Why the story of St Patrick is not a harmless myth
and why it matters today.
When researching early Irish history for my historical novel, The Hare’s Vision, I was struck by many anomalies relating to St Patrick and the indulgent attitude taken to the myth of St Patrick by museums and academics.
My aim in doing the research for what was a work of fiction was to make the story as historically accurate as possible before adding the myth that is central to the story. The main events of my story were based in Ireland in the century following what is believed to be Patrick’s mission to Ireland during the fifth century. So it would be natural to make some reference to the saint. However the anomalies I encountered regarding the figure of St Patrick convinced me to make no reference to this character; mainly because I came to have serious doubts that he ever really existed.
Those doubts have been reinforced over time. I am now convinced that Patrick was an invention initially dreamt up in the seventh century to support the campaign to have Armagh made the ecclesiastical centre of Ireland. However I believe the modern St Patrick fetish is promoted for much more overtly political reasons which have done immense damage to Irish culture and self-esteem.
My initial doubts about St Patrick surfaced when I realised that within fifty years or so of Patrick’s death (the exact date of this is uncertain), St Finnian in Clonard abbey had some 3000 monks under tuition. This was replicated in several other monasteries throughout Ireland in the early to mid-sixth century. Bear in mind that at this time Ireland had a population (it is estimated) of around 500,000 and internal travel was by no means easy. So to have such a large number of people spread over a wide geographical area, not just converted to Christianity, but to have taken holy orders, within such a short space of time suggested that Patrick was not just a saint, but a wizard. In fact if this is true, St Patrick could teach Jesus and St Paul a thing or two about how to run a successful mission.
My doubts were further reinforced when I discovered that there were in fact already Christians in Ireland before Patrick’s alleged mission.
Writing in 431, Prosper, a confidant of Pope Celestine said:
‘Pope Celestine ordained Palladius and sent him to the Irish believers as their first bishop.’
Bede repeats the same statement some two hundred years later.
There were also Irish Christian saints who predated Patrick. Such as:
- St. Ciaran of Saighir
- St Ailbhe of Emly
- St Ibar of Wexford
- St Declan of Ardmore
Palladius’ mission failed within a year and the legend goes that Patrick arrived the following year. However Prosper (and later Bede) do not mention Patrick succeeding Palladius. From this it seems reasonable to assume that Patrick did not bring Christianity to Ireland. It was already there.
Could it be, I asked myself, that the apparent sudden growth of Christianity in the sixth century – that appeared immediately after Patrick’s mission – was part of a much earlier trajectory and had nothing to do with Patrick’s mission?
The other factor that convinced me to give Patrick a wide berth was that no early Christian writers in Ireland or Britain mention Patrick.
St Gildas (500–570) – thought to have taught St Finnian of Clonard and St. Columbanus (543-615) -a prolific writer and Bede in England (672-735) all make no mention of this Patrick. St Colum Cille’s biographer St Adomnán of Iona (c. 624 –704) – whom Bede met – makes no reference to Patrick who should have been a major influence on Colum. St Colum Cille was born only fifty years after Patrick’s mission to Ireland.
It was not until two hundred years after Patrick’s death in the late seventh century that his name is first mentioned. A monk, Muirchú, under the patronage of Bishop Aedh of Slébte (Sletty, Co. Laois) wrote ‘The Life of Saint Patrick’. His work was supplemented by Bishop Tirechan sponsored by Ultan of Ardbraccan (Co. Meath). Both their works were included in the Book of Armagh (807) along with writings claimed to be by St Patrick himself – his Confessions and his Letter to Coroticus.
It is upon these manuscripts that the whole Patrick story is based.
So what do they tell us (or not tell us)?
First of all the manuscripts held today that are attributed to Patrick himself and upon which many academics and ‘Patricophiles’ base their belief – the Confessions and the Letter to Coroticus – are eighth, not fifth, century documents. There is no evidence that the originals were written by ‘Patrick’. The manuscripts themselves are extremely vague about Patrick’s life story and in some places quite contradictory.
The Latin used by the author is poor. ‘Patrick’ acknowledges this and claims to be ‘a simple country person’, ‘ignorant’. Yet he also claims to be ‘noble’, the son of a Romano-British cavalry officer in one document and in the other to be the son of a ‘deacon’ and the grandson of a ‘priest’. Either, if true, suggests this was an educated family. ‘Patrick’ says he lived with his parents until he was taken into slavery in Ireland at the age of sixteen. By which time he should surely have been fluent in both spoken and written Latin.
