St Patrick

Noble Knight

St Patrick (A subject that I have been researching)

Patrick is a famously difficult subject for the historian. It might be easiest to start by indicating some of the things which he did not do. He did not expel the snakes from Ireland: the snakelessness of Ireland was recorded by the Roman geographer Solinus in the third century.

He did not compose that wonderful hymn known as "St Patrick's Brest plate": it's language postdates him by about three centuries.

He did not drive a chariot over his sister Lupait to punish her unchastity: the allegation that he did this first occurs in a life of St Patrick which is a farrago of legend put together about 400 years after his death.

He did not use the leaves of a shamrock to illustrate the persons of the trinity: true, he might have done; but it is not until the 17th century that we are told that he did that.

It would be possible to list many more things that Patrick did not do. Enough has been said to indicate that we are dealing with a figure whose reality has to a great degree been obscured by the acceration of later legend-and, one might add, of later controversy, whether sectarian or nationalistic. It cannot be too strongly argued that in studying Patrick it is absolutely essential to focus attention upon the earliest texts only: all others are suspect because their authors had axes to grind of one sort or another- the primacy of the church of Armagh, the ultra-catholic character of Patrick, the ultra-protestant nature of Patrick, the claim that there where two Patrick's, the claim that there was no Patrick because he was Palladius, and so forth.

The earliest texts are two, both of them securely attributed -despite some doubts by hyper-critical scholars- to Patrick himself. In chronological order of composition they are the Epistola or letter and the Confessio the Confession.

Patrick was not the first Bishop of Ireland that was Palladius as recorded in 431 by Prosper.

In his Confession Patrick tells us that he was of British landed birth. His family owned an estate unidentified place called Bannaventa. They were not only Christians but ecclesiastics: Patrick's grandfather Potitus was a priest and his father Calpornius a deacon. (Priestly celibacy was not introduced to the church until the 12th Century) Patrick was brought up a Christian but on his own admission was not a good one during his chilhood. When he was nearly sixteen he was taken captive by Irish raiders and carried off into slavery in Ireland. For six years he worked as a herdsman at a place which he refers to as the "Forest of Folcut which is near the Western sea (possibly Killala in County Mayo).

It was during this period of slavery that his Christian faith deepened. At the end of six years he managed to escape, and after much danger and hardship found himself in Gaul, where he appears to have spent some time. Then he returned to Britain and rejoined his family. It was at home that he had the most important of all his dreams, which, as he believed, God guided his life: he experienced a call to convert the Pagan Irish to Christianity.

He was consecrated a Bishop and returned to Ireland. It is highly likely that his mission was concentrated in the Northern part of Ireland.

It is very difficult to assess Patrick's achievement. We have his own word, which we do not need to doubt, that he made many thousands of converts. These included persons of every social rank from the nobility to slaves.

Patrick did confirm Priests (presumably after instruction).

It is reasonable to infer a little more: for example, that he established places where worship might occur, even if he did not build any churches (though he may have done); or that he encouraged his Priests to acquire literacy in Latin and to multiply Christian texts.

Patrick initiated the conversion of the pagan Irish to Christianity and in doing so set an example to his successors in Ireland. A church which looked to Patrick as it's founder would come to set a high value upon foreign missionary enterprise. This lay in the future.

It is unfortunate for us that the century following St Patrick is the most obscure in the history of Christianity in Ireland. We do have information
about the growth of Christian culture in 6th Cent Ireland.

There survives a list of decisions taken by a synod or gathering of Bishops known as the First Synod of St Patrick (*) This is misleading the attribution to Patrick comes from a later period. It is impossible to calculate the real date of the synod that scholars have suggest that is highly likely to have been the first half of the 6th cent. The reason I raise the issue about Synod is that it records that Irish society was still somewhat pagan. We read of Christians taking oaths before soothsayers "in the manner of pagans". We get a sense through this of Christianity living side by side with paganism.

(So that suggests to me that although Patrick was successful the old religions continued to exist and not being as some people would have us believe completely eradicated.)

Húrin

In his writings, he refers to 52 out of the 66 books of the Bible.