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 shell from the shores 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 God'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, pronounced 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 God. 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 God 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 _sextus_."

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 assigned 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 Witelenspach, 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 illustrious 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 pass 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 passers-by to look into the opening, in which they noticed signs of a hollow space, 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 assembled 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 assist 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.

There was also a Siadhail, abbot and Bishop of Roscommon, who died in A.D. 813.[427] Another Siadhail, or Sedulius, who died in A.D. 828, was abbot of Kildare; and according to Lanigan he was 'unquestionably' the author of the _Commentaries_, which are ascribed by all the learned to some Irishman of that name, who flourished about this period. Lanigan, however, has given no satisfactory evidence of this 'unquestionable' fact; and although it is quite possible that Sedulius of Kildare may have been the author of the _Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles_, it is just quite as possible that he was Sedulius, the Bishop-abbot of Roscommon, or some Hibernian exile of the same period, who flourished in the Schools of France or Italy.

Whoever he was, he was certainly a learned man. Montfaucon has preserved a Greek psalter,[428] written by this Sedulius, which is of itself quite satisfactory evidence of his Greek scholarship. He was besides an accomplished Latin poet, and his patristic lore is simply marvellous. No doubt his work as a commentator consists, to a very large extent, of extracts from the Fathers of the Church, both Greek and Latin; but so does every commentary of the kind worth reading. Where commentators begin to be original, they generally cease to be orthodox. At best their learning can only succeed in putting the old truths in a new way. It has been insinuated[429] that Sedulius in his _Commentaries on St. Paul_ adopted what are now called Calvinistic views about grace and predestination. There is not a shadow of foundation for the charge, except that Sedulius quotes and approves of the teaching of St. Augustine. But how far St. Augustine was from holding such views, it is quite unnecessary to show in this place. These _Commentaries on St. Paul_ are really very valuable, and even at this day are worthy of careful study.

Besides the _Commentaries on St. Paul_, Sedulius also wrote a _Commentary on St. Matthew_, the proper title of which is--_Collectaneum Sedulii in Mattheum ex diversis Patribus excerptum_. He is also said to have written a grammatical commentary on Priscian, and on the _Secunda Editio_ of Donatus, works which were both in common use in the ancient schools of Ireland. He was somewhat of a politician also, and wrote a treatise on Politics in Aristotle's sense, not referred to by Lanigan, for it was only discovered in comparatively recent times by Cardinal Mai in the Vatican, and has been published by him in the ninth tome of his _Nova Collectio Scriptorum_. Everything goes to show that he was a man of the very widest culture attainable in that age, and that he, like Virgilius and John Scotus Erigena, of whom we are now about to speak, acquired that culture in the schools of his native land.

III.--JOHN SCOTUS ERIGENA.

John Scotus Erigena, a man of Irish birth and education, was by far the most distinguished scholar of the ninth century in Western Europe. He was at once theologian, philosopher, and poet; he could write Greek verses and expound the Scriptures in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; he was familiar with Aristotle and Plato, as well as with St. Basil and St. Augustine, and was not only rector of the Royal School of Paris, but is also said to have been professor of dialectics and mathematics. He was known as the "Master" by excellence, and was spoken of as a "miracle of knowledge." Even in our own time critics of great name have ranked Scotus with Chrysostom, Dante, and Thomas of Aquin, partly from the beauty and sublimity of his thoughts, partly from the originality, depth, and subtlety of his philosophical speculations. No doubt he erred seriously, and was censured justly. He erred, however, not in the spirit of Luther and Calvin, but of Origen and St. Cyprian; for one who ought to know, and was no great friend to the Irish stranger, has attested that he was in all things a holy and humble man, filled with the Spirit of God. But he sailed through unknown seas where there was no chart to guide him. His daring spirit, soaring on strong pinions, essayed untravelled realms of thought, and in the quest of truth he often followed wandering fires; yet, as he himself tells us, in the light of God's revelation and the strength of His grace, the wearied spirit always found its homeward way again. He was in reality the first of the schoolmen, and his very errors, like the wanderings of every explorer of a new country, served to guide those who came after him. Moreover, he has been censured not only for his real errors, but for doctrines which he never held, although condemned under his name; and so it came to pass that he was unduly blamed by those who knew little of his history and less of his teaching, and unduly praised, we think, by those who are much more ready to eulogise him for his errors than for his virtues.

