fiecus ^o; and Patrick left to him sacred furniture, namely a ministerial bell, the Pauline epistles and a pastoral staff; he likewise left him seven of his disciples as companions of his labours and imitators of his actions, namely Mo-chatocus of Inisfail, Augustine of Inis-beg, Teganus, Diermitius, Nannedus, Paul and Fedhelim [p]. And the most holy bishop and abbot Fiecus remained in that church of Domnach-Fiec until he had sent sixty Saints of his disciples before him to heaven [q].

[5] But afterwards an angel of the Lord came to him, saying that the place of his resurrection was not there, but across the river to the West; and he commands that he erect a monastery there in the place called Cuilmuige, [and then, the angel admonishing and Patrick approving, another monastery at Sletty] assigning to each of the offices its proper and fitting place; for he admonished him to build the refectory where he should find a boar, and the church where he should find a hind. The holy Man and pattern of obedience answered the angel that he did not dare to begin building the church unless his father and master Patrick first measured out and consecrated its place and dimensions. Patrick therefore, admonished and asked, came to that place, which is commonly called Slepte, that is, the Mountains, and, according to the angel's prescription [r], laid and consecrated there the foundations of the basilica and the monastery.

[6] in his own patrimony indeed, But that place in which the church and monastery of Sletty were built was given not to Fiecus but to Patrick by Crimthann, son of Kinselach, king of Leinster, who a little before had been dipped by St. Patrick in the saving laver, and was afterwards buried in the same place. For the noble family from which St. Fiechus sprang was at that time too much oppressed and banished into various parts of Ireland by the aforesaid Crimthann, king of Leinster. For from it took their origin the monks in the region of Hy-Crimthainn, and the monks in Ulster, and the people of Kinell-Enna in Munster; and among others four brothers of St. Fiecus had then been banished, namely Alildus, Aengus the Great, Conaldus and Etherschelius; and their father was called Mac-Erea [s].

[7] [but, it being restored to him only through Patrick's agency by the king, an enemy of Fiecus's family, he builds.] Whence, although the place in which the church of Sletty was built was in the proper patrimony of St. Fiecus, he would nevertheless not have received it from the king, on account of the hatreds and dissensions already recorded which had arisen between him and the family and brothers of St. Fiecus, unless St. Patrick had intervened; at whose intercession king Crimthann granted to St. Fiecus not only the place for building the church, but also the portion falling to him, or the fifth part of his father's estates, with which he endowed that church, in which he placed the episcopal see [t].

ANNOTATIONS.

Minbeag together with his father Fiecus, as Colgan affirms in his Notes on the third part of the Tripartite, number 37; but see what has been said above in the Preliminary Commentary, number 4 and following.

p. Concerning the seven disciples of St. Fiecus recorded here, let whoever wishes consult Colgan in his Notes on the third part of the Tripartite, number 38 and the five following.

q. Fiecus is asserted by Jocelin to have sent sixty Saints of his disciples before him to God, not before he moved from one monastery built by him to another, but before he departed from life; and credit seems to be given to him in that matter rather than to the author of the Tripartite. See the Preliminary Commentary, number 24 and following.

r. Angelic apparitions, which are narrated to have concurred in the construction of monasteries, are usually held by the learned, and not without reason, as fictitious, unless they are solidly proved.

s. On this place Colgan, in the Notes with which he illustrates the third part of the Tripartite, number 46, observes thus: The father of St. Fiecus, according to the scholiast on his Work above, and the genealogical Sanctilogium, chapter 20, was Ercus or Ericus. Whence the four others recounted here either were not his full brothers, but grandsons through his brother Mac-erca, that is, son of Ercus; or their father was not called Mac-Erca, but Ercus.

t. Since Crimthann, king of Leinster, recorded here, took part in the battle of Ochan in the year 478, as Colgan teaches from the Four Masters in the Notes which he subjoins to the second book of the fourth Life of St. Brigid, number 8, there is surely no reason why it should not be believed that this prince, who had already reigned long before, granted to St. Fiecus, at the intercession of Patrick, who died in the year 460, the things which are recorded here.