CHAPTER II
THE BEGINNINGS OF CLASSICAL LEARNING
Hitherto our study has been limited to a discussion of native Irish culture influenced but slightly from the outside. Here the attempt is made to trace the beginnings of classical learning. In this connection it is worth noting that Ireland occupies the unique position of being the only part of the Celtic world that was not brought under the sway of Roman arms. The consequence is that she is one of the very few nations of Western Europe whose civilization was free to develop along native lines. Yet it must not be supposed that Ireland remained completely aloof from the Graeco-Roman culture to which the world owes so much.[27] The great difference between Ireland and the other Celtic countries such as Britain and Gaul lies in this: in Gaul the combined forces of Roman arms and Roman culture wiped out almost every trace of native culture, the same is true of the greater part of Britain.[28] In Ireland, on the other hand, Roman learning was introduced in a peaceful manner (at least as early as the fifth century, as will be shown later). Now as we have seen native learning was already developing along national lines, the result was that not only did the native learning continue to flourish unchecked by the arrival of the new learning but the former actually received a fresh impulse,[29] while classical learning was cultivated to an extent that is without parallel in contemporary Europe.[30]
The precise way in which letters reached Ireland and the causes which led to “that remarkable outburst of classical learning towards the close of the sixth century”[31] are matters on which most writers express themselves vaguely, or assume that certain ill-defined influences emanating from Britain or Gaul somehow reached her shores, but at what time or by what means they have not been able to determine.
The introduction of classical learning as well as of Christianity is popularly ascribed to St. Patrick whose missionary work began 432 A.D. This opinion though widespread will not stand a critical examination. It is true, however, that St. Patrick is the first person whose name is associated with the introduction of classical learning of whom it can be said that the writings ascribed to him are really his. In the Book of Armagh (completed c. 806 A.D.) there is a document called his “Confession,” or apology which was copied by the scribe Torbach from the original.[32] Although the “Confession” and other writings attributed to St. Patrick may be admitted as genuine, it must not be assumed that the learning for which Ireland became famous during the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries could have been the result of his labours.[33] Most people who have read St. Patrick’s writings will admit that he makes no claim to be a scholar but on the contrary he has a very humble opinion of himself and reminds us frequently of his ignorance of letters. As Bury says,[34] “His Latin is as ‘rustic’ as the Greek of St. Mark and St. Matthew,” and Whitley Stokes infers from his writings that he knew no Greek.[35] In this respect St. Patrick was no worse than many of his famous contemporaries and successors, for example—his Latin is no more ‘rustic’ than that of Gregory of Tours who lived a century later. Indeed St. Patrick’s claim to fame rests on higher grounds than those of classical scholarship. He was a preacher and organizer rather than a man of letters. He was a homo unius libri but with that book, the Christian Scriptures, he was extraordinarily familiar.[36] Yet some writers have attributed the introduction of learning and even of the Roman alphabet to St. Patrick. It is true that in the Tripartite Life there are frequent statements that he wrote Abgitoria (usually translated Alphabets) for his noble or bardic converts.[37] It is very probable that these do not mean alphabets, as is usually supposed, like that on the pillar stone of Kilmakedar in Kerry,[38] but elementa, the A B C of the Christian Doctrine. This explanation seems justified by the words Abgitir Crabaid glossed initium fidei in a Würzburg MS.[39] In the Tripartite occur the words, Aibgitir in Crabaid—translated the Alphabet of Piety—where a specimen is given of a work so entitled.[40] For these and other reasons which will be stated presently the weight of evidence is against attributing to St. Patrick the introduction of the Roman alphabet or any liberal measure of classical learning.
It has also been suggested[41] that some of the Britons or Gauls who accompanied St. Patrick brought these studies to Ireland, but Meyer thinks this most improbable and dismisses the idea that any missionaries whether Gallic or British introduced classical learning into Ireland. The origin of that deep culture embracing not only the classical authors but also grammar, metrics, and other sciences such as astronomy he would attribute to a much broader and deeper influence.[42]
Basing his argument on a document found among Zimmer’s papers, Meyer contends that the seeds of classical learning were sown in Ireland during the first and second decades of the fifth century by Gallic scholars who fled their own country owing to the invasion of the latter by the Goths and other barbarians.[43] The same explanation seems to have occurred to De Jubainville, for he says: “La culture des lettres classiques et latins a cessé en Gaule depuis la conquête germanique au cinquième siècle; l’Irlande qu’à cette époque n’a pas encore envahie les barbares des contrées situées à nord-ouest de la Gaule, paraît avoir donné asile aux hommes d’étude chassés de la Gaule par les armes et la domination sauvage des Burgundes, des Wisigoths et des Francs.”[44] To Meyer, however, we owe the development of this theory. He quotes from a sixth century entry in a Leyden MS. This note states that owing to a barbarian invasion “all the learned men fled from Gaul, and in transmarine parts, i.e. in Ireland and wherever they betook themselves, brought about a great advancement of learning to the inhabitants of these regions.”[45] This theory is supported by a passage in St. Patrick’s “Confession”[46] where evidently replying to the attacks of certain rhetoricians who were hostile to him, the saint exclaims: “You rhetoricians who know not the Lord hear and search who it was that called me up, fool though I be, from the midst of those who call themselves wise and skilled in the law and mighty orators and powerful in everything.”[47] Meyer maintains that the reference is to the pagan rhetoricians from Gaul whose arrogant presumption founded on their own learning made them regard with disdain the illiterate apostle of the Scots. His few and forcible epithets well describe the type of rhetorician common in Gaul.
If Meyer’s theory is correct, and it seems the most tenable that has been advanced, then we may conclude that Ireland derived her classical learning from Gaul when Gallic scholarship was at its best. This would explain the excellence of the Latin and the acquaintance with Greek which, as we shall show, was exhibited by the Irish scholars who visited the Continent from the time of Columbanus (543–615) to that of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (c. 810–c. 875).