« PreviousContinue »
wardly directed radial perturbing force at that point.1 This latter force at that point is almost exactly A-th of the earth's mean attraction on the moon. But, adopting Hansen's value of the coefficient in the expression for the Variation change in the moon's radius vector, which expression is - T^ cos 2e, taking the mean value of the radius vector as unity, the r. v. at conjunction will be 1 - T£t; and therefore, taking the mean attraction of the earth on the moon as unity, the attraction at conjunction will be 1 + rle-> quam prox. Therefore the whole earthward pull on the moon at that point will be 1 + -jv - which is more than unity, the mean; and not only that, but, as we know otherwise, a maximum. Therefore, whilst the moon's velocity is a maximum at conjunction, the earthward deflecting force is also a maximum at the same point; and, until we have more information than this argument gives us, we cannot know which of these would overpower the other, as regards their effect on the curvature of the orbit at conjunction. It is not too much to say that this argument (4) is founded on the disregard of the very object of its ultimate aim, -which is to show that the moon's radius vector is a minimum at conjunction. Omitting the false premiss will mend matters but little; for it leaves the argument simply inconclusive. (In the Parallactic Inequality orbit the moon's velocity is greatest at opposition, and least at conjunction; both being points of least curvature.) Corresponding remarks, mutatis mutandis, have to be made respecting the curvature at quadrature, where, as just referred to in the footnote, the whole earthward pull on the moon is a minimum, and not, as this argument (J) states, a maximum. But notwithstanding what we have seen, the conclusion immediately aimed at by this argument is right, viz., that the orbit is flattest at conjunction and most curved at quadrature.
In reply to (e)—This link-argument would be valid if we had some reason for knowing that the orbit was an ellipse, or else approached near enough, practically and for the present purpose, to such a curve; in this case the least curvature and the least radius vector would go together. But, as this argument tells us nothing of the nature of the curve, it may very well be, for all we yet know to the contrary, that this may not obtain in the Variation orbit.
Now it so happens that we have, close at hand, an illustration of the (antecedent) possibility of its not so obtaining. The argument
1 This is suggested to us by the statement respecting the whole earthward pull on tie moon at first quadrature in Airy's Gravitation, p. 66; though it by no means follows from that statement.
which we now oppugn would be downright wrong if applied to the point of conjunction in the Parallactic Inequality orbit. Supposing the moon's undisturbed orbit to be circular, and neglecting all other perturbations of it, the effect of the Parallactic Inequality forces is, as the equation shows, to draw out the orbit a little on the sunward side and to compress it a little on the opposite side; so that the greatest radius vector is that at conjunction. According, then, to this argument (e), we should conclude that the curvature of the Parallactic Inequality orbit at conjunction is greater than the mean. But it will be found on trial that, on the contrary, the radius of curvature, at conjunction, is a maximum (though only a relative one; that at opposition being the absolute maximum1). So then the argument (c), as it stands, is inconsequential; although the conclusion at which it aims is perfectly right.
Thus each of these three link-arguments proves, on examination, to be insufficient for its purpose, its insufficiency having been masked by the otherwise-known correctness of its intended conclusion.
It might still be urged that, after the improvement of the second by the omission of its false premiss, each of the threo arguments is very reasonable, and the antecedent probability of its correctness considerable. "We cheerfully grant that this is so; yet this is not demonstration. But besides we must not forget the nature of their connexion as links. If we take the antecedent probability in the case of each as we shall be making a very liberal concession; considering the a priori certainty that the moon's orbit must be deformed by the perturbing forces, and that we have, as yet, no idea of the possibilities as to the character and the magnitude of the deformation and the effects thereof on the intended conclusions. But if we concede to each the probability of i, this will give only H, or well under as the probability of the correctness of the final conclusion, viz. that the shortest axis of the Variation orbit is directed towards the sun. So that the antecedent chances are actually against its being right.
1 The difference, however, between these two radii of curvature is less than one inch and a half!
THE CISTERCIAN ABBEY OF KILL-FOTHUIR. By THE RIGHT REV. DR. REEVES, Bishop of Down & Connor and Dromore, President of the Academy.
[Read Mat 26, 1891.]
"wkkr it not for the industry of Caspar Jongelin, a Belgian monk of the Cistercian Order,1 this monastery, both name and history, would be now unknown to us. His Notitia Abbatiarum Ordinis Cistercitntu per orbem univermm, published at Cologne in 1640, recites in chronological order the foundation and early history of all the Cistercian houses of Ireland, and, among them, those of the Diocese of Raphoe, that is, of the County of Donegal: these two—Samaria alias Athroe, and Kill-fothuir, the former near Ballyshannon, in the extreme Bouth-west of the county, well known; and the latter in the north-east, disguised and forgotten for two centuries.
The name is pure Irish, signifying "church of the wilderness," or "forest," and has in composition an obsolete, but classical, term. As the name of a church or place, it is not to be found in any native Irish record, and our acquaintance with it is derived from this single source.
