20 Legendary Date of Patrick’s Death
The true year of Patrick’s death is furnished by our oldest document, Tírechán (302₂₉, a passione Christi... anni ccccxxxiii [MS. ccccxxxui]); Ann. of Ulster, s.a. 461 (cp. Ann. Inisf. s.a. 493); Nennius, Hist. Brit. 16 (pp. 158-9 ed. Mommsen). See the criticism of this material in Bury, Tírechán’s Memoir, pp. 239 sqq.
But side by side with the true tradition, we find in the Annals another date, A.D. 493, which has been generally received and is the vulgar era of the event. It is closely connected with the legendary age of Patrick—120 years, which is as old as Muirchu’s Life (296₁₉). The question arises, how came his age to be raised from somewhat more than 70 to 120 years, and why was A.D. 493 fixed on as the date of his death?
In the analogy which was drawn between Patrick and Moses, one of the items of resemblance is the same length of life. But the Mosaic motive cannot have been sufficient to determine originally such a marked perversion of fact. On the contrary, the age of 120 years must have been otherwise suggested and have then, in its turn, contributed to suggest the Mosaic analogy.
It is to be noted that in the Liber Armachanus two divergent subputations of Patrick’s age are found. One of these was originally appended to the exemplar of Muirchu which was used by the Armagh scribe; the other is among the notes which are appended to his transcription of Tírechán.
In the first (300₂₁) it is stated that Patrick, having been captured in his 20th year, was a slave for 15 years, studied for 40, and taught for 61. Hence it is inferred that his age was 111. There must be errors in the figures.
In the second (331₂₂) we have the following statement:—baptized in 7th year, captured in 10th, was a slave for 7 years, studied for 30 years, and taught for 72. Hence his age at his death is inferred as 120 (10 + 7 + 30 + 72 = 119), ut Moyses.
It is, I venture to think, of the greatest significance that in both these cases the fictitious age is given as a total, and preceded by a statement of the items which compose it. This fact furnishes the clue. The Mosaic age, 120, was not handed down as a legend, nor was the true age of somewhat over 70 audaciously raised to the Mosaic figure for the purpose of the Mosaic comparison. The figure 120, or something approximate, was reached by means of a computation of chronological items, and it is these chronological items that we must examine in order to discover the origin of the error.
In the two anonymous computations which I have quoted the items disagree with each other, and also disagree with the data in Patrick’s Confession. They cannot therefore form the basis of our examination, because we may safely assume that the computation, by which 120 years (exactly or approximately) was reached and was generally accepted in Ireland, did not contravene the data of the Confession—data which were rightly quoted in Tírechán (302₁₇) from the Book of Ultan. We may safely assume that the computators, who succeeded in establishing the Mosaic age, started with the incontrovertible fact supplied by the Confession that Patrick was either 22 years old, or in his 22nd year, when he escaped from captivity. It is equally clear that the period which they assigned to his teaching was 60 (rather 61 years)—for that is the period from his arrival in Ireland, A.D. 433 (rather 432) to the alleged date of his death, A.D. 493. This would leave 38 (rather 37) years to be accounted for. Now Muirchu mentions two different records, 30 and 40 years, for the sojourn with Germanus (it is to be observed that, of the two computations noticed above, one reckons with 30, the other with 40 years). If either of these, 30 years must have been the period accepted in this computation for St. Patrick’s studies, and an interval of 8 (or 7) years left, which agrees remarkably with the notice of Tírechán (from the Liber apud Ultanum, ib.): uii. aliis annis ambulauit, etc. The sum worked out thus—
22 + 7 + 30 + 61 = 120.
Of these items 22 had the best authority, and 30 and 7 were independent records or traditions (as we know from Muirchu and Tírechán). The problem is therefore reduced to discovering the origin of the 61 or 60 years during which the apostle is wrongly supposed to have taught. That it was due to a misinterpretation and not to a deliberate invention, there can, I think, be no question.
A list of the Armagh succession in the Book of Leinster (printed in Stokes, Trip. pp. 542 sqq.) supplies a hint which suggests an explanation of the error. The first entry is—
Patrick: 58 years from the coming of Patrick to Ireland till his death.
The fact that a period of 58 years is given here instead of the usual number (493-433/2) is remarkable. Now if we count back 58 years from the true date of Patrick’s death, 461, we reach the year 403-404, which was in the close vicinity of the year in which, as we saw, he was probably taken into slavery. Hence it seems probable that in an early record it was stated correctly that 58 years elapsed between the coming of Patrick to Ireland, meaning his first coming as a slave, and his death, and that this notice was misinterpreted by subsequent computators who referred it to his second coming as a teacher. They computed: 22 + 7 (ambulauit) + 30 (legit) + 58 (docuit) = 117. An age so close to 120 could hardly fail to suggest Moses; the figures clamoured for a slight manipulation, and the means adopted was to increase the last period from 58 to 61. Thus the date of the death was determined: 432 + 61 = 493.
By this computation the coming to Ireland divided the whole life into two almost equal parts (59 + 61), which would naturally come to be described in round numbers as each 60 years. This probably led to the alternative date for the obit given in the Ann. Ult. 492 (= 432 + 60).
The computation which established 120 years for the age and A.D. 493 for the year of the death, thus involving 61 years for the Irish period, was triumphant and became authoritative. But the computations quoted above from the Liber Armachanus show that other theories had been propounded based on the addition of items. In the Vita Tertia the age is given as 132. This figure seems to have been obtained by substituting 72 instead of the (round) 60 for the last item in the sum; this is suggested by the fact that in the second computation in the Liber Armachanus the last item is septuaginta duo annos docuit, though the total 120 (119) is secured by erroneous dates for the captivity. What is the origin of this number 72? It must have come down in some form, it must have represented something, when, in order to do justice to it, one computator felt compelled to raise the Mosaic 120 to 132, and another, though holding fast to 120, modified the authentic dates of the captivity.
I suggest that this number 72 represents an old and correct record of Patrick’s age at the time of his death.