Like many other good things which Ireland has produced, both England and Scotland have striven to make Scotus their own. Thomas Dempster, the saint-stealer, in his _Menologium Scotorum_, published in A.D. 1621, and dedicated to Cardinal Barberini, has endeavoured to prove that Scotus Erigena was a native of North Britain; as, however, his arguments are founded on the similarity in sound between Ayr and Erigena and between Scotus and Scot, we need not now refute them at length. Thomas Gale, an Englishman, who was the first to publish at Oxford, in A.D. 1681, Scotus' treatise, _De Divisione Naturae_, maintains that he was of English birth, and was born at a place called Eringen or Ergerne, in Herefordshire, as that name is very like Erigena--for he gives no other shadow of positive proof! It is now superfluous to show at length, what all modern scholars admit, that "Scotus," in the ninth century, and even down to the eleventh century, was exactly equivalent to "Irishman" now, although of course even then they sometimes spoke of the "Scoti of Alba" as we speak of the "Irish of Glasgow" at present. But when used alone in those early centuries the terms "Scoti" and "Scotia" were applied exclusively to the primitive race and their dwelling-place--the Milesian Scots of Ireland, of whom the Albanian Scots were a colony. In A.D. 812, before the birth of Scotus, Eginhard, the secretary of Charlemagne, says that a fleet of Normans invaded Ireland, "the island of the Scots;" and, after the death of Scotus, Alfred the Great, in his translation of Orosius, speaks of Ireland as "Hibernia, which we call Scotland." So the very name John Scotus is the same as John the Irishman, and this name was given to him by all his contemporaries. Pope Nicholas I. calls him, in a letter to King Charles, "Joannes genere Scotus," and Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, who knew him intimately, calls him "Scotus" and "Scotigena," or Irish-born. But what settles the question is the way in which Prudentius, in his treatise on Predestination, speaks of Scotus, for Prudentius says he was himself the friend of Scotus--quasi frater--he lived some time with him in the palace of the king, and no one could know better whence Scotus came. "Te Solum," says Prudentius, "omnium acutissimum Galliae transmissit Hibernia." So it was Ireland, then, and not England or Scotland, sent him over to France. Later on in the eleventh century when, after the fusion of the Picts and Scots into one nation, Scotia came to signify Scotland, the cognomen Erigena was given to Scotus to signify that he was not an Albanian but an Irish Scot. We do not find, however, that any of his contemporaries gave him that name, and the form Erigena, from which Dempster infers his Caledonian origin, is not found in any existing MS. copy of his works. In most of them it is written Ierugena, which Dr. Floss, the learned editor of the works of Scotus, published in Migne's Patrology, thinks is derived from the Greek, and signifies "native of the sacred isle"--insula sanctorum. But although Scotus himself was certainly fond of Greek compounds, very few scholars of the tenth and eleventh centuries were able to make them. For our own part we should prefer to adopt the reading Eirugena, which is found in the Florentine and Darmstad manuscripts as being a far simpler and more natural form. Eriu is the older nominative, and its vowel termination would render it better adapted to form a compound than the genitive form Erin, and thus we get Eriugena, which no doubt would very soon be contracted into Erigena.

Unfortunately we know neither the exact date of Erigena's birth, nor where he was born and educated. We find him an inmate of the palace of Charles the Bald in A.D. 851, when he published his book on Predestination. He must have been at that time some time in France, for he was then well known as a distinguished scholar, so that if we assume that he was born about A.D. 820, and came to France about A.D. 850, we cannot be very far astray. We know from a letter of Eric of Auxerre to Charles the Bald, that a crowd of Hibernian philosophers came to France, attracted by the liberality of that prince, and driven out of their own country by the invasion of the Danes.[430] All the Irish annalists tell us that from A.D. 815 to 845 the Danes under Turgesius plundered, desolated, and burned the whole country, but especially the churches, monasteries, and schools. In A.D. 843 "Turgesius plundered Connaught, Meath, and Clonmacnoise with its oratories;" in the same year "Forannen, the Primate of Armagh, was taken prisoner, with his relics and people" (to the number of 3,000), "and they were carried by the Danes to their ships at Limerick." It is easy to see how young Scotus might be captured by the foreigners, and succeed in making his escape to France, or seek an asylum there, most probably either in this or the next year.

Charles the Bald, son of Louis le Debonaire, and grandson of Charlemagne, was at this time king of Northern France and Burgundy. He had few of the kingly virtues of his great grandsire, but he was a zealous patron of literature, very fond of theological discussions, was present at many French Councils, and on the whole, was far better fitted by nature to be a monk than a monarch. He received the young Irish scholar with great kindness, and treated him with marked distinction. Scotus had apartments in the palace, was made Capital, or head, of the Scholæ Palatinæ, and frequently admitted to the royal table. He was a great Greek scholar, and the king wanted him to translate into Latin the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, a task which none of his subjects was able to accomplish. Moreover, the Irishman was witty as well as wise, and the king loved a joke quite as much as he loved learning. William of Malmesbury has preserved two of the witticisms of Scotus. On one occasion, when the wine was going round the table, the Irishman by some word or act offended against the etiquette due to royalty. The king, who was sitting opposite to Scotus, good-humouredly rebuked him by asking--"Quid interest inter Scottum et Sottum?" "Tabula tantum," says the witty Hibernian, and the monarch greatly enjoyed this turning of the tables against himself. On another occasion, Scotus was dining at the table of the king with two other clerics. We cannot, indeed, ascertain for certain whether Scotus himself was a cleric or not; he certainly does not appear to have been a priest. These two clerics were very big men, and Scotus was, like some other great men, very small. Three fishes were brought in by an attendant--one small and two large ones. The king beckoned Scotus to divide the fish with his companions. Scotus did so, giving them the small one, and keeping for himself the two big ones. The king protested against the unfair division. "It is perfectly fair, my Lord the King," said Scotus, "for here," pointing to himself and his plate, "we have one small and two big, and there," pointing to his companions, "they have two big and one small." The king laughed, and probably a fairer division was afterwards made by Scotus.

He might have long enjoyed his honours and emoluments in the palace in peace if he were prudent. But just at this period two fierce theological disputes arose in France, and either his friends at court, or his Irish blood, prompted him to mingle in the _mêlée_.

