White— Latin Writings of St. Patrick. 209 



Hitherto the BoUandist edition has been cited as if it were a 

 manuscript ; and since unfortunately the BolLandist text is now the 

 only representative of two folios of E, it will be necessary to justify 

 the statement made above, to the effect that E and Boll, differ 

 somewliat in their authority. 



It is only fair to say that Denis did not profess to base his text 

 exclusively upon his manuscript. It was the only one to which he 

 had access ; and he might be pardoned for thinking it very imperfect. 

 In the first place, it is entitled, Uita Beati Pairicii\ and he also had 

 before hira Colgan's Triadis Thaumaturgae . . . Acta, Lovanii, 1647. 

 In the Fourth Life of St. Patrick contained in that work, § 16 of 

 the Confessio is quoted as in lihro quepi de xita et comersatione sua ipse 

 composuit. Denis accordingly fancied that the Confessio, as it came 

 from St. Patrick's pen, was a fairly exhaustive autobiography. Hence 

 his complaints of the lacunae in his 3JS. ; e.g., after neglegentiae meae, § 46 

 of this ed., he prints dots, and notes, "Locus hie, librariorum socordia 

 deprauatus, uidetur de peregrinationibus Patricii habuisse nonnulla." 

 Similar notes occur in three other places. Moreover, .more than once 

 he confesses to having amended the text by the aid .of the extracts 

 from the Confessio in Yita iv., and of those given by Ussher from 

 A, as Denis assumed them to be. 



Thus, for the reading in capturam decidi § 1, for capt. dedi,h.e 

 acknowledges his obligations to Yita iv. On his § 6, on the word 

 pecora (§ 16 of this ed.), Denis subjoins the following note : — 



" Reliqua huius numeric?: suo ms Usserus exhibet, unde nonnullas 

 apographi nostri lacunas suppleuimus ; plura simili modo correcturi, 

 si ille totum textum protulisset." The section ends with de liominilus 

 habeham (§ 17). 



Again, on § 20, Eadem vero node, &c., we find this note: "Qui 

 sequitur locus, in Yita iv. totus transcriptus, ecgrapho nostro 

 emendando profuit." Again, on the passage commencing Pt iterum 

 post annos midtos § 20 ad fin., and ending expergefadus sum § 23. Denis 

 notes " Hactenus totum hunc locum, Maccutheno citato, profert 

 Usserus, p. 832." It remains that we should determine how far in 

 reality Denis used these lielps. 



Let us first of all examine the citations given by Ussher.. They are 

 five in all ; and we shall observe that Ussher constantly departs from 

 A, and gives the readings from C. As far as we know he had not seen 

 F 3 and F4 until 1640. 



I give herewith a collation of the passages with A, not noting 

 Ussher's modernisation of the spelling. 



