The Burial Place of Saint Patrick- Paper 3

In this final paper ecclesiastical historian, Father Sylvester Malone, argues for Saul rather than Downpatrick as the burial place of Saint Patrick. Although he examines the same evidence as Bishop John, Father Malone takes a more sceptical approach and reaches different conclusions.

ST. PATRICK'S BURIAL-PLACE

THE burial-place of our national saint, like other incidents connected with him, has been a matter of doubt and discussion. The doubt arises from the contradictory notices in the Book of Armagh. These notices appear in one place to favour the claim of Downpatrick to the burial-place; in a second place, the claim of Saul quite convenient to it; and in a third place, the claim of Armagh. The value of each of these notices is not the same, but depends on the intrinsic evidence of the statement, as well as on the bias and intelligence of the writer, and on the age to which he belonged.

The claim of Armagh is very slender, and rests merely on the possession of some relics of St. Patrick of some kind, coupled with the supposition of only one Patrick having been in the early Irish Church; but the existence of two Patricks and their respective identities have been established in a former number of the I. E. RECORD. I am not in accord with those who deny the existence of bodily relics of St. Patrick in Armagh during the ninth century. It was natural and usual to desire the possession of some relic of a saint less renowned than St. Patrick ; and that Armagh procured some bodily relic of him is clearly evidenced in a passage in the Book of Armagh. This passage, which must have escaped the notice of the advocates for Armagh, taken by itself would seem to favour their pretensions. [" In ecclesia australi ubi requiescunt Corpora Sanctorum peregrinorum de longue cum Patricio trausmarinoruin caeterorum que Justorum.'' (Book of Armagh, fol. 21, a. 1.]

The biographers of our national saint have surrounded his death and burial with childish miracles. A comparison instituted by them between him and Moses, however edifying it may be, has led to error on several incidents in his life and the circumstances of his burial. The advocates for Downpatrick have so rested the story of his death and burial on a supernatural basis, as scarcely to leave a human fringe for historical criticism. Nevertheless, the proofs adduced by them appear to me quite questionable, while I judge those in favour of Saul to be highly probable.

I now give a description of St. Patrick's burial-place from the oldest, most impartial, and consistent account in the Book of Armagh. Tirechan, in a lengthened summary of the saint's life, taken from the oral and written account of Bishop Ultan, who lived in the middle of the seventh century, states that St. Patrick was like to Moses in four things, and the fourth thing was that " no person knew where are his bones." The writer then continues to state that two hosts contended for his body during twelve days without night ; and on the twelfth day, as the contending parties were going to give battle, each party saw with themselves the body on a bier, and in consequence refrained from fighting.

Then, as if to justify a departure, by the discovery of Columkille, from the likeness to Moses, the writer continues thus in reference to the burial and the prophetic gift of Columkille :

" Columkille under the influence of the Holy Ghost pointed out the burial-place of St. Patrick, makes out for certain where it is, that is in Sabul-Patrick, that is in the church, as a sprout from the waves, beside the sea, where is the bringing together of relics, that is of the bones of Columkille from Britain, and the bringing together of all the saints of Ireland on the day of judgment."

Now, nothing can be clearer than this valuable statement. The burial-place is stated to have been at the Sabul or Barn of Patrick : there was only one such place, and that within two miles of Down. The passage just quoted calls for a few remarks. First of all the absence of darkness during twelve days of waking is only a natural explanation of the effect of the lights over the corpse; and though there may have been a desire on the part of some people from Armagh to have the burial take place with themselves, we need not suppose there was a disposition to come to blows: a little exaggeration in the description is only very natural. The saint's wish was a command; and, as stated in the Book of Armagh that wish was carried out by his burial in Sabul or Saul. A holy rivalry for the possession of his body was a mark of religious zeal. Hence in another passage in the Book of Armagh, in reference to this subject, the writer states that without divine intervention, "it was impossible to have the peace kept about so illustrious and saintly a corpse." Friendly contention then about the body of our saint was only what decency required.

There is no good reason for doubting that some of the relics of St. Columkille may have been enshrined with those of St. Patrick, though the principal part of them were not located in Ireland till the end of the ninth century. St. Columkille in full health is said, in the Book of Cuana, to have come to St. Patrick's grave, and to have enshrined some of the relics buried with him ; and it is not unnatural to suppose that when dying he or his followers after his death wished to have some of his own relics rest with our national apostle.

