od," in its present
context (10) can have only one meaning. Malachy, seeing that his contest
with Niall was hopeless, determined to retire rather than continue the
strife, and left Niall in possession. But apart from entry 10, which
seems to have been misplaced, the words have no such implication, and
are in harmony with the reason given by St. Bernard for Malachy's return
to his former diocese (Secs. 20, 21). Since the dates of the Masters for
this period are already suspect we need not hesitate to follow St.
Bernard's guidance here. But we may go further. The annalists were
compelled, if they would be consistent, to suppose that there was a
considerable interval between the retirement of Malachy and the
accession of Gelasius. How was it possible that when Niall had finally
routed his formidable rival, who was in possession of the Staff of
Jesus, another should at once step in and, apparently without any
difficulty, deprive him of the fruits of his victory? The difficulty is
increased if we accept the statement of St. Bernard--not contradicted by
the Annals, and not easy to dispute--that Gelasius was nominated by
Malachy himself, and was therefore presumably favourable to his cause.
Thus we perceive that there was good reason that the annalists should
separate the two events as far as possible, by antedating Malachy's
resignation, and by connecting it rather with Niall's restoration than
with the appointment of Gelasius.

3. In weighing the respective claims of St. Bernard and the annalists to
credence in this part of Malachy's life it is well to remember that of
it St. Bernard may be assumed to have had full and first-hand
information. The main facts were probably communicated to him by
Malachy himself, though some particulars were no doubt added by other
Irish informants. It is true, we must also allow for bias on St.
Bernard's part in favour of his friend. Such bias in fact displays
itself in Secs. 25, 26. But bias, apart from sheer dishonesty, could not
distort the whole narrative, as it certainly must have been distorted in
the _Life_, if the narrative of _A.F.M._ is to be accepted as it stands.

4. It is important to observe that in the earlier stages of Malachy's
conflict with Niall the lord of Oriel was Conor O'Loughlin, who was
apparently not friendly to the reformers of the Irish Church (cp. Secs.
18, 20, p. 40, n. 2, and p. 46, n. 5). No doubt his defeat by O'Brien
and Mac Carthy in 1134 (p. 43, n. 5) made