Just about the time when Erigena arrived in France, began the first and the warmest controversy of the ninth century concerning the abstruse question of Predestination. Most of the French bishops and theologians took part in this discussion, which was hotly debated for twelve years. Its author was a Benedictine monk, of the famous abbey of Fulda, who was called Gotteschalk, or Servant of God. Raban Maur, one of the most learned men of his own time, and for many years head of the great School of Fulda, who was now Archbishop of Mayence, cited Gotteschalk to appear before a Synod and account for his doctrinal novelties. The Council was held on the 1st of October, A.D. 848. Gotteschalk did appear in person, and handed in a profession of faith, which, according to Hincmar, was undoubtedly erroneous.

He was accordingly condemned by the Council, and Raban wrote a letter to Hincmar to inform him that a vagabond monk (gyrovagus), of the diocese of Soissons, held heretical doctrine, and was condemned by the Synod with the approbation of King Louis. He also requests Hincmar to convene a Synod in his own diocese, and condemn his doctrines in like manner. Hincmar was not slow in following this advice. That great bishop, for more than thirty years the central figure of the French Church, was in every way qualified to fill the high place which he occupied as the first prelate and peer in France. He was learned, eloquent, and resolute, a lasting friend, and, to those whom he considered in the wrong, an unrelenting foe. In his youth he had been a monk of the great Abbey of St. Denis, so that between Raban Maur, a Benedictine monk of Fulda, and Hincmar, a Benedictine of St. Denis, the former now the most powerful prince-bishop in Germany, and the latter the first prelate in France, the unfortunate Gotteschalk, a runaway monk of their order, could hope for little mercy. A great Synod of his province was convoked by Hincmar in the palace of Quiercy. The king was there, and a great number of his bishops and abbots. Gotteschalk was introduced and interrogated, but persisted in his opinions, and, if we may credit Hincmar, was very insolent in his demeanour. So the bishops ordered him to be degraded, and the abbots ordered him to be flogged according to the rule of St. Benedict, and after that to be imprisoned in an ergastulum. A great fire was kindled, Gotteschalk was ordered to take his MS. on Predestination in his hand, and the lash was then applied until he should himself fling the book into the flames, which he was glad to do very soon. He was afterwards imprisoned in the Convent of Hautvilliers, where he remained contumacious for nine years, and died, it is said, in the same spirit.

But the severity of Hincmar defeated his purpose. He was so severely attacked by several French theologians that he found it necessary to ask his friend, Scotus, to come to his assistance, and the "Master" promptly responded to the call. In A.D. 851 he published his _Liber de Prædestinatione_, a short treatise in nineteen chapters, on a very burning question. This book at once raised a tremendous storm on all sides. He adopted a new system of discussion, arguing rather from reason than authority, and dealing his blows indiscriminately on friend and foe. He ranges through all metaphysics, discusses the nature of sin, the origin of evil, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and the qualities of the bodies that will be hereafter united to the glorified and condemned souls. He somewhat contemptuously speaks of his opponents, and acts on those independent principles which he elsewhere so eloquently proclaims in a sentence that has something of the sonorous ring of a Ciceronian period.[431] Wenilo, Archbishop of Sens, at once sent this treatise of Scotus to Prudentius, and he was not very long in pronouncing what he thought of it. The next year he published his great treatise _De Prædestinatione contra Joannem Scotum_, with an introduction addressed to Archbishop Wenilo. We have no hesitation in saying that this introduction is written in language rather vulgar, and by no means charitable. He heaps all manner of abusive epithets on the head of the redoubtable Scotus, and although he declares that he is animated only by zeal for the Catholic faith, and the affection of true charity, we think he would have given better proof of both by greater moderation in his language. He declares that he found in the book of Scotus the poison of Pelagianism, the madness of Origen, and the wild fury (furiositatem) of the Collyrian heretics. He speaks of the impudence of Scotus in barking at (oblatrantem) the orthodox faith and the Catholic Fathers, and he hints pretty clearly that it was the devil himself who vomited so many blasphemies by the mouth of John and Julian, and so on to the end of the chapter. In the same spirit, but in more moderate language, Florus attacked the book of Scotus, whom he calls a "vaniloquus et garrulus homo," and speaks of his writings as "plena mendacii et erroris." For the present we shall not discuss in what or how far Scotus erred in his book, but he was certainly on the right side in supporting Hincmar, and although neither Florus nor Prudentius held all the opinions of Gotteschalk, it would not be difficult to extract from their writings many propositions, which would need to be interpreted in a very charitable spirit, indeed, before they could be reconciled with the commonly received doctrines of our Catholic theologians.

But Hincmar was not the man to yield to the noisy declamation of the theologians of the South. In A.D. 853 he convened another Synod at Quiercy, in which he formulated with great accuracy his own doctrine on grace and predestination. They are well known as the Capitula Carisiaca.[432]

It is said that Prudentius signed them, but he certainly in a short time afterwards formulated four counter-propositions, which it is not easy to reconcile with Catholic doctrine, and in this proceeding he was countenanced by Remigius of Lyons. Later on, in the Council of Valence in A.D. 855, and in that of Langres in A.D. 859, the southern theologians and bishops attacked the capitula of Hincmar, at least by implication, and denounced the book written by Scotus as a devil's commentary rather than an argument of faith, and said it contained nothing but old women's stories, and Irish porridge nauseous to the purity of faith. They did not expressly mention his name, but there can be no doubt about the reference in the words--"Scotorumque pultes puritati fidei nauseam inferentes." But in the end Hincmar prevailed, and his doctrine was sanctioned in the Synod of Tousi, in the year A.D. 860, where a great many prelates of both parties were assembled from fourteen provinces, with twelve metropolitans, and the three kings at their head--Charles the Bald, Lothaire of Lorraine, and Charles of Provence. So the censures of Florus and Prudentius, and the condemnation of Valence and Langres cannot have much weight in blackening the theological character of Scotus Erigena.