The allusion to the gathering together of all the Irish saints at Saul is grounded on a petition found in his confession, to the effect that he should lose none of the Irish given him by God. In consequence of this, some Lives stated that God "left to him the judgment of the Irish on the day of doom." This tradition took another form, according to Tirechan : it was one of the three petitions which he made when dying; namely, ''that each of us repenting, even in the hour of death, would be saved on the day of judgment and escape hell." The church beside which our saint was buried - the sabul of Patrick stood, as a sprout from the wave, near the sea. The tidal waters flowing through the inlet of Strangford Lough flooded the low-lying grounds, even under the very shadow of Saul. Even down to the present century, the low ground was occupied by a standing lake, a mile in circumference, and is still called the salt marsh ;but, in early times, before a rampart was thrown up to dam the waters, the Sabul Church, peering above the wavelets, appeared to spring from the very waters. Now what is the reply usually given to this clear and natural statement, that he was buried in Saul ? This only that Saul meant Downpatrick! Such a reply scarcely deserves notice. We have another proof that St. Patrick was buried in Saul: it is found in the Fourth Life as given by Colgan. Saul is incidentally mentioned in connection with a plaything that accidentally fell into St. Patrick's grave there. The incident is alluded to as follows : -

"A boy playing about the church of Saul let his hoop drop into a chink in St. Patrick's grave; and having put down his hand to take it up could not withdraw the hand. Consequently, Bishop Loarn, of Bright, a place near at hand, was sent for ; and on his arrival addressed the saint thus: 'Why, O Elder, dost thou hold the hand of the child?'"

Here we have a statement incidentally made in reference to one of the incidents that filled up the life of our saint. It is made without a design of propping up a political or religious system. It was made at a time when Saul was comparatively insignificant, and when Downpatrick, owing to its situation, as a great emporium, had risen to importance, and was the seat of the chief of Ulidia.

Let us now examine what is said in reply to this proof. The reply is that St. Patrick did not hold the hand of the boy at all; that the phrase tenentem manum seems a translation of Irish in the Tripartite, gabail lama - expelling; that our saint only drove away the boy who gave annoyance; and that Bishop Loarn, who probably outlived our saint, was one of his religious family. The interpretation thus quoted is given on the authority of Dr. Stokes; but, with great respect for his accurate knowledge of Irish, he is not to be implicitly followed, as has been proved elsewhere. But before dealing with this, his opinion, I have to observe that though the Book of Armagh makes mention of a Loarn settled in Connaught, there is no warrant for stating that there was a Bishop Loarn in Downs, during the saint's lifetime; nor is there the least warrant for stating that he died before our saint. There is no valid reason then producible for denying the certain statement of the biographer -that St. Patrick was dead and in his grave when Bishop Loarn was sent for.

I now deal with the objection founded on the opinion of Dr. Stokes ; namely, that tenentem manum was a mistranslation of gabail lama, "expelling," and that consequently St. Patrick was not dead, nor his grave made on the occasion referred to, but "drove away" the playing boy perhaps with too much harshness : in confirmation of this latter view, the Tripartite is appealed to as an authority for stating that St. Patrick was not "always meek and patient;" and hence the rebuke of Bishop Loarn for probably too much harshness.

Well, an explanation that involves a censure on our national saint for harshness towards an unthinking boy at play is very suspicious. Besides, even if the boy were annoying the saint, as alleged, and if the saint exceeded the limits of moderation in correction, was it a case for having a bishop sent for, and have him rebuke his superior? Moreover, when the bishop came on the scene our saint's action was continued; and if tenentem manum meant expelling, the boy must have been persistently bold during the time the bishop was being sent for, and was coming to the church; and this fact should render impossible the charge of harshness for driving away the boy.

Again, if tenentem manum in the Latin Life be, as stated, a mistranslation of gabail lama in the Tripartite, and as Dr. Stokes has stated that the Irish Life was written in the eleventh century, while, the Latin was written in the ninth century, how could the latter be a mistranslation of the former?

In good truth, the writer of the Latin Life knew the meaning of tenentem manum ; and if he wished to express the idea of expulsion he had only to use the proper and natural Latin expello. On the other hand, if the writer of the Tripartite intended to express the same idea, he would have used, as on all other occasions he did use, the word indarb.

