66

village of the Indian well." "If I rightly interpret indecha," says Father Malone, "it means thermal or Indian. The thabur indecha would be Indian or thermal springs."" There are thermal springs at Bath, and, therefore, it is the Saint's birthplace. "Now," he proceeds, "the Book of Armagh' tells us that the village so described was called as of Nentre." The "Book of Armagh" has not a word of the kind, but the Brussels codex (10) has "which village we have constantly and beyond doubt found to be ventre." Not as of Nentre, but to be ventre. This is another economy. But let us proceed to the surprise prepared for our enlightenment. The word is ventre. No matter. Our guide takes Nentre. He says that Nentre is British, and only a corruption of Nen-dwyre-i.e., "heavenly waters," nen in British signifying heavenly. Nem, not nen, is the British for heavenly. The error serves but by way of condiment to make the interpretation palatable. That the Irish called Bath "Indian well," and that the British called it Heavenly waters," may be poetical and a fine fancy of a gifted imagination, but as matter of fact it has no shred of evidence in its favour. Which Briton called it "Heavenly waters?" No author is quoted, no MS. named. Where is the well, or lake, or sea, or river in Wales, or in all Britain, that any one ever heard called, or read of as being called, "Nen-dwyre" (heavenly waters)? Not even Taliessin, in his most fervid mood, sings of heavenly waters. Taliessin, however, has an angry stone thrown at him across the Bristol Channel. He is an independent witness in favour of the Clyde. He, never thinking of controversy or doubt on the point, sings how Rederech, his hero, sails to Nevtur, and there, on the Clyde, fights his battle of victory. Unwearied in making assertions without proof, Father Malone endeavours to slaughter Taliessin by saying that this is "a repetition of the Irish MSS., and found only in comparatively modern manuscripts." Taliessin was an ancient, nevertheless, and the theory does not gain by mis-statements. The appeal to the British language fails in this disastrous manner. The name, indeed, is found, but it is found on the Clyde, though Bath was so much nearer Taliessin. As to "Indian well," all proof is equally wanting. Who ever heard Saxon or Celt, Pict or Scot, Gael or Briton, call Bath "Indian well"? Does any person, or did any person, in modern or ancient times, call a thermal spring an Indian well? In any Irish writer of any date, can it be found that any well was called Indian? It does not look like serious reasoning to make such assertions, but like poking

66

Skene's Four Ancient Books of Wales," vol. i.; and "Celtic Scotland," vol. ii. p. 436.

VOL. XVII-NO. II. [Third Series.]

BB

fun at us. In the Lives of Patrick many wells are spoken of; had the miraculous one of his baptism been a hot-water well, who can believe that it would have escaped all notice?

The Brussels codex in the end does not lead us to Bath. After the four words, so long dwelt on, we read that the birthplace mentioned was "not far (10) from our sea." This description of the locality is conclusive against Bath or Frome (either equally suits Father Malone, who is not more particular as to a fixed place than other theorists). He is not staggered by this description in the least. Not far from the Irish Sea; nor is Bath,' he answers, quite happily. "In fact," he adds, "a writer at the present day. . . . could not describe it (the locality of Bath or Frome) more accurately than by saying to an Irishman that it was not far from the Irish Sea." The line must surely be drawn somewhere. Does he expect his readers to swallow camels by the dozen, while he strains at any gnat as to Strathclyde? Would any of H.M.'s Inspectors pass an answer of this kind from a child in a poor school-" Bath, otherwise 'Indian well,' or else 'Heavenly waters,' a village of Britain not far from the Irish Sea?" A chorus of ancient writers assist the description: "Not far from the sea; ""on the borders of the Western Sea; ""the Irish Sea; " 66 over against Ireland." This description of the birthplace is a sufficient and unanswerable condemnation of the Bath theory. The old Irish stretched the Ictian Sea along the south of England as far as Bath. Glastonbury is given as on the borders of the Sea of Icht,* and Bath is on the same sea. Seeing the long stretch of British coast opposite Ireland, and the many villages thereon, one must have lost his head to think that he was giving a true direction by passing all that coast and those villages by, and pointing out by the words "not far from the Irish Sea," a place at the head of the Bristol Channel, and (in a country of such seaboard) an inland town.

sea;

our

Should one, to investigate the matter, visit Somersetshire, what signs of any connection with St. Patrick would he find? Were there of old churches, chapels, wells, or any place bearing his name? The present writer finds none. The propounder of the theory mentions none. And at this day the English " Directory" of 1887 does not show one dedication to the Saint in the whole diocese of Clifton. If the absence of all signs and proofs of an alleged fact proves an allegation to be a fact, such exactly

*Cormac's " Glossary." See O'Curry's "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish," vol. ii. p. 211. Father Malone quotes this very passage from the "Glossary," but, seeing a pitfall to his theory, stops short at the Ictian Sea. Is this commendable? Why did he not give, "Glastonbury, now a church on the brink of the Ictian Sea"?

is the sort of proof, and such the signs furnished us here to prove the Bath theory.

A very different state of matters is to be met with in Strathclyde. In the diocese of Glasgow now, eight churches and chapels of stations are dedicated to St. Patrick, while one of its nine deaneries is under his invocation. Of old, as already said, six or seven churches were dedicated to him, none of which disputed with that of Kilpatrick the honour which has ever been its glory. None of those who set up these new theories have made the least attempt to account for the old dedications. Except that this was the country of his birth, we fail to find in all the Lives any other connection of St. Patrick with Strathclyde. Take away this, and explain how it comes that he competes in churches with St. Mungo in his own diocese? Almost universally in Scotland the early dedications indicate a personal contact of the Saint named with the locality of the dedication. Antiquariaus are agreed in noting this fact.

