[383] The force of adhuc here (not synonymous with iterum) is exactly like its force in adhuc capturam dedi. See above, [Appendix B, note on p. 34].
[384] Muirchu’s et erat annorum triginta (496₁) must not be alleged; it is based on a misconception of the annos triginta of the Confession (365₁₀), and influenced by the Scriptural parallel to which Muirchu refers.
[385] Jerome, Ep. cxxiii. (ad Ageruchiam), Migne’s ed. vol. i. 1057-8.
[386] After A.D. 439.
[387] vii. § 50. Orosius, vii. 38 and 40, gives no details of the devastations.
[388] Edited by Brandes in the Corp. Script. Eccl. 1889.
[389] Compare the sketch of Professor Dill, based on these poems, in Roman Society, bk. iv. cap. 2 (p. 263, ed. 1).
[390] So I would amend the corrupt metuendis. Ellis reads tetricis, and suggests mediis. But there is greater point in nudis; it implies “without the crops, etc., which would naturally attract an enemy.”
[391] P. 18.
[392] Pp. 16-18, and Appendix B.