Lawlor — The Ancient List of the Coarha of Patrick. 341 



in 879 (no. 4'2). Hoie we find an agreement/ with tlie Annals of Ulster as 

 exact as in the first section. With one exception (no. .O.'j)' the names are 

 tlie same in both, and, with the same exception, the chronological data are in 

 accord. But there are some notable differences between the two sections. All 

 the persons named in the present section, except Cathassach (no. 42), Joseph 

 (no. 44), and Mael PcLtraic (no. 45), are called in the Annals coarbs of Patrick — 

 a title not hitherto used. It is implied that all were abbots: the equivalent 

 princeps being used in this section in two instances (nos. 42, 45). Only three 

 bishops are mentioned : Joseph (no. 44), Cathassach (no. 46), and Cellach 

 (no. 56) ; and we have the direct statement of St. Bernard that at least eight 

 of the twelve who are not so styled were laymen." We saw that during the 

 first period there were apparently no contests between rival claimants for the 

 abbacy, and that all the abbots died in office. We now find signs of a less peace- 

 ful state of affairs. Muiredach (no. 47) was superseded by Dub dd Lethe II a 

 year before his death ; Dub da Lethe was opposed by a rival coarb, Muirecan 

 (no, 49), at least five years before he died ; and Muirecan himself was replaced 

 by Mael Muire (no. 50) after a short term of office. But in all these cases 

 the terminal numbers agree with the chronology of the Annals — the rule of 

 the abbot being always reckoned as beginning from the death or supersession 

 of his predecessor. 



In no. 53 (Cummascach) we find the only real discrepancy between the 

 List and the Annals of Ulster. The twenty-seven years of Mael Isu are 

 evidently computed from 1064, the year of the death of Dub da Lethe III 

 (no. 52). Cummascach is set down as the successor of Dub da Lethe, and 

 is said to have ruled for three years. It is, therefore, implied that Dub da 

 Lethe was deposed, or resigned, in 1060 or 1061. But the Annals of Ulster 

 do not acknowledge Cummascach as coarb, and represent Dub da Lethe as 

 retaining office till his death. And they are supported by the Irish informants 

 of St. Bernard, as has been shown in a paper published some time ago 

 in the Proceedings of the Academy.' On the other hand, the Chronicon 

 Scoiorum, in harmony with the List, reports "a change of abbots," Cummas- 

 cach succeeding Dub dA Lethe, in 1060. It is clear that there were two 

 parties at Armagh, one of which acknowledged Cummascach, while the other 

 did not. If he succeeded in getting possession of the abbacy, he must have 

 been driven out, for he lived till 1074, ten years after the accession of Mael 

 Isu. We shall return to him later. 



In the paper just referred to it was pointed out that the period now 



• Another apparent inconsistency arising out of the terminal numbers of nos. 41, 42 

 will be considered when we come to deal with the second section. 



- Viia S. Malachiae, I'J. ^ Proceedings, xxxv, C, p. 233 f. 