The Irish as well as the Latin phrase meant literally "seizing the hand," and figuratively "overpowering" or "thwarting." But I am told that other instances in the Tripartite countenance "expelling" as the meaning of the phrase. Well, all the instances which occur to me I will submit to a test. In looking into page 118 (Roll's Tripartite), I find the phrase gebthar do lam, "thy hand shall be seized." This was a reply from the angel to St. Patrick, who refused to budge till he obtained the privilege of rescuing as many souls from hell as hairs on his chasuble. The reply meant, "you shall be overpowered," and nothing more. The editor of the Tripartite inferred from the remark of St. Patrick about budging, that the reply had an antithetical meaning, but the inference was not correct.I alight on another instance. St. Patrick wished to establish a house in Assaroe, but was opposed by Coirbre " who sent two of his people to 'prevent him,'" gabail lama.

But a more crucial instance of the phrase occurs in page 156 of the Roll's Tripartite. Our saint wished to establish a house in Inishowen ; but Coelbad " prevented him in regard to it," gabail a laim ass, which the editor renders by "expelling thence." Now the addition of the word ass here, and not in the other instances, is translated by "thence." But surely we understand that when there is question of a person being in a place, and of his expulsion, the expulsion is from that place. The addition of the word ass then is unnecessary on the supposition that the phrase gabail lama in the other instances without it meant "expelling." I shall not dwell on another instance, in page 164, which has the same meaning ; and in these instances the word ass means not "thence" but "in regard to it."

That such is the meaning of ass, is very clearly brought out in page 163. It is there stated that our saint wished to take a place in Cell Glass, and (dlmotha do ass) "he was refused," according to Roll's editor, but properly and literally "it was refused to him in regard to it." The editor having no meaning for ass, but "thence," and seeing such a translation to be unmeaning, he did not translate it at all. The Irish word ass lends itself to various idiomatic phrases with which the learned editor is apparently not familiar. I hope now it may be admitted that the allusion to the detention of the boy's hand in St. Patrick's grave was not a mistranslation of the Irish, and that it establishes a belief in the writer of Vita Quarta as to the burial-place of St. Patrick in Saul.

Notwithstanding the political and social greatness to which Downpatrick had risen, and the comparative obscurity of Saul, there is evidence of its claim to St. Patrick's burialplace being recognised in succeeding ages. Thus, the Four Masters, under the year 1293, state that the relics of St. Bridget and Columkille were discovered with the remains of St. Patrick at Patrick's Saul. The discovery, witnessed by the Archbishop of Armagh, was accompanied by miraculous manifestations. The same statement is made in the Annals of Ulster. The fact remains, that at the end of the thirteenth century, we find solemn testimony, confirmatory of the statement made in the Book of Armagh, in the seventh century, in favour of Saul being the burial-place of St. Patrick.

Now, in reply to the several clear and natural statements made, without the aid of supernatural agency, in favour of Saul, what are we told ? This, that Saul meant Downpatrick, and that tenentem manum did not mean "holding the hand." And the proof in favour of the rival burialplace, of what is it composed? Merely of mystery, visions, and miracles ! That one angel was commissioned by another to send St. Patrick to him ; and the saint, having gone, was told by the angel from a flaming bush (a) that his death would be in Saul ; but, as a compensation to Armagh, that it should have primacy; (b) that there was to be no darkness for twelve days, or rather partial day for the rest of the year; that angels waked St. Patrick with vigil and psalmody during the first night, whilst all who came to the wake slept ; that oxen, yoked to the bier, were to be left to themselves to carry the corpse to the destined burial-place ; (c) that the rival provinces of Down and Armagh were kept from deadly fight by the swelling tide which became instinct with life ; that on the ebb of the tide the people of Armagh, fording the river, fancied they saw the bier carried on towards Armagh, till it disappeared at Cabcenne stream; that the corpse was to be buried, by angelic directions, seven feet deep in the earth ; that the relics should not be removed from the earth, but a church built over them; (d) and yet, that no person knew where was the burial-place : all this supplies material for the argument in favour of Downpatrick!

