The life of St. Patrick and his place in history

by J. B. Bury

In our earliest records we find some ecclesiastical foundations expressly distinguished as “free,” which would seem to imply a release from restrictions and obligations which were usually imposed, and a greater measure of independence of the tribe.[186] Thus in Sligo a large district was offered by its owners “to God and Patrick,” and we are told that the king, who seems to be acting as representative of the tribe, “made it free to God and Patrick.”[187] But it is impossible to determine what were the limits of this immunity.

TRIBAL INFLUENCE

The Church in the Roman Empire has been described as an imperium in imperio, and the typical ecclesiastical community in Ireland may be described as a tribe within a tribe. The abbot, or, where the dual system prevailed, his lay coadjutor, exercised over the lay folk settled on the lands of the community a control similar to that which the tribal king exercised over the tribe. But though the community was thus constituted as an independent body and formed a sort of tribe itself, not subject to the king, it was nevertheless bound by certain obligations to the tribe within whose borders it lay. We have seen that the right of eventual succession to the abbacy was often reserved to the tribe. But in general the monastery was bound not only to furnish the religious services which the tribe required, but to rear and educate without cost the offspring of any tribesman who chose to devote his son to a religious life.[188] The tribesman, on his part, was bound, when he had once consigned his child to the care of the monks, not to withdraw him, on pain of paying a forfeit.[189] A monastery might welcome novices from other tribes, if their parents chose to pay the cost of their education; its attachment by a closer bond to what might be called its lay tribe was expressed in this right of the tribesmen to a free training for an ecclesiastical career.

It is also to be observed that the member of a religious house, though he belonged to a society which managed its affairs independently of the tribe, did not altogether cease to be a tribesman.[190] If he was slain, the compensation was due not to the church but to his tribe. It is uncertain how far he continued to share any of the secular liabilities of his lay tribesmen. On his father’s death he inherited his portion of the family property, like any of his brethren; but we cannot say how far, in early times, the tribe permitted a monastic community to exercise rights over land thus inherited by one of its members. In later times the Church assumed possession, perhaps allowing the monk to hold his inheritance as a tenant, and furnishing him with stock.[191] But this custom may not have been introduced until the Church had waxed in power and cupidity. It is uncertain, too, what claims the newborn monasteries ventured to press, in their early years, upon the liberality of those who had permitted their foundation. At a subsequent period they claimed[192] not only first-fruits and tithes and the firstlings of animals, but also first-born sons, and when a man had ten sons, another as well as the eldest. We may doubt whether such claims, modelled on the law of Moses, and exceeding in audacity the claims of any other church, were often admitted[193] or seriously pressed; but it is certain that rights of such a kind were not and could not have been sought by Patrick and his fellows.

MONASTIC SYSTEM

This sketch of the conditions under which the new religious settlements were planted in Ireland is necessarily vague and slight, and is presented with the reserve which is due when the material for reconstruction is fragmentary and we have to argue back from circumstances which prevailed at a later period. But the evidence at least shows clearly that the organisation was conditioned and moulded by the nature of the secular society. On one hand there was a bond, of various degrees of intimacy, connecting the religious community with the tribe, in the midst of which it was established; and on the other hand, the community took upon itself the form and likeness of a tribe or clan, its members being regarded as the family or followers of its head.

There is no reason to suppose that all Patrick’s ecclesiastical foundations took the shape of monastic societies. Many of the churches which he founded were served, doubtless, by only one or two clerics, and furnished with only enough land to support them. But the monastic foundations were a leading feature of the organisation. They were to be centres for propagating Christianity and schools for educating the clergy. But they also served the religious needs of the immediate district. A staff of clergy was attached, and the abbot was frequently also a bishop. It is not difficult to conjecture the reason and purpose of this remarkable union of the monastic institution with general church organisation. It was probably due to the circumstance that there were no cities in Ireland; centres had to be created for ecclesiastical purposes, and it was almost a matter of course that these ecclesiastical towns should be constructed on the monastic principle. If towns had existed, they would have been the ecclesiastical centres, the seats of the bishops; the bishops would not have been abbots or attached to monasteries. The fact that the word civitas, “city,” was used to designate these double-sided communities illustrates the motive of this singular organisation.

DIOCESAN SYSTEM