The next discussion in which Scotus is said to have taken part occurred shortly afterwards. It has been stated by many writers that he was the first who denied the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Western Church. Certainly, Berengarius, in the eleventh century, claimed Scotus as his teacher on the new doctrine which he introduced; and the Sacramentarians regarded him as a great apostle of what they called the truth. A book on the Eucharist, attributed to Scotus by Berengarius, was condemned in three synods, and committed to the flames as impious and heretical.

But there is no contemporary evidence to show that Scotus wrote a treatise on the Eucharist, and, on the other hand, there is positive evidence which goes to show the identity of the work attributed to Scotus with the treatise that has certainly been written by Ratramnus. The very words, on account of which Berengarius says the book was ordered to be burnt at the Council of Rome in A.D. 1059, namely--"ea quae in altare consecrantur esse figuram, pignus, et signum Corporis et Sanguinis Christi," and which were used in a heretical sense by Berengarius but not by their author, are found in the _Book of Ratramnus_, the MS. of which still bears his name in uncial letters of the tenth century. Another expression attributed by Ascelinus to the unfortunate Irishman--"specie geruntur ista, non veritate"--are nowhere to be found in the existing writings of Scotus, but are found exactly in the same MS. of Ratramnus. There can be no doubt that Scotus, in his commentary on St. John, did use inaccurate language, but certainly not in a heretical sense.[433] Yet, his language displeased some of his best friends, so that Hincmar in his second book on Predestination seems to attribute to Scotus--for he does not mention his name--the error of teaching that the Sacrament of the Altar was not the real body and blood, but only a memorial of them, whereas Scotus taught in reality, or certainly meant to teach, that it was both--namely, a memorial, and at the same time a reality. Adrevaldus, too, wrote a treatise--"De Corpore et Sanguine Domini contra ineptias J. Scoti." This is the only contemporary evidence we have concerning the alleged errors of Scotus on the Eucharist. Just 200 years later, however, in consequence of the fame of Scotus, and the similarity of their style, the _Book of Ratramnus_ was attributed to Scotus both by Berengarius and most of his contemporaries. So it shared the fate of Berengarius himself, it was condemned by the Council of Paris in A.D. 1050, and in the same year it was anathematised by the Councils of Rome and Vercelli. Nine years later Pope Nicholas II. made Berengarius himself throw the book into the fire in presence of an immense crowd of people at Rome. And so it came to pass that Scotus was censured for opinions which he never held, and for a book which he never wrote.

Almost from his first arrival in France, Scotus had been engaged in translating from the Greek into Latin the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius. In the year A.D. 828 the Greek Emperor, Michael Balbus--the stammerer--had sent, as a present to Louis le Debonaire, a copy in Greek of the writings attributed to Dionysius, the Areopagite. Dionysius, mentioned in the 17th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, was said to have been at first bishop of Athens, and to have been afterwards sent into France by St. Clement, where he preached the Gospel for many years, and died a martyr's death. The works attributed to St. Dionysius, although really written by some forger of the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century, were at this time regarded as genuine. Hence, the Greek Emperor's gift was very highly prized in France, and preserved with the greatest care and veneration as the undoubted work of the apostle of the French people, and especially of Paris, where the great Abbey of St. Denis, for many ages the cemetery of the kings of France, was built in his honour. But these writings in Greek were a sealed fountain to most of the French scholars at the time. Hilduin, a monk of St. Denis, was charged with their custody, and commissioned to translate them, but failed in the attempt. When, however, the exiled Irish scholar came to Paris, the king, to his great joy, soon discovered that he was a perfect master of the Greek tongue, and asked him to undertake the translation of the writings of the Areopagite. Scotus gladly undertook the task imposed upon him by his royal patron, and executed it in such a way as to please the man of all others best qualified to pronounce a critical opinion--Anastasius, the Roman Librarian. In a letter written to the king, in A.D. 875, he declares it to be a wonderful thing that a man like Scotus, a barbarian, living at the end of the world--vir ille barbarus in finibus mundi positus--could understand and translate into another tongue the writings of the Areopagite. But the Holy Spirit, he says, was the chief agent who filled him at once with fire and eloquence--qui hunc ardentem et loquentem fecit--and charity was the mistress who taught him for the instruction and edification of many. He adds that his only fault was to translate too literally, and the cause of that was his great humility, which did not permit him to change the exact order and meaning of the words of so great a writer.

