Lawlor — The Ancient List of the Coarbs of Patrick. 134.0 



period of contest ; and it almost exactly coincides with the second section of 

 the List (uos. 26-41). With the expectation that we shall find in it traces 

 of the struggle, we proceed to examine that section. 



The second section is in strong contrast to tlie first and third Vjy reason 

 of its confusion. The confusion is manifested in two directions: first, in the 

 difficulty of fixing the text of the List, due to the contradictory evidence of 

 our four authorities; and, secondly, in tlic irregularity of the succession 

 which it reveals. 



Let us consider the text first. 



At the very beginning we are confronted witli a conflict of evidence. In 

 YBO Cii Dfnisc (no. 26) follows Airechtach (no. 28), and Foendelach (no. 29) 

 precedes Dub dii Lethe (no. 27). Here the Annals come to our assistance. 

 Cu Dinisc died in 791, and Foendelach in 795. Thus the order of YBO is 

 unchronological, and we are justified in following L. Moreover, we can give 

 a plausible reason for the transposition of the names in the ancestor of the 

 other Mss. For a note in L (no. 29j informs us that Foendelach was killed 

 by Dub da Lethe. Must he not, then, have preceded him in the abbacy ? So 

 the revisers of the List would argue. The Annals at once get rid of the 

 chronological difficulty, and save the reputation of Dub da Lethe, by writing 

 euphemistically that Foendelach "perished by a sudden death." Perhaps a 

 better solution is to interpret Dub da Lethe in the note as meaning the 

 supporters of Dub da Lethe and his family. 



A little lower down (nos. 31-33) L omits three names which are found 

 in YBO : Torbach, Nuada, and Mac Loingsi. Here the Annals support YEO. 

 Moreover, that Torbach actually held the abbacy is certain. He was the 

 heres Pairieii at whose dictation Ferdomnach wrote the Gospel according to 

 St. Matthew in the Book of Armagh. ^ And if these three abbots are omitted, 

 the chronology is deranged; for the periods assigned to the next two abbots, 

 of eight and two years, respectively, do not fill the gap between Connmach 

 (no. .30), who died in 807, and Eogan (no. -36), wlio died in 8o-4. 13ut we 

 must restore another name, which is absent from all our mss. Toichtech 

 (no. 32) is the abbot mentioned next after Torbach in the Annals. But this 

 fact, taken alone, would not warrant his inclusion in the List. The List 

 itself, however, as we have it, implies that a name has fallen out in this 

 place. For Nuada (no. 33) is said to have been in office three years. Now, 

 he died in 812. He must, therefore, have been elected in 809, the very year 

 of Toichtech's death, a year after the death of Torbach (808). The omission 

 is accounted for by the resemblance of the names Torbach and Toichtech (or 

 the variant Toichlech), written in Irish cliaracter. 



■ Proc. R.I.A., iii (18IG), 3J0fl'; .T. Gwyiin, Book of Armagh, pp. xv, cxvi. 