After escaping slavery in Ireland, Patrick returned to his family home when he was twenty-two and did not return to Ireland for another ten years. By which time Patrick is claiming the title of ‘bishop’. Clergy would have been taught in Latin. So by the time he got to Ireland in his thirties with the rank of bishop this Patrick should have been an accomplished Latin scholar. Yet the Latin text is written by someone not highly educated and not brought up as a Roman with Latin in daily use.
These manuscripts tell us nothing about how Patrick spent his time after his escape from slavery in Ireland. He returns to Ireland after ten years claiming to be a bishop, but does not record how this came about. Where did he study? Who ordained him? Who sent him to Ireland? What are his credentials? Presumably if the author made specific claims these could have been checked out.
We know from Prosper that there were already Christians living in Ireland before Patrick. Yet ‘Patrick’ makes no mention of these people. You’d think they would be ‘Patrick’s’ first point of contact as a newly arrived missionary. Similarly, Muirchú and Tirechan also make no mention of these early Christians when writing about ‘Patrick’s’ mission.
The writings of Muirchú and Tirechan develop the Patrick legend to new heights of storytelling. They describe many events that ‘Patrick’s’ writings did not. They make much mention of how ‘Patrick’ favoured Armagh. Muirchú writes that ‘Patrick’ intended to die in Armagh, and though an angel convinced him not to specifically go there (there’s no evidence that he ever did), the angel stated that ‘Patrick’s’ ‘pre-eminence’ would be at Armagh. In the writings directly attributed directly to ‘Patrick’ he never mentioned Armagh.
This great emphasis on Armagh strongly suggests that the Patrick Story was part of the campaign to have the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland sited in Armagh. Both sponsors of Muirchú and Tirechan, Bishop Aedh of Slébte and Ultan of Ardbraccan were active in this campaign.
Muirchú has ‘Patrick’ setting curses on people who did not accept his authority. Suddenly the ‘simple country person, and the least of all believers’, as ‘Patrick’ described himself in ‘Confessions’, was replaced by a ruthless religious zealot, even slaying druids and princesses and burning their books – 180 in all, in order to impose his religious beliefs on the gullible, passive Irish. The tone of the language and the action describes what amounts to a military assault on native Irish religious beliefs. This was not a missionary who came in peace. Whoever this ‘Patrick’ was he certainly did not model his behaviour on Jesus.
The reference to ‘Patrick’ burning books is curious because academia tells us that ‘Patrick’ brought writing and books to Ireland. So whose books were these that were burnt?
The legend of driving the snakes out of Ireland and the use of the shamrock was never mentioned by Patrick, Muirchú or Tirechan. This was added in the thirteenth century. There were of course no snakes in Ireland. This was a reference to the symbol of the serpent used by the druids who were eventually driven out of Ireland, but not in ‘Patrick’s’ time.
So given that the ‘Patrick’ legend is so suspect, how and why has it survived the centuries and why should it matter in the 21st century?
In the early Christian period hagiography was the norm. They were early propagandists. Writers talked up their champion and ascribed all kinds of super-human qualities to them to further their cause – in ‘Patrick’s’ case the creation of Armagh as the ecclesiastical centre for Ireland. So legends like ‘Patrick’ were not unusual and were believed without question as an act of faith for many centuries.
Even today I have been amazed at the how easily the media and the world of academia buys into the story of ‘St Patrick’ without question. Academics who are normally so sceptical of all other Irish legends and demand provenance for historic manuscripts, accept that ‘Confessions’ and the ‘Letter to Coroticus’ were indeed written by ‘Patrick’ without any evidence being available. None dare even raise the slightest doubts!
The Ulster Museum in Belfast make bold public assertions about the provenance of the ‘Patrick manuscripts’, copies of which are on display, but they can produce no evidence to support their claims1. The phrase that is widely used is that it is ‘generally accepted’ that these documents were written by ‘Patrick’; ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that the author, ‘Patrick’, is a real historical figure.
So it is academic consensus that holds the Patrick Story together and few, if any, are prepared to break the spell. The churches – both Catholic and Protestant – are also keen to keep the legend alive. It’s one of the few areas of Irish history they agree on. Likewise Irish nationalism holds ‘Patrick’ close to their hearts even though he was a ‘Brit’ and there were many other native born saints who were much more deserving. So any academic casting doubt on the ‘Patrick’ Story will risk the ire of not just their fellow academics, but of Irish nationalism and the churches.
