In the light of these headings, we are compelled to interpret the words _coeptum ingreditur iter ... aeuangelii_ as meaning not the interrupted journey to Rome but the missionary journey to Ireland, which had been begun, in a sense, by the coming to Auxerre and the religious preparation there. With this interpretation, the words _certi enim erant_ (which seems the probable reading: “for they knew,” or “were informed”) are intelligible. This explains the preceding statement that Patrick, _although setting forth for Ireland_, had not yet received episcopal ordination. They knew at Auxerre that Palladius had been ordained bishop and sent to Ireland by Celestine, and therefore Patrick was not ordained bishop. It was therefore on his way to the _mare Britannicum_ that he received news of the death of Palladius. “Ebmoria,” or whatever may be concealed under this form, must be sought north of Auxerre. I have elsewhere (in the next Excursus) pointed out that Patrick was consecrated bishop by Germanus, and that Muirchu used inconsistent sources. This note aims only at showing what _Muirchu intended to convey_. [It may indeed be held that the ambiguity is due to his own misinterpretation of an older document. _Coeptum iter_ may have occurred in his source, and there meant a journey to Rome; and he may have misunderstood the meaning. If it were possible to locate Ebmoria with certainty anywhere between Auxerre and Rome, this, I believe, would be the solution.] It is, then, quite clear that, according to Muirchu’s information, Patrick intended to visit Rome and study there, but that instead of doing so he was induced to study at Auxerre, and consequently did not go to Rome. It is obvious that such a statement about Patrick’s purposes cannot be accepted without every reserve. Statements about a man’s unfulfilled intentions, unless they can be traced clearly to himself or to an intimate friend, are in quite a different position, as historical evidence, from statements about his acts and deeds. It is equally obvious that if Muirchu had known of any evidence, oral or written, of an actual visit to Rome in A.D. 432, he would not have suppressed it. He would have had every reason to emphasise anything like a mission from the Roman see; for in the Roman controversy of his day he was on the Roman side. The stress he lays upon the unfulfilled intention only sets his silence in a stronger light. Tírechán records a visit to Rome in later years (see below, Excursus 15), but he knows nothing of a visit in A.D. 432, and evidently did not find any notice of such a visit in the _Liber apud Ultanum_, from which he drew information about Patrick’s early life. The earliest text which can be quoted for the alleged visit is the note of the ninth-century scribe of the _Liber Armachanus_ (332₁₉), and even that note (_a Celestino—mittitur_), which, in view of the silence of the seventh-century documents, has no value, does not strictly involve the idea of a journey to Rome.