1 14 Mr. Petrie on the History and Antiquities of Tara Hill. 



that the fourth may be wrong also. But, however this may be, it is obvious, that 

 without rejecting the most ancient historical evidences, the existence of a second 

 Patrick cannot be questioned, whether this Patrick was Palladlus or not ; and if 

 he were not Palladius, it will be difficult, if not wholly impossible, to collect any 

 authentic circumstances relative to his history. It is indeed impossible to come to 

 any other conclusion on this head without rejecting as fabrications all the historical 

 dates of the annalists and the authority of Aengus and Flech's Scholiast, relative 

 to the elder Patrick; but this rejection would be wholly unwarrantable, for 

 though there might have been a motive to fabricate authorities in support of 

 the history of the second Patrick, after it had been shaped into something like 

 form, it is obvious that there could have been none to induce those writers to do 

 so in opposition to that history, and thus contradict even their own statements. 

 Dr. Lanigan, who, on this question, rejects the best authorities when they war 

 with his hypothesis, and admits the worst when they support It, finding that the 

 dates assigned by the annalists to the death of Sen- Patrick, whom he wished to 

 make identical with the apostle, would not agree with the tradition of the Irish 

 that the latter died on a Wednesday, assigns the death of Patrick to the year 465, 

 and this solely on the authority of the Annals of Innisfallen, and because he 

 found that the 17th of March In that year fell on Wednesday, as well as in 493. 

 But he should have acknowledged that the Annals of Innisfallen, with respect to 

 their chronology, are weak authority indeed in comparison with the more ancient 

 annals, and particularly when they are not corroborated by other documents ; and 

 even If the fact were otherwise, the passage in question could not be received as 

 an authentic record, because it bears the evidence of an error in the transcription, 

 as can be clearly shewn. The passage is as follows ; — " An. cccclxxxvlli. Kl. 

 Quies Patricii in xvl Kl. April. Anno ccccxxxli. a passione Domini. Quies 

 Meic Cuilind Luscai." Thus It appears that the year intended was 488, and 

 that the death of Mac Cullinn, Bishop of Lusk, is placed in the same year with 

 that of Patrick. But Mac Cullinn died, according to the Annals of Tighearnach 

 and Ulster, In 495 ; and as all the events in the Annals of Innisfallen at this 

 period are a few years antedated, it is obvious that an error has been committed 

 in the numerals, from which Dr. Lanlgan's conclusion was drawn. 



5. The place of his interment. It will have been recollected that the Irish, 

 as well as the Glastonbury authorities, concur in the statement that Sen-Patrick, 



