Upvote:1
I'm just going to try the Any ideas part, as I do not have access to facsimiles nor read Dicta Sancti Patritii.
On the facts provided, I would like to believe Cardinal Moran corrected St Patrick's Latin.
Two reasons for this:
The Royal Irish Academy's website on St Patrick's writing has an entire paragraph on the second point (emphasis mine):
True, Patrick does describe himself as rusticissimus and indoctus – a simple country person and one unlearnèd — in his writings; and he seems very self-conscious of his educational shortcomings as he seeks to answer criticisms of his ministry from his fellow-bishops back in Britain, people who (he suggests) would be better educated than he and more articulate and trained in rhetoric. Nonetheless, Patrick does manage to get his message across, using the Scriptures or scriptural allusions to help him in this regard.
The language he uses has been described as a popular or vulgar form of Latin from the fifth century, like that identified in Gaul, by scholars such as the late Christine Mohrmann;
10
but more recent work by David Howlett has discerned a level of sophistication in Patrick’s language, and in the literary structure of his writings, that resembles a type of parallelism found in Biblical texts such as the Psalms.11
This phenomenon is known as chiasm, which, according to Joseph Duffy, means that ‘words and phrases are repeated in such a way that they mirror each other at regular and predictable intervals and reveal balanced cross-references and complimentary echoes throughout the text.’12
We still await the emergence of a general consensus on the fruits of such research in regard to the literary style and structure of Patrick’s writings; in the interim the precise extent of Patrick’s education in Roman Britain and/or in Gaul must, according to O’Loughlin, remain an open question.
Source: St Patrick’s Writings: Confessio and Epistola
Footnotes