We cannot ascertain for certain the year of its appearance; it was probably about A.D. 855, but in this case, too, Scotus was unfortunate. Whether it was that the French theologians had given him a bad character in Rome on account of the book on Predestination, or, as others think, that the Greek scholar was considered to be a supporter of Greek influences in the Court of Charles during the Photian intrigues, it is certain that at this time he was no favourite at Rome. Accordingly, when his work appeared, Pope Nicholas wrote a letter to Charles the Bald, in which he complains of the publication of this translation without the usual apostolic sanction--quod juxta morem ecclesiae nobis mitti debet--especially as John the Scot, who translated it, although said to be a man of much learning, was by many persons regarded as not altogether sound in his doctrine--non sapere in quibusdam frequenti rumore dicitur. Therefore the Pope orders Charles either to send the aforesaid John to Rome to give an account of himself, or at least not to permit him to remain any longer at Paris as the head of the University--aut certo Parisiis in studio, cujus capital jam olim fuisse perhibetur, morari non sinatis. This letter was written in the third year of Nicholas's pontificate, either A.D. 861 or 862. We do not know what effect the letter produced, whether the king dismissed Scotus from his high position or not. It is very improbable that he did dismiss him, seeing the way in which Anastasius, himself a Roman, spoke of Scotus twelve years later as a holy, learned, and humble man. Most probably by that time they had got better information concerning Scotus in Rome, and found out that he was neither so unsound in doctrine, nor so Photian in his tendencies as his enemies made him out to be. At this time, however, when the Pope wrote to Charles, Scotus took very good care not to go to Rome, where he might have met the fate of Gotteschalk; nor does it appear that Charles dismissed his favourite from the palace, although requested to do so by the Pope himself.

Scotus not only translated and wrote extensive commentaries on the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, but about the same period composed a profound, original, and eloquent work in five books, which he entitles Περὶ Φυσέως Μερισμοῦ, seu De Divisione Naturae. This work has been greatly praised, and greatly and justly censured. We shall, however, for the present reserve our judgment on its undoubted merits, as well as on its demerits, and confine ourselves to sketching its eventful history. It is a dialogue between a master and his pupil after the Platonic fashion, not indeed with Plato's unrivalled beauty of form, but with much of the eloquence and subtlety of the Greek mind. No other scholar of the Western Church in any age was so filled with the spirit of the philosophy and theology of the Greeks, and whose mind was so closely akin to the mind of Greece. The Irish, like the Greek mind, has a natural love for speculation, is quick, subtle, and far-seeing, has greater power of abstraction and generalisation--that is to say, greater metaphysical power than the phlegmatic Anglo-Saxon. Scotus was a typical Celt, strongly developing all the intellectual peculiarities of the race. Moreover, he was familiar with Plato, and Aristotle, and the Greek Fathers, far more than with the Latin Fathers. He had, by close study, imbibed the spirit of Neo-Platonic philosophy from the writings of Dionysius, whom he not unnaturally regarded with the reverence due to an apostle, and so his whole soul was made by nature, study, and duty, intensely Greek. No doubt this was in itself one great source of his errors, both real and imaginary, because his critics seeing how he erred in some things where they could fathom his philosophy, imagined he erred in many more where they could scarcely guess at the meaning of his words. Hence William of Malmesbury very justly says of this work of Scotus, "De Divisione Naturae," that it was very useful for the solution of some difficult questions, "Si tamen ignoscatur ei in quibusdum, quibus a Latinorum tramite deviavit dum in Græcos acriter oculos intendit." His eyes were on the Greeks, and his spirit was with the Greeks, and so his teaching and his language in many respects seemed strange and erroneous to the Latins. It has been said that this book of Scotus was corrupted by his enemies the more easily to refute him, and by heretics the more easily to defend their own errors. But the supposition is quite gratuitous, unsupported by evidence, and unnecessary as an explanation of facts. His doctrine in many points was attacked in his own time, his errors were palliated by friends and amplified by enemies. In later ages erratic sectaries, who vexed the Church of France in the beginning of the thirteenth century, appealed to the writings of Scotus in defence of their errors, and thus he was made a third time a scape-goat to carry the sins of others. We learn from the Chronicon of the monk Alberic, but from no other source, that in the year A.D. 1225, Honorius III. sent a Brief to the archbishops and bishops of France, in which he passed a severe judgment on the book of Scotus, entitled "Periphysis," for so the monk writes it. The Bishop of Paris had informed the Pope that this work was full of heretical depravity, and had been condemned by the Archbishop of Sens and his suffragans, that it was hid in many monasteries, where cloistered and scholastic men, thinking it a great thing to propound new opinions, spent much time in the study of the book. So the Pope ordered it to be carefully sought after, whenever it was found to be solemnly burned, and inflicted excommunication, _ipso facto_, on those who should knowingly presume to keep it in their possession. This severe prohibition was effective. The MS. copies were everywhere sought out, and nearly all destroyed, and no Catholic dared to publish it. But in the year A.D. 1681, Thomas Gale, of Oxford, printed it at that city. A few years later, in A.D. 1685, the old prohibition was renewed, and the work placed on the Index, where it still remains, although reprinted in Migne's Patrology.

Scotus also wrote several Greek and Latin poems on various subjects, thirteen of which, mostly Latin, are printed in Migne's edition of his works. Like most poems in foreign, and especially in dead languages, they are merely artificial flowers of poesy--stiff, scentless, and lifeless; but they serve to show the familiarity of the writer even in that rude age with the languages of Greece and Rome.