But I would offer a few hurried remarks (a) We are told in one place that St. Patrick went to the angel, but quite the contrary in the next page. (b) The primacy is said to have been given then to Armagh ; but it had been given, on as good authority, long before then to Armagh. (c) The angel directed a very practical direction that a church should be built where the oxen were to stop, over the corpse. What if they had not stirred from Saul, where there was a church, or moved to a place where there was already a church ? (d) It is strange that, as the Armagh people acknowledged the finger of God on the disappearance of the phantom bier, they paid no heed to the angel's directions, and were determined to give battle or have the corpse, (e) It is equally strange that a church directed by angels to be built, was undertaken only at the end of the seventh century. The narrator states that when a foundation for the church was being dug, quite recently ('novissimis temporibus'), flames issued from the grave. Does not this prove that the burial-place was known, notwithstanding the similarity to Moses ? Besides, the angel, in directing the building of a church, and directing that the delvers should sink the grave seven feet deep, must not have intended that the burial-place should be unknown. I may be told that a mistake in regard to Saul should rather be admitted than a whole cycle of miracles in defence of falsehood. Well, however unpleasant the fact, it must be admitted that unenlightened zeal or dishonest bias can sport with miracles for its own ends ; and the Book of Armagh affords ample proof of it in another passage.

The Book of the Angels tells its readers that an angel having tapped St. Patrick out of slumber, snatched from his long vigils, announced that God " gave him and to the diocese of Armagh all Ireland." The saint then is represented as deprecating such a large and unnecessary gift, because of receiving already a peculiar rent, given freely, though a debt ordained by God, from every free church, and as having no doubt that this debt would be decreed for the future bishops of Armagh by all cenobitical monasteries. What a caricature and profane libel this on the saint's disinterestedness! The writer ought to have remembered the Confession -

They have given me small voluntary gifts, and some of their ornaments upon the altar ; but I returned these to them, though they were displeased with me for so doing. But ... I wished to keep myself prudently in everything ... so that unbelievers may not, in my ministry, in the smallest point, have occasion to defame it."

But, perhaps, since I have baptized so many thousands, I may have accepted half a screapall. Tell it to me, and I will restore it. When the Lord ordained everywhere clergy, through my humble ministry, then if I asked the price of my shoe, tell it against me, and I will restore you more. I spent for you, that they may receive me."

In order to prop up the claims of Downpatrick, angels must commune with each other ; man had to abdicate the possession of his senses ; the brute beasts are brought to the scene to act their part ; and the waters became instinct with life " in digging deep valleys, while, at the same time, piercing the air" as a barrier against contending provinces. Heaven and earth are moved, with their inhabitants, in order to neutralize an historical and the earliest statement in favour of Saul. This simple and natural statement, in striking contrast to its contradictory, tells us that our saint, overtaken by the sickness of death at Saul, was there buried. Saul was his first love, the scene of his first missionary success, and the closing scene of his divinely-favoured apostolate. The alleged signs and wonders in connection with the burial resemble others on which, before the present, I had to observe that their extravagance appeared in proportion to the evidence of the falsehood in support of which they appeared to be manufactured. Downpatrick possessed nothing in fact, in association, in prophecy, not even a church, suggestive of a burial-place. Neither the glory of God, so far as it is allowed us to raise a corner of the mysterious veil, nor edification of man called for Divine interposition on the occasion. As to the dying wish of the saint, it certainly did not lean to Downpatrick, nor probably, notwithstanding the repeated and accentuated assurances to the contrary in the Book of Armagh, to Armagh; for his wish on such a matter would be an absolute command; and as to a chosen spot, "all Ireland was given to him as his diocese."

It was only natural, then, in the circumstances that the great high priest, the glorious national apostle, would lie where he fell; and, if it were not natural, it would be a matter of indifference to him who, in his extreme old age, had to say :

" I daily expect murder, or to be circumvented, or reduced to slavery, or to a mishap of some kind . . . And if ever I have imitated anything good on account of my God, Whom I love, I pray Him to grant me that, with those proselytes and captives, I may pour out my blood for His name's sake, even though I may be deprived of burial, and my corpse most miserably be torn limb from limb by dogs or wild beasts, or birds of the air should devour it."

In conclusion: the alleged angelic direction in regard to the burial of St. Patrick in Down, and to the church to be built over him, is still further proved to be false by the fact that law and custom forbade any person in the fifth century to be buried in a church, or a church to be built over him, unless he was a martyr.

SYLVESTER MALONE.

IER, vol 15, 1895 341-351

Content Copyright © Trias Thaumaturga 2012-2015. All rights reserved.