Beyond a desire to conform among academia, I have concluded that the reason ‘Patrick’s’ legend has survived into the 21st century and is believed blindly by so many all around the world is political, not religious.
The Roman Catholic Church, which conquered the independent Irish church in the 12th century on the back of the Norman invasion, eagerly adopted the ‘Patrick’ legend for two reasons (although they never canonised him).
The first was that the creation of the ecclesiastical centre in Armagh was part of a long campaign to introduce Roman systems of church governance into Ireland such as the role of bishops as opposed to abbots and the use of the Roman system of dating Easter. The Patrick Story was central to this campaign.
Secondly, and more importantly in the modern age, was the reinforcement of the ancient narrative that all good things in Ireland have come to it from abroad, especially in the matter of religion. It was crucial to the English and to the Romans in their subjugation of Ireland that the country was seen as a backward, primitive society in need of an imperial power to avoid them killing each other. This discourse is still in evidence today. The Patrick Story fitted this narrative; in fact the Patrick Story was and still is the cornerstone of this narrative.
We are told ‘Patrick’ was a foreigner who brought Christianity to Ireland – in spite of being cruelly mistreated by them as a slave. He destroyed the native belief systems and their pagan religion, imposing some good Christian order with a high degree of unchristian ruthlessness. He was made patron saint when many native born saints were more deserving – and more real.
I am always struck when researching Irish history how prevalent this anti-Irish narrative is among academic and non-academic historians today. These are not just Church historians, but English and American academics and especially the Irish themselves. Whether it is in religion, metalwork, pottery, writing, boat-building, anthropology or building; it all came from outside Ireland. Nothing was accepted as original. The Irish created nothing of value and influenced very little elsewhere is the dogma.
The iconic Newgrange is a good example. It was not until the 18th century that it was finally accepted that the Vikings did not build Newgrange. Then it took another two hundred years to convince the academics that this structure and many others were in fact sophisticated observatories and not simple burial chambers. So strong is this narrative about the Irish that it seemed impossible to classically trained historians that there ever could have been a civilisation in Ireland capable of such technical skill.
In the same vein, the reason why the Romans never conquered Ireland is fitted into this narrative: the Romans were disinterested, we are told. There was nothing in Ireland to make it worth their while. Ireland was all bog and bog-trotters. This is taught in Irish schools of all denominations to this day. Even though four hundred years after the Romans, the Vikings showed great interest in Ireland, but significantly they were unable to conquer the island, being frequently chased back to England where they had little trouble subduing large areas. Could it be that the mighty Romans had the same difficulty with Ireland as the Vikings?
However it was the English who finally helped disprove this theory of disinterest when they came to Ireland in 1170 and were so impressed that they have never left; showing an intense interest in the place ever since.
Effectively Irish history began with Patrick in the fifth century. Everything before Patrick is regarded as misty-eyed legend, the stuff of fairy-tales and has been closed off to the Irish through the destruction of records – carried out it seems by this ‘Patrick’ himself. Because few resources are invested in the pre-patrician era, few discoveries are made to shed much light on this period.
We are told as part of the Patrick Story that there were no books in Ireland before Patrick arrived. The unquestioned narrative is that Christianity, namely Patrick, brought writing to the island. But Muirchú tells us that Patrick burnt many Irish books. Whether this actually happened or not is not the point here. The point is that an Irish monk writing in the seventh century believed that many books existed in Ireland prior to Patrick. How many other ancient books were destroyed? What did they tell of ancient Irish culture?
“Ireland would have been the richer had not the fears or bigotry of the priests discouraged the reading of pagan poems and romances, and thrown thousands of MSS. [manuscripts] into the flames.”
Legendary Fictions of the Irish Celts, by Patrick Kennedy; New York and London, Macmillan; 
In all this we are asked to believe that prior to St Patrick arriving in Ireland there was no organised religion in Ireland and no books. Yet within a short space of time the Irish were world leaders in both Christianity and books. A sudden turn around for a primitive people, is it not?
I believe that as we approach St Patrick’s Day in 2018 some questioning of this Patrick Story is appropriate and long overdue if Ireland is to escape the legacy of ancient abuse and misrepresentation.
1 Ulster Museum FOI Response 12 January 2016