As bearing strongly upon this part of the question, as already hinted at, it should be noticed that the Britons of Strathclyde and the Irish were hostile nations. The Irish were wont, from a very early date, to make descents for the sake of plunder on the British coast here. When the Dalriads came over, shortly after the death of St. Patrick, and formed their kingdom in Argyle, the hostility became more continuous and marked. Camden says of Dumbarton. "This of old was Alclyde, but afterwards began to be called by the Britons, who for a long time held it against the Scots, Dunbritton, that is, the town of the Britons." Is it likely that the Britons would take as their great saint the apostle of the enemy? Is it likely that they would even dedicate to him the chief church of their capital, and the chapel of their stronghold? It has to be borne in mind that among the Celts, and elsewhere, each tribe and nation claimed all the influence of their own saints against their enemies. From this it appears that the Saint had a very close connection with Strathclyde.

What object is gained by advocating such fancies? No doubt they tickle-such an one as this Indian well does-but they also irritate. Is it an argument, which commends itself to us Celts, to be told by Father Morris, "that it is the nation to which a man belongs (not the birthplace), which leaves its stamp upon his character;" and, according to him, that the important thing is that the Saint had no drop of our blood in his veins. But the Saint did not identify himself with the Roman, but with the British race. This is no dishonour to him or to his work. The Celts, on many great occasions, have shown that the blood of apostles pulsed through their warm and generous hearts.

*Camden's" Britannia," p. 666.

One church or parish, and one church alone, has ever claimed to be the church of St. Patrick's birthplace and baptism. For us, this is a great fact, and also a great proof. For some 800 years before the time of the Reformation this has been proved to have been the belief in Ireland. From that time downwards Irish writers testify to that belief and to no other. Every direct statement of theirs is in support of and not one adverse to this belief. No Irish finger until some sixty years since, pointed in any other direction. And now all their names of worth are in agreement with those of old. It wounds the Catholic mind to discredit a venerable, unbroken tradition of ages like this. If such a tradition of two countries, founded on such monuments, be worthless, what local tradition is worth a straw? Is it the part of a Catholic to maintain that the churches of the two nations have deceived, or have been deceived, or both, in a matter within their bounds, and touching them so nearly? Is Father Malone's argument one acceptable or creditable to the Irish people: that they forgot "during times of confusion and irruption from pagan barbarians" whence their apostle came? He had a firmer hold of their hearts than that. As the Jews protested regarding Jerusalem: "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Let my tongue cleave to my jaws if I forget thee," so would the Irish protest, in regard to Patrick. What is to be said of this remnant of Irish hagiographers, the ancient writers that have escaped from the fires of the Danes, the internal depredation of chief against chief, the struggles of the English conquest, and the pillage and devastation since the Reformation? That their authority is to be scouted? Such an idea is enough to awake in his grave the learned, the enthusiastic Irish scholar, the lamented O'Curry. On this point almost every old writer had before him, not only the tradition of Ireland, not only more ancient lives, but the words of the Saint himself. They do not profess doubt or hesitation about those words, but they point with unanimity to Strathclyde, and Strathclyde points, and ever pointed, to old Kilpatrick near Dumbarton on the Clyde as the birthplace of St. Patrick.

Had the Reformation never occurred, there would no doubt be still existing old usages and immemorial quaint devotions at Kilpatrick as at other shrines, testifying to the truth of a fact to which they bore living witness. But these, like the home life, as it were, of all our churches, are swept away. Since the tide of Irish emigration set in towards Scotland, it has filled the valley of the Clyde with many churches. Kilpatrick, unfortunately, has not been found suitable for any large works; no Irish have, therefore, gathered in or around it, and consequently it possesses no Catholic church. What a happy outcome of this controversy, should some zealous priest take up the cause of Kilpatrick, secure

a site as near the well as may be, and build a beautiful little church to the Saint! Among the thousands upon thousands of Irish in the diocese of Glasgow, is there one that would refuse an appeal for such a cause? Perhaps some one, blessed by God with means, may choose it as a work of love for himself alone, and raise a new sanctuary near the old. Then the pilgrim will frequent the place again. The old devotion there will be renewed. And for those who come with faith, relying upon the powerful intercession of St. Patrick, the Apostle of Erin, with God, wonders as of old, wonders of another order than those of the Bath "thermal springs," will doubtless be abundantly wrought by the clear, cool, sweet waters of the well of the Saint at Kilpatrick.

COLIN C. GRANT.

ART. VII.-ITALY, PRESENT AND FUTURE. Italy: Present and Future. By A. GALLENGA. In Two Volumes. London: Chapman & Hall. 1887.

HAT is the actual condition of the Italian Kingdom after its first quarter of a century of political existence? What are its prospects for the future? These are the questions that Mr. Gallenga has set himself to answer in his recently published work on "Italy: Present and Future." At the very outset he reminds his readers that as long ago as 1841 he published another book in London under the title of "Italy: Past and Present." It was his first work. Many of the hopes to which it gave expression have long since been realized. Italy is united, from the Alps to the Southern Sea, under the sceptre of a Piedmontese prince. Rome has become the capital, and the Sovereign Pontiff has been deprived of his temporal power. The Bourbons are gone from Naples, the Austrian princes from the Duchies, the Austrian armies from Venice and Milan. Italy claims to be one of the great Powers of Europe. Even though her naval record culminates with Lissa and her military glories with Custozza, she has a large army and a navy of colossal ironclads. True, there is also a huge debt, and its natural accompaniment, a crushing system of taxation; and, on the whole, the unifying process has been a very expensive one. Yet glory and greatness must be paid for. What is a Great Power without a national debt and a big budget?