click here
|
Appendix 5: Saint
Patrick and the Isle of Man
Fabio P.
Barbieri
|
It can be demonstrated that, about
580, St.Patrick was perceived in some quarters as
primarily the patron saint of the Dal Fiatach.
One of the longest of his miracle
stories in Muirchu is that of Macuil
Maccugreccae, a tyrant and blasphemer who tried
to put Patrick's thaumaturgical powers to the
test by bringing him a supposedly dead man who
was actually very much alive. Patrick, like
God, is not fooled: when they bring the man
before him, they find he is in fact quite dead.
Horrified by the miracle, the tyrant's men, and
then the tyrant himself, submit. Patrick
orders Macuil, as a penance, to place himself
unarmed on the smallest possible coracle, with
only one item of the cheapest possible clothing
and no food, wearing "the sign of his
sin" on his forehead, and sail with no oars
or rudder until wind and sea take him to shore.
The dead man is then resurrected. Macuil
does what he is told, and ends up on the isle of
Man, where he meets two British bishops called
Conindrus and Rumilus, who had been evangelizing
the Manx people. They eventually make him a
bishop, and he becomes the first bishop of Man.
The story makes it clear that it
is not Patrick who teaches Macuil Christianity or
baptizes him, let alone makes him a bishop; it is
the two British churchmen. But Macuil's
whole life is conditioned and directed by his sin
towards Patrick, which may even have been seen as
the unforgivable sin, sin against the Spirit.
Because he has put the man of God to the test, he
is exiled in the most humbling circumstances
possible, going through at least the fear of
death, and perhaps through something like a
ritual death. His crossing of the ocean has
something to do with Baptism, beginning a new
life after a man had effectively died in his
place, as a punishment for his own evil. (The
story is quite clear that, though Patrick had
resurrected his servant, the latter's death had
been very real.) But it is not Baptism; it
is the British bishops who grant him that.
What does this mean? It
means that the ecclesial group who claimed
Patrick as their representative and founder, lay
a claim on the first bishop of the Isle of Man
that was in some way seen as earlier and deeper
even than Baptism. The legend put the first
bishop of Man in a relationship of absolute
dependency on Patrick - with his feet bound, no
food and hardly any clothing, no rudder or oars -
and compelled by his guilt. Maccuil's
journey to man was determined by his sin towards
Patrick; that is, everything that happened to him
afterwards, up to and including his final
elevation to the high honour of Bishop, was the
result of Patrick's orders to him. Patrick
is even more fundamental to his future episcopal
see than are those who actually consecrated him;
and as in any sort of legend the status of the
founder of any entity - town, kingdom,
institution, church - defines the status of his
successors, all Maccuil's successors are bound by
St.Patrick's word above and before the word of
any other episcopal authority.
In historical terms, this has to
mean that an Irish church wished to overrule the
claim of the British to the obedience of the
bishops of Man. It is recognized that the
island's first Bishop was baptized, raised to the
priesthood, and consecrated, by British
missionaries; the story does not even want to
deny that they were uiros ualde mirabiles, in
fide et doctrina fulgentes, qui primi docuerunt
uerbum Dei et babtismus in Euonia et conuersi
sunt homines insulae in doctrina eorum ad fidem
catholicam "great men, very wonderful,
shining in faith and doctrine, who first taught
the word of God and the Baptism in Man, and
converted the men of the island through their
teaching to the Catholic faith". But
the man they place at the head of their new
bishopric was in fact under the power of Patrick
since before his baptism.
The political point of this is
hard to miss. It amounts to
pseudo-religious support to an Irish claim upon
Man, and it is clearly intended to override a
previous British one. All right, so the
first bishop of Man was consecrated on the island
by two British bishops; but - though the poor
benighted Manx may not know it - he was in fact
an Irishman, an Irishman from Ulaid, and his
whole Christian life from baptism, indeed from
before baptism, was the repayment of a debt owed
to Patrick, and came under Patrick's authority.
It follows that, when this legend
first took shape, its Irish authors knew that the
isle of Man had first been Christianized by
Britons, and that two British bishops had
consecrated its first bishop, whose name the
Irish knew as Macuil Dimane. They wanted to
rewrite a history already known.
