[433] It is not, of course, certain that Bishop Muirethachus _qui fuit super flumen Bratho_, for whom Patrick and Bronus wrote an alphabet, is identical with the _epscop Muiredaig_, “an aged man of Patrick’s household,” who is said in _Vit. Trip._, p. 134, to have been left by Patrick in Cell Alaid. The foundation of Cell Alaid is not mentioned by Tírechán. [434] The text of Tírechán leaves it doubtful whether the foundation of Cellola Tog was laid under Patrick’s auspices, and whether Patrick ordained Cainnech bishop. He is not included in the author’s catalogue of bishops ordained by Patrick (p. 304). [435] For the _monachi_ of Assicus, see 313₃₃ and 328₃₀. [436] Cainnech was a _monachus Patricii_, 324₁₃. Another _mon. P._ is mentioned 329₉. The deacon Coimanus of Ardd Licce seems to have been another, 317₂₆. Gengen and Sannuch are described as _mon. P._ 305₁₇; and for the foreigners _Conleng and Ercleng_, see 313₁₂. [437] Thus Slébte, the seat of Bishop Fíacc, would have been a _civitas_. It is called _Slebtiensis civitas_ by Muirchu (271₁₉). See also _Lib. Angeli_, 355, _omnis aeclessia libera et civitas <quae> ab episcopali gradu uidetur esse fundata_. Cp. an Irish canon, ascribed to Patrick, in the _Hibernensis_, 29, c. 7 (p. 101 ed. Wasserschl.), _aut a sancta ecclesia aut in civitate intus_. [438] 326₂₁, _quia deus dixit illi ut legem relinquerent_ [?—_et_, as Stokes suggests] _et episcopos ordinaret ibi, et prespiteros et diaconos in illa regione_. This suggests, though it does not necessitate, the inference in the text. [439] _Senchus Mór_, i. 40. See also the following passages: i. 54 (a false-judging king and a stumbling bishop are placed on a level); i. 78, the king’s testimony is valid against all except the man of learning, the bishop, and the pilgrim. [440] In his treatment of the Muirchu narrative Todd does not go below the surface, but he recognises that the first part embodies a concession on the part of Armagh. The question is discussed in Reeves, _Eccl. Antiquities_, 223 _sq._ [441] The simplest case is when an incident is reduplicated, as in the Cyclops story in the _Odyssey_ (Book 9), where the second stone-casting of the Cyclops at the escaping ship is a later addition by an expander who sought to outdo the original incident but failed in his effect. [442] I may note here that the river Cabcenne, where the Orior men discovered the deception, has not been identified, but ought naturally to be sought near their destination, Armagh. So Todd, p. 195. [443] In his article “Keltische Kirche” in the _Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie u. Kirche_, 1901; translated by Miss Meyer (_The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland_), 1902. [444] In Bede’s _Martyrology_, under March 17, we find _in Scotia S. Patricii Confessionis_. Zimmer (p. 10) accepts this, without question, as Bedan. I should like to know how far we can distinguish in this document what is Bede’s from later additions.