The following is Jongelin's statement:—" Kill-fothvib, in Diocesi Rapotensi. Monasterium de Kill-fothuir, in Tirconallia, circa annum 1194, fundatum est & Domino Eachmharco Odochartaig, viro antiqua generis nobilitate & animi fortitudine illustri. Quern postquam Flaithbhertacho O'Moeldoraigh succederet in regimine Tyrconalliae anno 1197, Annales referunt eodem anno occubuisse in
1 A native of Antwerp. His name is not found in the Biographie UnivcrteUe, not in the Biogr. Qenirale; but there is a brief notice of him in Zedler's TJnittr$al Lexicon (Leipzig, 1735), Part II., coll. 1111, and in Jbcher, Allgemeinee Giltkrten Lexicon (Leipzig, 1750), Part II., col. 1961. A good account of him is given by C. De Visch in his Bibliotheca S. 0. Cisteroieneie (Colon. Agrip., 1656), p. 118 i. But much the best is that of J. F. Foppens, in his Bibliotheca Belgica, torn, i., p. 328 a (Bruxelles, 1739).
prcelio, contra Joannem de Curey. Hoc monasterium, deficientibus paulatim monachis, cessit tandem, et vnitum fait Monasterio de Ashroe, sine de Sameria, cujus erat filia."1
Comparing the orthography of the names in this passage, one is struck with the contrast between this foreign record and the grotesque recital of Irish names of places in the Provinciale Eomanum. The fact* is, that Malachias Harry, an Irishman, professed at Mellifont, Protonotary Apostolic ; and, above all, Father John Colgan, then professor at Lou vain, himself a native of Donegal, impressed the narrative with an air of accuracy which an alien could not pretend to.
In identifying the place of this extinct monastery, it was reasonable to suppose that, heing an affiliated cell of Ashroe, it would not be in the neighbourhood of the mother church; also, that as the latter was founded by Flaherty O'Muldory, in his principality of Tirhugh, and the former by Echmarchach O'Dogherty, within his patrimony of Tir Enda and Ardmire, now the barony of Eaphoe, they should be far asunder, though in the same territory and diocese. This will presently be established by recent authority.
In the lapse of nearly three centuries between the foundation of this monastery and its next appearance on record, it had undergone the change described by Jongelin. After the decay of this abbey it fell from its condition of an affiliated cell to that of a grange or monastic farm, and all architectural traces disappeared, leaving only its cemetery, with a fragment of masonry, and the townland names of the premises, which tell a tale of early importance, and indicate the nature of their original appropriation.
We have no record of the place until the 26th of November, 1588,
1 Jongelinus, Lib. viii., p. 28. Stevens, in his enlarged translation of Alemand, writes: "There was also in the same County the Abby of Hilfothttir, founded in the year 1194, by one of the O'Dogharties; but the Wars oblig'd the Monks to forsake that House, which was at last united to that of Asrhoe or Samaria, whose Daughter it was. Jungclin only makes mention of this House."— Monast. Hibernicum, p. 205 (Lond. 1722).
2 "De Hibernioe Monasteriis multa nobis suppeditavit Nobilis vir IacobusWaraeus, cuius extant prtecipuarum Ecclesiarum Hibernise Episcoporum Catalog!; itemque R. Dominus Malachias Harry, professua Co?nobii Mellifontis in Dioecesi Armachana, nec non in eodem Regno Protonotarius Apostolicus: Ioannes Colganus, Ordine Franciscanus, et Louanii in Monasterio RR. PP. Moritarum Hibernorum, 8. T. Professor, &c."—Ibid. p. 20.
This Malachias Harry is noticed by De Visch as Malachias Artry—" Natione Hybemus," Biblioth., p. 244 (rect. 236), 244 b, Index Norn, and Index Cogtwm.
when we learn, from an unpublished Exchequer Inquisition,1 that at that date, among other lands which appertained to the abbey of monks of the order of St. Bernard in the vill of Asseroe, near Bealashannon, was the "Grangia juxta monasterium de Kylfiore" * containing one quarter of land, with its tithes and appurtenances.3
Twenty years after this, a patent was granted by James I., 12th April, 1608, to Auditor Francis Gofton, of the same abbey and its appurtenances, among which appears " the grange near the monastery of Eil/oore, containing one quarter, with the tithes."4
Next year, September 12th, an ecclesiastical Inquisition for Donegal was sped at LifEer, by a jury of eighteen natives, who found that "the graunge of Killfaugher contayneth one quarter of land, belonges to the late dissolved abbay of Asheroe, and nowe inhabited i'V the sept of the Brianns,5 payinge thereout yerely to the said late dissolved abbay of Asheroe the rent of six shillinges eight pence, Irishe, for the said landes."*
By another Inquisition sped at Ballyshannon, January 22nd, 1621, it was found that Francis Gofton had, by deed bearing date the 20th of May, 1608, conveyed to Sir Henry Folliott all his interest in the grant of the Ashroe possessions, including "the grainge neare to the monasterie of Kilfore, conteyninge one quarter of land, divided into twelve sessioches, bearing the following names: Tample otherwise Shraghmoore (now Kilmonaster Lower, a townland of 212 acres, containing the cemetery and site of the abbey); Gortinerin (now Gortin South), alias Carrigmoore; Gortnagor; Drumremy; Drummanatwoer, otherwise Muninmoore; Anamullin; Maghereshanwalley (now Magherashantalley); Carigeelan, otherwise Carriglaskey; Lessecrede; Lessmullaugh; [Teb]bredbrock; and Killalloo, otherwise Lagenebrade (now Legnabraid or Cunninghamstown), otherwise Lismanidoyghill; with all the tithes both great and small, oblations, obventions, and mortuaries, yearly arising in and upon [the said] quarter of land." And,
1 An extremely incorrect abstract of it is given by Archdall (Monast. Hib., P- 91), borrowed from the King MS., p. 403.
2 Rendered by Archdall, "Grange near the mountain of Kyseure," p. 94.
4 Calendar. Sot. Pat., Jac. i., p.l29o.
5 Probably the same stock as the family that gave to the island of 60 acres off the west coast of the county, which belonged to Ashroe, called in the Inquisition of 1588, Ilan Raghhjn Ivryne, known in former times as TCeaCTia TDuincipc bipn, the name of Rathlin G*Birn Island.
• inquis. UUomai^ ftonegall, Appendix, p. 20 b.