It so happens that we can date the
creation of this story almost to the year. To
quote F.J.Byrne: "One of the most notable of
Ulster kings [i.e. High Kings of all Ulster] was
Baetan mac Cairill of Dal Fiatach. In his
short reign from 572 to 581, he sought to assert
his suzerainty over Dal Riata in Scotland and
over the Isle of Man... Ulster interest in the
Isle of Man was of ancient date - a name on an
ogham inscription there can be identified with
that of an early ancestor of the kings of
Conailli Muirthemne - and the annals record two
expeditions of the Ulaid thither in 577 and 578.
The genealogies say that the Irish were driven
from Man two years after Baetan's death - an
event probably connected with the annalistic
notice of Aedan mac Gabrain's victory there in
582. The genealogies further claim that
Aedan had done homage to Baetan at Rinn Seimne
(Island Magee near Larne)" - in other words,
within a few kilometres of the main Patrician
sites. This probably means that Baetan saw
the land of St.Patrick as particularly
well-omened for his own royalty. He
probably placed his dynastic and political
adventures under his protection, as his own local
saint.
Baetan's intervention in Man is
the only time the isle is mentioned in the whole
of Professor Byrne's Irish Kings and High
Kings[1]; in other words, the
only time that such an intervention is on record,
or at least that it affected Irish politics in
any way. Baetan was one of the last non-Ui
Neill kings to claim, however briefly, the title
of Tara, as well as his own provincial High
Kingship; certainly the last Ulsterman. He
was a Dal Fiatach, and his enemy Aedan was an Ui
Neill; his final defeat marked the effective end
of Ulster power. There is no other date
remotely as likely for the creation of this
legend, which blasphemes against Patrick by
putting his humble expression, "I do not
know, God knows" as the start of his
arrogant sentence of exile over Macuil; and
evidently the struggle with Aedan was so grim and
to such a purpose, that the ecclesiastics of one
of the Patrician sites, whether Armagh, Saul or
Downpatrick, felt that the cause of Baetan's
supremacy over Ireland, Scotland and Man was so
sacred that warrant for it had to be found in
sacred history.
As for the history of Man before
Baetan's intervention, we can say this: that in
the 580s, amidst a fully literate ecclesiastical
culture still dimly lit by the dying rays of the
literature of Gildas and his contemporaries, the
Irish Christian clerks of Dal Fiatach knew that
the first bishop of Man was a local whose name
they rendered as Macuil Dimane. He had been
canonically consecrated as Bishop by two British
colleagues with the decidedly non-Irish names of
Conindrus and Rumilus, and could be dated to
something like the date of St.Patrick, perhaps a
few years later - since, if we are to take the
detail of the story at all seriously, we need to
place a few years between Patrick condemning and
exiling Macuil and Conindrus and Rumilus
converting him, training him and ordaining him.
This might mean one of two estimates: if the
Irish were already in possession of the dates of
Prosper, they might have placed Macuil's
consecration in the 440-450s; if they adhered to
the earlier dating scheme knocked sideways by
Prosper, it is more apt to have been dated to
anything between the 480s and the 500s. It
must, at any rate, have been long enough for
living testimony to the nationality and
activities of Man's first bishop to die out, or
else the Irish of Dal Fiatach could not so
confidently have claimed him for an Ulaid;
therefore Macuil Dimane is best dated at least
70/80 years before Baetan's expansionistic policy
- long enough for their first bishop to become an
ecclesiastic local hero for the Christians of
Man.
There seems to be no reason to
doubt that Macuil Dimane, Conindrus and Rumilus
were historical personages (Macuil is the
St.Maughold of Manx legend); I cannot say
anything else about them, which is a pity, since
they seem to have left such a good name after
themselves in Man that even the propagandists of
their Dal Fiatach invaders did not even try to
reduce their stature and Apostolic lustre.
Note
History
of Britain, 407-597 is copyright © 2002, Fabio
P. Barbieri. Used with permission.
Comments
to: Fabio P.
Barbieri
|