Bury — The Itinerary of Patrick in Connaiifjhf. 155 



that the common soiu'cc of V^ and V3 here was an intermediate docu- 

 ment in which the compiler inserted at this point the story of Mag 

 Slecht. 



Turning to the Vita Tripartita, in which large portions of 

 Ti'rechan's memoir have been reproduced, we find that the visit to Mag 

 Slecht immediately precedes the crossing of the Sliannon (pp. 90-92, 

 ed. Rolls), and follows the visit to Granard. This confirms our con- 

 clusion. The coincidence in these three documents points to an older 

 document, in which the episode of Mag Slecht immediately pi'eceded 

 the crossing of the Shannon. 



1^0 w, it is easy to see why a compiler who was following the 

 memoir of Tirechan might have been tempted to introduce from 

 another source the Mag Slecht incident just at this point. The 

 following words in Ti'rechan's text obviously might supply the 

 motive : 



mittens autein Patricias methbrain' ad fossam Slecht barbanim Patricii propin- 

 qiium qui dicebat mirabilia in deo uera (311 17). 



The mention of Eath Slecht here might have readily induced a 

 compiler, who was at a loss where to insert the story of Crom Ci'uach, 

 to choose this place as appropriate. If so, the author of the Tripartite 

 Life, Part ii. (or his source), has gone further ; and in the process of 

 inserting the story, has altered a point in Ti'rechan's narrative. 

 Having recounted the overthrow of the idol, the Tripartite proceeds to 

 reproduce as follows the passage which I have just qiioted from 

 Tirechan : — 



Forothaigsiiim [dano] eclais isininutsin .i. Domnach Maige Slecht, ecus 

 foraccaib and Mabran Barbariis Patricii, cognatusque ei et propheta. 



Apart from the notice of the foundation of Domnach Maige 

 Slecht, which is not mentioned by Tirechan, there is an important 

 discrepancy between the two passages. In Ti'rechan's memou-, 

 Patrick, from some place in Mag Eein, sends his relative to Hath 

 Slecht ; in the Tripartite he leaves his relative in Eath Slecht. This 

 difference could of course be accounted for, as due to an alteration 

 entailed by the insertion of the Mag Slecht story. 



1 How is this to be reconciled with mabran in the Tripartite ? Must we not 

 suppose that m is in both cases an en-or for ni, the name being Niabmin ? Cf. 

 L. B. fo. 15 a, b. For nieth, cp. Ann. Fit. a.d. 693, and Ehys, Welsh People, 

 p. 51. A similar mistake occurs in the Biburg MS. of the Vita Tertia (Colgan, 

 p. 26, c. Ixuii) : Mothfer for Niothfer. Colgau's note to the passage shows that 

 this is not a mispriut. 