How Scotus ended his life we know not. William of Malmesbury, whom many other authorities blindly follow, states that it was a common report--_ut fertur_--that he was invited to England by King Alfred, that he lectured at Oxford, and afterwards retired to Malmesbury, where he was stabbed to death by his pupils with their pens, or perhaps penknives (graphiis). His body was at first secretly buried in the Church of St. Laurence, where the crime was committed, but a bright light shining nightly on the spot warned the monks to transfer the holy remains of the martyred scholar to the left corner of the high altar in the great Church of Malmesbury, where they reposed in peace and honour until another abbot, Warinus de Lira, exhumed the bodies of Scotus and other saints, and buried them without honour or ceremony in an obscure corner of the Church of St. Michael. But his memory was long venerated as a holy martyr, and his feast celebrated on the 10th of November, on which day his name was inserted in the Antwerp edition of the _Roman Martyrology_, until Cardinal Baronius had it expunged. The story of William of Malmesbury is altogether improbable, and we have no contemporary evidence in its support. It arose in the beginning from confounding Scotus Erigena, or, as he was sometimes called, Joannes, with another John, abbot of Etheling, who was invited to England by Alfred, about the year A.D. 880. In the letter written by Anastasius in A.D. 875, he not obscurely speaks of John Scotus as already dead, at least he uses the past tense throughout. It is not improbable, therefore, that shortly after the Pope's letter in A.D. 862, Scotus may have deemed it prudent to retire from Paris, and, with an Irishman's love of home, returned to his native country, where he is said to have died in peace and holiness in the year A.D. 874.

It has been said, too, that he travelled to Athens, and visited various parts of the East, and that he was skilled in most of the Oriental languages. But these statements appear unfounded; they are certainly destitute of any reliable authority. What we know for certain is that Scotus was an Irishman, that he was the first scholar of his time, that he acquired his knowledge even of the Greek language, in the schools of his native country. He was loved and honoured by friends who knew him, and misjudged both during his life and after his death by many who knew neither the man himself nor his writings. His career was short and brilliant; comet-like he blazed for a while in the sunshine of royal favour; he appeared and disappeared in a strangely eccentric orbit. For ages he was lost to view, but in our own time is seen again shining in the literary heavens with even more than his ancient splendour. We are not inclined to extol him unduly, neither does it become us to judge him harshly; but whatever may be said of his errors, all must admit that John Scotus Erigena was a man of saintly life, a prodigy of learning, and an honour to the country which gave him his name and his knowledge.

IV.--FOREIGN SCHOLARS IN IRELAND.

We have already spoken of several foreign scholars, who came to our Irish Schools; but there are a few others to whom it is necessary to make more explicit reference.

The hill of Slane, on the banks of the Boyne, near Drogheda, is one of the historic sites of Ireland. It commands a noble prospect of all the swelling plains of Meath and Louth, bounded on the north by the distant Mourne Mountains rising from the sea, and on the south beyond the smoky pall of Dublin, by the many topped summits of the Wicklow Hills. There, close at hand on this same left bank of the river towards Drogheda are Brugh and Dowth and New Grange, the cemeteries of pre-historic kings; while just in front beyond the river is Rosnaree, where the great King Cormac sleeps with his face to the rising sun, the daily herald of his immortal hopes. Further off in the distance to the south and west, may be seen Royal Tara, and Skreen of Columcille, and Kells of the Crosses, and the towers of Trim and all the other storied ruins that once guarded the passes of the Boyne from Newtown of the Normans, by Bective, Navan, and Donore, whence fled the chicken-hearted James, down to the obelisk by yonder bridge that marks the spot where the gallant Schomberg fell.

It was on this hill of Slane that St. Patrick lit his Paschal fire for the first time in Erin, within view of King Laeghaire and his Druids from Tara. And it was here too that Erc, "the sweet spoken judge of Patrick," built his oratory and little cell, which in after ages grew to be a great monastery and a great college. There is now no trace of the oratory of St. Erc at Slane. The ivy-clad ruins that still remain on the hill seem to be of Norman origin, dating probably from the twelfth century. The history of the ancient monastery has likewise disappeared, almost as completely as its buildings. One interesting fact, however, is still preserved by local tradition,[434] and that tradition has been amply confirmed by the researches of scholars in our times. It is said that a king of France was educated long ago at the great College of Slane, but his name and date are forgotten. We are, however, enabled to supply these particulars. St. Sigebert III. was king of the Austrasian Franks from A.D. 632 to 656. This pious king was more given to prayer than to warlike enterprise; and so Grimoald, Mayor of the Palace, became virtually ruler of Austrasia. When Sigebert died in A.D. 656, Grimoald, wishing to have the name as well as the power of a king, caused the late king's son, Dagobert, to be tonsured, and then sent Dido, Bishop of Poitiers, to carry off the boy secretly to Ireland, to be educated there as a monk in one of its famous monastic schools. Tradition tells us that the school was Slane, and that Dagobert spent eighteen or twenty years in its halls, and acquired during that long period all the learning of the Scots. Meanwhile Grimoald received the fitting reward of his treason. He was captured by Clovis of Neustria, and put to death with torture, not long after he had sent the young prince to Ireland. When Dagobert was grown to man's estate he returned home to Austrasia, and mounted his father's throne as Dagobert II., by which name the student of Slane College is known in French history.[435] It is obvious that Slane was selected, not because it was the most celebrated school at the time, but because it was in Meath, where the High-kings mostly dwelt; and it was only natural to bring the royal boy to some college near the royal court. It was through the agency of Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, that Dagobert was restored to his friends and his kingdom about the year A.D. 674, after the deposition and death of King Childeric II.

