Armstrong and Lawlor — The Domnach Airgid. 113 



them speaks of a shrine, the other of a silver shrine ; and neither can be 

 identified with a simple box of yew. If we try to re-habilitate the tradition 

 by assuming that originally it applied to the box, and was later on transferred 

 to the shrine in which the box was ultimately encased, we resort to conjecture^ 

 And mere conjecture, however plausible, cannot serve as an argument for 

 Petrie's purpose. 



The fact is, as I venture to think, that we have no warrant for the belief 

 that St. Patrick ever saw any part of what we call the Domnach Airgid-. 

 But we have by no means done with a tradition when we have decided that 

 it cannot be accepted at its face value. Every tradition of respectable 

 antiquity will carry us some way towards the ascertainment of historic fact, 

 if we subject it to a sufficiently searching analysis. At this point, therefore; 

 we may attempt to ascertain whether the story on which Dr. Petrie laid 

 somewhat undue stress throws light on the early history of the Domnach. 



Its main value, as I conceive, is that it fixes a later limit for the date of 

 the construction of the shrine. The tradition of the donation of the Domnach 

 is undoubtedly early. The Tripartite Life, in which it first appears, is a work 

 of the eleventh century, and " many if not all " of the documents on which it 

 was based "were composed before a.d. 1000."' Thus the story, in the form in 

 which the Tripartite Life presents it, had found its w T ay into a written docu- 

 ment by the tenth century. But the narrative in the Life of St. Mac Cairthinn, 

 though agreeing in the main with that of the Tripartite Life, so far differs 

 from it in detail as to suggest that the one was not derived from the other. 

 The two accounts seem rather to be bifurcations of a tradition older than either 

 of them. 2 Thus the Codex Salmanticensis makes mention of certain relics 

 which were in the shrine, about which the Tripartite Life is absolutely silent. 

 Doubtless one or more of the items in the list are insertions ; 3 but we have 

 no reason to suppose that the general statement that the Domnach contained 

 relics is relatively late. Again, the Life of St. Mac Cairthinn records that 



1 For the date see Stokes, Tripartite Life, Int., p. lxii ff. Apparently the latesl 

 historical event referred to does not bring us further down than 986. This points to the 

 early years of the eleventh century. 



2 It may be pointed out that the argument is independent of the question whether the 

 story of the donation is an intrusion in the Codex Salmanticensis. It is merely regarded 

 as a recension of the story which diners from that of the Tripartite Life, quite apart from 

 its date and context. But if it be a genuine portion of the text, what is here said of it 

 may be applied to the whole narrative. The Tripartite Lin implies that the Church of 

 Clogher had already been founded by St. Patrick ; the Codex Salmanticensis states that 

 it was founded by St. Mac Cairthinn. 



3 This must be the case if Petrie's remark (p. 20) is correct, that "some, at least, 

 of the relics. . . . were not introduced into Ireland before the twelfth century." 

 He was no doubt thinking of the fragment of the Cross. Compare Mr. Armstn 

 remarks, above, p. 104. 



[18»] 



