Mr. Petrie on the History and Antiquities of Tara Hill. 91 



ric existed in France. The entire number is thus diminished to three, and 

 even of those three there is one, — the one already alluded to under the name 

 of Patrick junior, — whose very existence is problematical. It is true indeed 

 that Archbishop Ussher has, without including the Bishop of Auvergne, 

 stated that there were three Patricks in Ireland, and it is upon his authority 

 that Colgan has included the third Patrick, or Patrick junior, in his list ; 

 but for the existence of this Patrick there is at least no Irish authority 

 whatever, or even any presumptive evidence beyond a mere surmise of 

 Ussher, grounded on the following passage in Jocelin : " Sanctus Patricius 

 filiolus ejus, qui post decessum patrui sui Britanniam remeans in fata 

 concessit, in Olasconensi Ecclesid sepuUus honorificey — Primordia, p. 817. 

 Ussher, reading this passage, and knowing from various authorities, as well 

 Irish as foreign, that a Patrick called Sen or Senex, and whom he supposed 

 a different person from the Irish apostle, was interred at Glastonbury, at once 

 adopted the notion that this Patrick mentioned by Jocelin must have been a 

 third Patrick, and accordingly gave him the name of Patricius junior . The 

 statement of Jocelin, however, as the Bollandists observe, can be entitled to very 

 little attention. It manifestly proceeded from his desire to reconcile the vivid 

 tradition existing in Glastonbury Church, with the adverse impressions of the 

 Irish people ; and as he wrote in the popular belief of his day, that the Apostle 

 of Ireland was buried at Down, and knew, besides, that another Patrick was 

 buried at Glastonbury, the expedient probably suggested itself to him of creating 

 that nephew of the apostle, whom Ussher supposed to have been a separate 

 Patrick. The Irish authorities are, however, at variance with Jocelin on this point, 

 for they all agree that the saint who was buried at Glastonbury was Sen- 

 Patrick. And in the list of homonymous saints preserved in the Books of 

 Lecan and Ballymote, as well as in the ancient calendars, only three Patricks are 

 mentioned, thus : " pacpaic TTlac Calppuinn, pacpaic 1?uipp Dela, pacpaic 

 Qipcipe : tres sunt." The Patrick last named died in the ninth century. Thus, 

 then, three of the five Patricks may be considered either as non-existent or 

 unconnected with the subject under discussion; and the question reduces itself to 

 this : whether the acts of the remaining two have been confounded, and referred 

 to one Individual, or whether there was in reality, but one saint of the name. 

 That there were indeed two Patricks of great celebrity was the opinion of 

 ■ m 2 