Palladius and Patrick

Palladius and Patrick is the title of a most stimulating and entertainingly-written paper by Charles Thomas, published in a collection edited by Ailbhe Mac Shamhráin called The island of St. Patrick : church and ruling dynasties in Fingal and Meath, 400-1148 (Dublin: Four Courts, 2004), 13-37. Thomas is a doughty champion of Saint Palladius and amasses evidence from history, archaeology, linguistics and placename study to argue the case that there was an attempt by later Patrician writers to turn the first bishop of the Irish into a type of 'Orwellian non-person'. Let's start with the historical evidence of Prosper of Aquitaine and its importance in preventing the total erasure of Palladius from the record:

'Prosper of Aquitaine, a cultured Christian layman, was born around 390 and when young lived in Marseilles, where he became swept up into the exciting and challenging new world of monastic endeavours there. He also became a fervent champion, against the heresies of Pelagius, of St Augustine's teachings about Grace and free will. In 430 he went to Rome, met Pope Celestine the First, and urged him to write to the bishops of Gaul condemning anti-Augustinian views. Then he returned for a while to Marseilles, where he wrote, among other things, an Epitome Chronicae, a potted world history to AD 433 (this was a special interest of his). Finally he went back to Rome, entered the service of Pope Leo I as a notarius and, having updated his Chronicle to AD 455, died in that year.

'In 429, Prosper noted that heresy was present in Britain as well as Gaul. Specifically a Pelagian heretic, Agricola, son of a Pelagian bishop Severianus, was insidiously corrupting the congregations of Britain, ecclesias Britanniae, with his teachings; this suggests that the unknown Agricola, wherever he operated, was influential. But through the negotiation of the deacon Palladius, Pope Celestine sent Germanus, bishop of Auxerre, to act on his behalf; and Germanus routed these heretics and directed the Britons to the Catholic Faith.

'Under the year 431 Prosper again mentions Palladius, whom he must have known personally; of a notable gens, either a personal deacon to bishop Germanus at Auxerre, or acting as a papal deacon. ' Palladius was ordained by Pope Celestine, and sent to the Irish believers in Christ' (ad Scotos, in Christum credentes) 'as the first bishop'. Why? We get the answer in cap.21 of Prosper's short tract Liber contra collatorem(a riposte to John Cassian, who had dared to question St Augustine's stand on grace and free will). Listing steps taken by successive popes to defend orthodoxy, and to assert papal primacy in outlying provinces of the empire, Prosper spells out the actions of Celestine, pope from 422 to 432, including these several Insular interventions:

'And with no less active a concern, he freed Britain from the same disease (i.e., Pelagian heresy)when he shut out, from their remote Ocean retreat, certain enemies of grace who were in possession of their ancestral lands (this is the 429 visit by Germanus and Lupus) and, ordaining a bishop for the Irish, he made the barbarian island Christian, while taking care to keep the Roman Island Catholic (i.e. to keep Britain orthodox).

'There you have it clear as daylight. The statement that in AD 431, absolute date, Celestine despatched Palladius as primus episcopus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, is the single most important external reference in Ireland's history. Building on the earlier undated introduction of some element of Latin literacy, it marks Ireland's tardy incorporation into Europe; and it sheds more light on Irish Christian beginnings than all of St Patrick's writings. It also provides a starting-point for Irish monasticism. And in the morass, manoeuvring, and muddles, of the next 250 years within Irish Christian records, Prosper's little chronicle-entry could not be set aside, and it was not forgotten; despite the later Armagh drive to render Palladius a kind of Orwellian non-person.'

Thomas has started as he means to go on, as far as the Armagh promoters of Saint Patrick are concerned:

'It is a truism among historians, and I suppose it remains the favourite argument for a 'late' Patrick, that revisionists at the alleged proto-Patrician foundation, the episcopal church of Armagh, faced with this immutable record of what happened in 431 were stuck, and knew they were stuck, with 432 as the earliest credible date for Patrick's return to Ireland as a bishop – a second bishop. The hard pill could be mollified by having Palladius fail dismally, or die, or quit in despair for Pictland as soon as possible. Further awkwardness arose, probably by the seventh century, from the annalistic date of 493 for the death of Patrick; and worse, a date of 535 (or 103 years on from 432) for the death of an acceptably historic Mochta or Maucteus, said to have been Patrick's younger disciple, a Briton whose existence was still known to Adomnan of Iona in the 680s.'