Another eminent saint and scholar of foreign origin, contemporary with Dagobert in Ireland, was Egbert of Northumbria. Bede gives a very interesting account of this eminent man.[436] He was sprung from the nobility of Northumbria, and appears to have been born in A.D. 639.

With another young noble named Ethelun, Egbert went over to Ireland, like the crowds of his countrymen, 'to pursue divine studies, and lead a continent life.' They sojourned in the monastery, called in Irish Rathmelsigi, which Bede's editor and translator[437] foolishly calls 'Melfont.' He meant Mellifont, near Drogheda; but there was no monastery at Mellifont for nearly five hundred years afterwards. As the same learned editor makes Columba's noble monastery of Dair-magh to be Derry, instead of Durrow, we need not attach much importance to his notes on Bede concerning Irish matters. Colgan says that this monastery of Rathmelsigi was in Connaught; but he does not specify, and probably did not know, the exact locality. In the _Martyrology of Donegal_, we find reference to "Colman[438] Rath-Maoilsidhe" (at Dec. 14th), which is in all probability the monastery referred to by Colgan. This Colman is different from Colman of Innisboffin, whose festival day is the 8th of August. It is not improbable that his monastery was situated at the place called Rath-maoil, or Rath-Maoilcath, both of which were situated near Ballina, on the right bank of the Moy. Everything points to the fact that most of the young Northumbrian nobles and ceorls, who came to the West of Ireland in crowds at this period, landed in the estuary of the Moy, and then going southward, took up their abode, or founded their religious houses wherever they could obtain suitable accommodation. St. Gerald's Abbey of Mayo was not then established (in A.D. 664); and so Egbert and his companions put themselves under the guidance of St. Colman, or some of his successors, in this monastery of Rath-Maoilsidhe.

Just then the terrible Yellow Plague made its appearance in Ireland, and carried off one-half of its population. All the companions of Egbert and Ethelun were cut off by the plague; and now they themselves were attacked, and became grievously ill. Then Egbert, whilst he had yet a little strength remaining, rose up in the morning, and going out of the chamber of the sick, he sat down alone, and began to think of his past sins; and he asked God's pardon for them with many tears. He prayed, too, earnestly that God would not yet take him out of the world, but would give him time to atone by his good works for the sins of his youth. And if God deigned to hear his prayer, he vowed never to return again to his native Britain, but to live as a pilgrim in some strange land; and, moreover, to recite the Psalter daily, and to fast continuously for twenty-four hours once a week. When he returned to the sick chamber, Ethelun, his companion, was asleep; but presently awaking, he told Egbert that his prayer was heard by God; then he gently rebuked him, for he had hoped that together they would go into life everlasting. Next day Ethelun died; but Egbert recovered from his sore sickness, and lived to be ninety years of age, when he departed from this life.

He was ordained a priest; "and his life," says Bede, "adorned the priesthood, for he lived in the practice of humility, meekness, continence, justice, and all other virtues." He loved the Irish greatly, and lived amongst them for fifty years (A.D. 664-715), preaching the Gospel, teaching in his monastery, reproving the bad, and encouraging the good by the bright example of his blameless life. He not only kept his vow, but he added to it, says Bede; for during the whole Lent he took but one meal in the day, and that was nothing but bread in limited quantity, and thin milk from which the cream had been skimmed off. Whatever he got from others--and he got much--he gave to the poor.

For many years he had been resolving in his mind to sail round Britain, and go to Germany to preach the Gospel to the pagan tribes who dwelt there, and who were kindred to his own nation of the Angles. But God had willed otherwise. There was in Egbert's monastery an old monk who had many years before been minister to Boisil, Abbot of Melrose, an Irish foundation in Scotland. Now one morning after matins, Boisil appeared to this aged monk, who at once recognised his old master, and commanded him to tell Egbert that it was God's will that he should give up his proposed journey to Germany, and go rather to instruct the Columbian monasteries in the right method of keeping Easter, and of tonsuring the head.

Egbert fearing that this vision might be a delusion, still continued his preparations for Germany, and did not obey the direction given by Boisil. Then that saint appeared a second time to his minister, and commanded him to make known to Egbert, in a more imperative way, what it was God willed him to do. "Let him go at once," he said, "to Columba's monastery of Hy, _because their ploughs do not go straight_, and he will bring them into the right way." Moreover, the ship in which he was preparing to set out for Germany was wrecked in a storm, and thrown upon the shore, leaving, however, his effects intact. Egbert, taking this as a further manifestation of the Divine will, gave up his project of going to Germany, and set sail for Iona. Wictbert, however, one of his associates in religion in Ireland, went in his stead, and for two years preached the Gospel in Friesland, but reaped no harvest of success amongst the pagans. So he returned once again to Ireland, and gave himself up to serve God during the rest of his life, as he was wont to do before his departure, in great purity and austerity; "so that if he could not be profitable to others by teaching them the faith, he took care to be useful to his own beloved (Irish) people by the example of his virtues."

