264 , Proceedings of the Royal Irish Acadeiui/. 



augeret. Tammoclestusut Z(?!(i7fl</snon 

 posset esse suspectus, tautillus tameu 

 ut hilarem uultum ab omni tristitiae 

 naeuo uel nubilo uindicare sufiSceret. 



§8. Mors t\i& mortis 2>ort us ct ijorta §75. Quidrationisliabet immodeva- 



ititac tins plangere Malachiam quasi nou sit 



praetiosa 7ho»-s eius . . . quasi non sit 

 mortis partus et porta uitae. 



§ t>. oUua fntilifera in domo Dei ! § 47. oliua/ructifera in domo Dei ! 



oleum laetitiae imgeus et Ivceus, oleum iucuniittitis imgens et hicens ! 



fouens benejiciis, coriiscan? uiiraculis ! Et splendore wdVacH/iiUusfrauit sanos 



Fac nos eius qua frueris lucis suauita- et suanitatc heneficii unxit infirmuru. 

 bisque participes. 



These coiiicitli-nces set-ni to luove iluit iliero is a lelation between the 

 second Sermon and the Life of Malachy of the same kind, tlioiigii perhaps 

 not 80 close, as tliat which subsists between St. Bernard's letter of condolence 

 to the Irish brothere and tlie first Semion. But in this case we cannot at 

 once infer jiroximity of date. For here one of the two compositions which 

 have been compared is a literaiy dofument. Even a versatile orator might 

 he expected to rei)eat in a speech forms of expression which he had used in a 

 careful treatise written some months earlier. I'.nt, on the other hand, the 

 phnises of a .speech would not lie likely to re-apjiear in a treatise composed 

 after a considerable interval. In short, in the case before us two hypotheses 

 are possible. Either the Life was written some tirae-r-perhaps not a short 

 time — l)efore the Sermon was preached; or it was written soon after the 

 Sermon. The latter hyi>f>thesis is excluded ; for the earlicKt po.sisililc date of 

 the Sermon is '1 November, 1149, and I may claim to have sliown tliat the 

 Life cannot have been written after that day. On the other hand, if the Life 

 appearetl early in 1149. it is possible that some of its phrases or sentences 

 might Ih? found in a sermon on St. Malachy delivered nine months later. But 

 it is certainly by many degrees less conceivable that echoes of its language 

 should be heaitl in a sermon preached a year and a half, or more, after its 

 publication. I suggest, therefore, that the date of the second Semion on the 

 Pa.ssing of Malachy is 2 November, 1149. On that supposition one of the two 

 phrases which appear in the first pair of parallel passages quoted above from 

 the Sermon and De Considnatione, toltu omnium erat and totvs esse omnivm, 

 may be an echo of the other ; for the first book of the De Consideratione 

 appeared in 1149. 