The Armagh dirty tricks department knows no shame:

'The reason that we cannot turn at once to modern critical editions of any Vita Palladii, Acta Palladii, Dicta Palladii, is not that none of them ever existed. They did, and quite a few people knew of them. It is that by the early eighth century, almost without exception, all and any records of Palladius had been misappropriated to St Patrick, bypassing a slight obstacle that Patrick's writings make no reference to any other named evangelist. The monolithic claim of the post-Patrick church of Armagh is fancifully set out in the mid-seventh century tract Liber Angeli. In imitation of the Confessio, Patrick is made to undergo yet another angelic dream visitation. The angel assures him (and all intended readers) that Armagh merits a terminus vastissimus, a paruchia, embracing the whole of Ireland, a spiritual overlordship that reflects Patrick's missionary labours. But here, from whatever tangled background, is a mind-set, that must have known – in writing – far more about Palladius than we ever can today; knew that Prosper's uncompromising record of a 431 arrival was beyond challenge; but was on course to reduce the Leinster landing of Palladius with his companions to the intrusion of a funny foreigner, who dithered ineffectually for a bit, and then died, or departed. You can indeed fool most people for a very long time.'

Thomas then moves on to a more sober dissection of the implications of Prosper's information:

'The Scoti, believing in Christ, were Christians in Ireland, generally the barbarian island because it was outside the Imperial limites, but that does not mean they all had to be exclusively Irish natives. They had no previous bishop (and per Professor Dan Binchy, as yet no loanword from episcopus). But, as Christian groupings, ecclesiae, they were, in 431, numerous enough, or spatially concentrated enough, or both, to warrant a first bishop. It is then likely that a Christian presence went back some decades; at a diffused scale, those believers could have had some rudimentary churches already and some officiating priests, perhaps later elevated in memory as those obscure pre-Patrician saints. We can certainly assume worship and instruction took place in Latin, using pre-Vulgate Biblical texts; and that goes along with a previously-conveyed picture of Latinity in Ireland by, and considerably before, the year 400. Their first bishop Palladius, was not a provincial chosen for them by a British synod. He was a man of standing, influentially connected, a papal favourite chosen for the job, and he had already been prominent (as Prosper knew) in a campaign to combat the Pelagian heresy threatening Britain. Ergo, Rome had perceived a danger of heretical infection reaching the Christian innocents of Hiberione, which argues for repeated Irish-British contact (west Wales to Leinster and south-east Munster, say), and a measure of correspondence, if not official visits, to arrange a suitable reception for Bishop Palladius. But do not picture Palladius wading ashore wherever it was, a lonely figure, with a grip in his hand, slithering among seaweed. Germanus and Lupus were supported by a regular throng of their Gaulish followers. We shall identify likely members of Palladius' familia; and make a good guess as to at least part of his volumina atque impedimenta. ...'

This view of Palladius as a man handpicked for the job at the very highest level is in stark contrast to the traditional view that he simply wasn't up to the task and quit at the first sign of trouble. Thomas then goes on to examine another twist in the Patrician tale, the idea that there was more than one Patrick:

'One by-product of Armagh's drive to establish, historically-justifiable, hegemony over the entire realm of Ireland's Christianity was an invention, in the seventh century, of a doublet. The concept of a Patrick, Apostle to the Irish was divided like an amoeba. It was claimed that the 431 Palladius was really, or also, called Patricius (qui Patricius alio nomine appellabatur), whence a distinction became necessary between an 'Old Patrick', senex Patricius, Sen Phatric, or Palladius; and a younger, later one, Patricius secundus, Patrick the Briton, who died 493. The more readily then could all and any of the doings, remembered sayings, written references, and associated dramatis personae of Palladius – senex Patricius – be transferred to the inflated Patrick of what some have called "the Armagh propagandists"'.

Thomas now turns his attention to the biographers of Patrick, Muirchu and Tirechan:

'It is in the Collectanea, the so-called Memoir of Tirechan, regarded as slightly earlier than Muirchu's Life – about 670- that the partly-planned mythologizing takes off. Tirechan, a bishop, had been pupil of Bishop Ultan of Connor; he had read material in a book that Ultan possessed... In the Book of Armagh collection that contains this earlier Memoir, ..one section of which is headed 'On the names of the Franks of Patrick'; and in someone's supplementary notes, a very precise statement:

In the thirteenth year of the emperor Theodosius, bishop Patricius is sent by bishop Celestine, pope of Rome, for the teaching of the Scots.