Now when this holy father and priest, Egbert, beloved of God, and worthy to be named with all honour, came to the monastery of Iona, he was honourably and joyfully received by the community. He was also a diligent teacher, and carried out his precepts by his example, so that he was willingly listened to by all the members of the community. The effect of his frequent instructions and pious exhortations, was that at length the community of Hy consented to give up the inveterate tradition of their ancestors in religion, and adopt the new discipline, which by this time had been received everywhere else throughout the Irish Church. Now surely, this was, as Bede observes, a wonderful dispensation of Providence, that these very monks of Iona, who were the first to preach the Gospel in Northumbria, should afterwards be persuaded by this Northumbrian priest to accept the correct discipline and true rule of spiritual life. And stranger still, it was on Easter Day, the 24th of April, A.D. 729, that this man of God went to his eternal rest; whereas, but for his exertions, that Easter festival would not have been duly celebrated on that day, but, in accordance with the unreformed system, would have been celebrated in that year towards the end of March, whilst the rest of the Church was observing the fast of Lent.

With Egbert also dwelt in the same monastery the celebrated St. Chad, or Cedd, Bishop of Lichfield. Chad is justly regarded, on account of his learning and holiness, as one of the Fathers of the Anglo-Saxon Church. He was one of four brothers, like Egbert himself, of Northumbrian origin, two of whom became bishops, and two were holy priests. Chad was one of that crowd of Northumbrian nobles, who, in the days of Bishops Finan and Colman, flocked to Ireland for instruction in theology and religious discipline. Bede says expressly that he with the most reverend Father Egbert, when both were youths, led for a long time a monastic life together in Ireland--praying, observing continency, and meditating on the Holy Scriptures. Chad, however, returned after a time to his own country; but Egbert continued in Ireland until he set sail for Iona.

Chad was, as we have already seen, present at the Conference of Whitby in A.D. 664, and having been educated in Ireland, he naturally sympathised with Bishop Colman and the Irish party. He was subsequently appointed to the see of York, but still sympathising with the Irish party, he was deposed through the influence of Wilfrid. Yet he was sometime after appointed to the See of Lichfield. He was a man of great holiness of life; but his episcopacy at Lichfield only continued for two years and a half. He died probably in A.D. 671 or 672, and was buried in St. Mary's Church; but his bones were afterwards translated to the present Cathedral of Lichfield.

A little later in the same seventh century, the celebrated St. Willibrord, afterwards Archbishop of Utrecht, was a student in our Irish schools, and most probably, we should say, at Mayo of the Saxons. His father Wilgils, was also of the English nobility, but after the birth of his son he retired from the world, and built himself a cell at the mouth of the Humber, where he led a life of the most austere virtue. Willibrord in his youth was trained in the great school of St. Wilfrid at York; but about the age of twenty, in order to finish his education, like most of his countrymen at the time, he passed over to Ireland. This much we know from Bede, who also adds that whilst yet only a priest in Ireland, he led therein the life of a pilgrim--forsaking his earthly country through love of his heavenly country. Willibrord also testified to Bishop Acca and Bishop Wilfrid, that once on a time, when he was in Ireland, the plague overtook a certain student of the Scottish, that is the Irish, race. This young man, though well skilled in literature, had been rather heedless about the welfare of his soul. When he fell sick he at once sent for Willibrord, and telling him how much he feared to die on account of his sins, he besought him, if he had any relics of the good King Oswald, to apply them for his benefit.

Then Willibrord said that he had a portion of the stake on which the pagans fixed the head of the martyred king; and "blessing some water he put into it a chip of the aforesaid oaken stake, and gave it to the sick man to drink. He presently found ease, and recovering from his sickness he lived a long time after; and being entirely converted to God in heart and actions, wherever he came, he spoke of the goodness of his merciful Creator, and the honour of his faithful servant."[439]

It was the holy Egbert, who sent Willibrord with twelve companions to preach the gospel to the Frisians. And shortly after two other priests of the English nation, who had long lived as pilgrims in Ireland, following their example, went to preach in Saxony, where they gained the crown of martyrdom within a few years. This is not the place to narrate at length the apostolic labours of Willibrord and his associates--how he was consecrated by Pope Sergius in Rome, and was commissioned to preach to the Frisians; how completely he succeeded where others had failed; how he laboured there for fifty years in all--during thirty-six of which he was Archbishop of Utrecht. These things are told at length by Alcuin in his beautiful _Life of St. Willibrord_, which also describes the saintly end of the long and laborious career of this venerable servant of God.

It is surely a credit to our Irish schools to have trained up so many learned and apostolic men, like Egbert and Willibrord. It was in Ireland they were trained in divine studies, as Bede testifies; it was in Ireland they learned the continent and self-denying life of all true apostles; and it was from Ireland they went forth to preach the Gospel to the fierce pagan tribes of Germany, where so many of them were privileged to meet a martyr's death.

Another Irish student at this period was Agilbert, afterwards Bishop of Paris. He was, says Bede, a Frank by birth, who came from that country to Ireland, "and lived a long time there for the purpose of studying the Scriptures." Bede seems to imply that he was a bishop before he came to Ireland,[440] for he describes him as a 'Pontifex natione Gallus.' This shows in what high esteem our Irish schools must have been held at this period, when even bishops came from France to study divinity in their halls. Agilbert afterwards passed over to England, and for a time held the See of Dorchester or Winchester. He was present at the Conference of Whitby, and took the side of Wilfrid, but finally returning to his native country he was made Bishop of Paris. The year of his death is not known. It was probably about A.D. 680.