'Notice the Imperial, though not also western Consular, dating; this comes ultimately from Prosper's Chronicle, in which year 430-1 is headed 'Theodosio XIII, tredecimo'. Then we have: 'Bishop Palladius is sent first'; Palladius episcopus primo mittitur (here Prosper has Palladius, et primus episcopus mittitur) 'who was named Patricius with another name, who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Scots'. Next, this particular Armagh writer redresses the imbalance: 'Then Patricius is sent second by the angel Victor and Pope Celestine; - he was believed by all Ireland and baptised almost all of it'.

Thomas then turns to another source, the four 'Sayings of Patrick', two of which he introduces as evidence, adding though 'if Patrick the Briton ever uttered any one of them I will personally be Joan of Arc':

'The fear of God I had as my guide through the Gauls (per Gallias) and Italy, and the islands which are in the Tyrrhene sea.

Church of the Irish (ecclesia Scottorum), nay of the Romans, in order that you be Christians, as are the Romans, you must sing at every hour of prayer that praiseworthy utterance, Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, let each and every Christian flock that makes up my following (omnis aeclessia quae sequitur me) sing Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Deo gratias.'

For Thomas these sayings

'are remnants, having percolated north from at least one centre in Leinster to Armagh and probably other Ulster churches, of the acta, the contemporary records, and a few numbered sayings, of Palladius. Actually there is a lot of valuable historical detail here. Remembering that Palladius was in the first place chosen, consecrated and sent under the twin aegis of Pope Celestine and Bishop Germanus it would be incredible that he and his companions would not have sent reports of progress, success, safeguarding against heresy, back to base: back to Auxerre, if not also Rome, to Celestine and Leo.'

He bolsters this thesis by drawing attention to what he sees as a giveaway line in Tirechan's Memoir, possibly taken from whatever book Bishop Ultan had compiled:

Haec Constans in Gallis invenit.

(These things, Constans discovered in Gaul).

Thomas believes that this shows that some Irish cleric of the seventh century was able to access and copy material from the Palladian dispatches. He further refutes Tirechan's statement, again derived from Bishop Ultan, that Patrick 'stayed for 30 years in one of these islands which is called Aralensis'. For Thomas this proves not that Patrick experienced monasticism in Lerins, but that Palladius spent time in the city of Arles.

Thomas then goes on to fulfill his promise that we would be able to make a guess at the volumina atque impedimenta of Palladius:

'When in 431 Palladius arrived to oversee the credentes of Leinster, I (for one) believe that he brought not only sufficient companions in appropriate clerical orders to set up a papally-approved diocese, or more than one diocese; but also a large selection of the literature one would expect, including the available range – by 430 quite extensive – of monastic books, Desert Fathers' work, histories, collections, rules. Palladius, unusually as a named person in a known year, stands for Ireland's monastic origins. We recall why he had been sent; to make the barbarian Ireland Christian but also to prevent heretical infection from Christian Britain. In that second of the Dicta Patricii (recte Dicta Palladii) 'in order that you be Christians, as are the Romans' may imply a little more. Does it mean 'orthodox Christians, as are the Romans', a state to be ensured by following their new bishop's teaching in every respect?'

Thus has Palladius the 'funny foreigner who dithered ineffectually for a bit' been transformed into a symbol of Ireland's monastic origins. But Thomas admits that there are still unanswered questions, if we accept that so far from being a short-lived failure, the mission of Palladius was a long-lived success:

'If Palladius worked in Ireland for, say, 20 to 30 years, gradually extending his initial East Leinster, episcopate to further notional dioceses under additional bishops in southern Leinster and most of Munster, does absolutely no trace of this survive? What Tirechan's Bishop Ultan had in a book, which the mysterious Constans found somewhere in Gaul, apparently dealt only with Palladius' Gaulish-Italian backgound, Auxerre, Amator and Germanus, and perhaps reports from the spiritual front line. But we do have a very strange document indeed; called variously 'The Synod of the Bishops' and 'The First Synod of Saint Patrick'. It starts with:

Here begins the synod of the bishops (episcoporum), that is of Patricius, Auxilius, Isserninus. We give thanks to God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. To the priests and deacons and every cleric, the bishops Patricius, Auxilius, and Isserninus, greetings.

There follow 34 rulings, or provisions, or canons, plainly out of order – out of 5 logical groupings – and some probably of secondary insertion.'

Thomas goes on to helpfully summarize the views of earlier scholars regarding this strange document:

'Ludwig Bieler persisted in arguing that this was genuinely a product from the real Patrick, the Briton, and even produced a date of 457 by emending an annalistic year, Binchy, on the strength of several canons dealing with native Irish legal points, and his reading of wording in others, thought it a wholly native product of the mid-seventh century reflecting the Romanizing versus native parties' controversy on the date of Easter and related disputes. Kathleen Hughes offered a compromise of the mid-sixth century. And I think that likely -a very early Leinster copy of the original, ending up at Armagh, where 'PALLADIUS' was altered to 'PATRICIUS', perhaps just a palimpsest, scraping out the four letters LLAD and writing in TRIC (both names, nine letters, start PA and end IUS)'.

Thomas himself, not surprisingly, champions the claims of Palladius and a fifth-century date for the Synod text:

'I believe we have here an ecclesiastic governance, for a part of Ireland, issued possibly 15 or 20 years on from 431 by Palladius and two others – Auxilius, Iserninus – who were, by then, bishops of new dioceses. It is the words used that lead me to the conclusion (and a certainty that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Patrick). One could pick out, as fifth-century Gaulish Latin and possibly southern British Latin – but not taken into Irish usage – plebs to mean what we would now call 'a parish'; aecclesia for both 'the Church' (an abstract word) and 'a church as a building', where for canon 24, aecclesiam (aedificet), my guess is that Patrick would have written dominicum; a distinction, talking about bishops, between episcopus, a bishop in an administrative guise, but sacerdos as to his priestly function; and then we have episode 33, one of a group governing the status of intrusive or of wandering clerics (vagus, vagulus). 'A cleric whom comes to us from the Britains without a letter, although he may be resident in a parish (in plebe), is not permitted to minister'. 'From the Britains' is de Britanis, geographical plural, in the fourth-early fifth century, suggesting the four (or five) provinciae of Brittania (single). This, with perhaps two more canons, takes us back to Palladius as Prosper shows him; the papally-authorized custodian of orthodoxy, and these are precautions against would-be Pelagians drifting across from Britannia'.

For the remainder of his argument, Thomas introduces placename evidence, illustrated by maps. Put simply, the prefix Donagh (as Donaghmore, Donaghadee) comes from an extremely early word, British Latin Dominicum, Primitive Irish Dominech, then Domnach, 'a Christian church building'. Placenames beginning with Donagh tend to be found in the north, where Thomas believes Patrick was active. By contrast, names beginning with another loanword, the Old Irish cell are found more in Leinster, the site of the Palladian mission. This borrowing is from a purely literary Latin source, cella 'Christian locality, of eremitic or monastic nature', and this literary borrowing points to the continental Palladius rather than the British Patrick as far as Thomas is concerned.

I found this paper most thought-provoking, whilst academic it was far from dry and it was interesting to see that Patrician studies can still provoke passion. Whilst I do see Palladius as emerging as one of the winners from revisionist scholarship, for me this does not necessarily make Saint Patrick a loser. It still remains a wonderful treasure to have the personal writings of Saint Patrick, his Confession and Letter to Coroticus, and as a northern woman I am not displeased by the idea that he primarily operated in this part of the country. The saint himself is not responsible for the injustice that was done to Palladius by later writers, indeed, we don't really know if Saint Patrick was even aware of the existence of this southern bishop. Whilst the debate continues among the current generation of scholars, the traditional view of Palladius as a short-lived failure who did the decent thing and departed to leave the way clear for Patrick as the all-Ireland success story, is untenable. As Thomas remarks 'Palladius cannot, alas, come across to us in the same intensely human guise as Patrick, but he deserves a better treatment than footnotes.' I will be curious to see if the revisionist view finds any resonance within popular culture, will there, for example, ever be a parade or national celebration for Palladius? Somehow I think the traditional view of Patrick as the sole national apostle will remain unchallenged in the popular mind for many years to come.

Content Copyright © Trias Thaumaturga 2012-2015. All rights reserved.