POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONDITION OF IRELAND
Nowhere more conspicuously than in Ireland have secular institutions
determined the manner in which the Christian religion spread and
increased. The introduction of that religion effected no social
revolution; it introduced new ideas and a new profession, but society
steadily remained in the primitive stage of tribal organisation for more
than a thousand years after the island had become part of Christendom.[56]
Ireland was divided into a large number of small districts, each of
which was owned by a tribe,[57] the aggregate of a number of clans or
families which believed that they were descended from a common ancestor.
At the head of the tribe was a “king,” who was elected from a certain
family. Below the king were four social grades within the tribe. There
were the nobles,[58] who were distinguished by the possession of land.
These were the only members of the tribe, besides the king, who had land
of their own. After them came those who had wealth in cattle and other
movable property,[59] but were only tenants of the land on which they
lived. Below these were freemen, who had no property either in soil or
in cattle, but farmed lands for which they paid rent. The lowest grade
consisted of herds and labourers of various kinds, who were not freemen,
but were regarded as members of the tribe and entitled to its protection.
There was also another class of slaves who did not belong to the tribe,
consisting of strangers—such as fugitives, bought slaves, and captives.
Patrick belonged to this class, _fudirs_ as they were called, in the days
of his bondage.
Originally all the land must have belonged to the tribe. But at the time
with which we are concerned, part of the arable land was the private
property of the king and the nobles. There were, however, certain
restrictions on this proprietorship which show that, theoretically, all
the land was still considered as in a certain sense tribal. The chief of
these was that the proprietor could not alienate his land without the
consent of the tribe.
[Sidenote: IRISH TRIBES AND KINGDOMS]
The limits of these small tribal kingdoms can be still approximately
traced, for they are represented, for the most part, by the baronies of
the modern map, and the names of the baronies in many cases preserve the
names of the tribes. The inspection of a map on which the baronies are
marked will convey a general idea of the number and size of the small
kingdoms which formed the political units of the island. These kingdoms
varied greatly in size; the tribes varied in numbers and importance.
But each kingdom, whether large or small, managed its own affairs. The
self-government of the tribes, and the complicated organisation of the
clans and families within them, were the most important and fundamental
social facts. But the tribal units were grouped together loosely in a
political organisation of an elaborate kind, consisting in degrees of
overlordship.
Thus the king of Cashel was king over all the kingdoms of Munster; the
under-kings owed him tribute and service in war, and he had certain
obligations to them.[60] The king of Connaught and the king of Laigin
held the same position in regard to the kings of those provinces, and the
King of Tara exercised similar overlordship over the kings of Meath. But
the king of Tara was also overlord of all the kings of Ireland, and his
superior position was designated by the title “Árd-rí,” High King.
The kings of Cashel, Connaught, and Laigin are usually described as
provincial kings. For the island was regarded as consisting of five
provinces or “fifths.” Connaught, Mumen, and “Ultonia” corresponded,
with some minor differences, to Connaught, Munster, and Ulster of the
modern map; while Leinster represents the two remaining fifths, Laigin
in the south and Meath in the north. But it does not appear that in
historical times there was any king who held the same position in the
province of Ulster which the king of Cashel held in Munster. The northern
province consisted of three large kingdoms, which seem to have been
wholly independent, Aileach, Oriel, and Ulaid.[61] The kings of these
territories were all alike overlords of under-kings; they were all alike
subject to the High King; but they were as independent of one another as
they were of the king of Connaught. The king of Ulaid was not under the
king of Aileach, as the king of Thomond or the king of Ossory was under
the king of Cashel.[62]
[Sidenote: SYSTEM OF IRISH KINGDOMS]
Ireland then was organised, theoretically, in an ascending scale of
kings and over-kings. There was the High King at the head of all. Below
him were six over-kings, the king of Cashel, the king of Connaught,
the king of Laigin, the king of Aileach, the king of Ulaid, and the
king of Oriel. Below these were the tribal kings, but in some cases
there were intermediate grades, kings who were overlords of several
small territories. For example, several of the small kingdoms in north
Munster formed an intermediate group, the kingdom of Thomond. It is
clear that this system must have grown up by degrees through conquest,
and one remarkable practice illustrates its origin. It was the habit of
the over-kings to take hostages from the under-kings, as a surety for
the fulfilment of their obligations. This was such an important feature
of the political system that a house for the custody of hostages was
an almost indispensable addition to a royal palace. The “mound of the
hostages” is still shown at Tara.[63]
But though the general theory of the system is clear, it would be
difficult to say how far it was a reality at any particular period, or
how far the elaborate scheme of obligations and counter-obligations,
binding on the kings of all ranks, was intended to be enforced. The
ceaseless warfare which marks the annals of Ireland suggests that these
bonds were a cause of trouble rather than a source of union.
[Sidenote: INFLUENCE OF THE KINGS]
Of the political relations existing in Ireland in the fifth century we
know practically nothing. The most important fact seems to be that the
descendants of King Eochaid,[64] and particularly the family of his
son Niall, both of whom had been High Kings, were winning a decided
preponderance in the northern half of the island. When Patrick came to
Ireland, a son of Niall was on the throne of Tara; his cousin was king
of Connaught; one of his sons gave an abiding name to a large territory
in north Ulster;[65] other sons were kings of lesser kingdoms in Meath.
Family connexions of this kind were no permanent, or even immediate,
guarantee of union; but it is probable that at this time, through the
predominance of his near kindred, a prudent High King, such as Loigaire,
son of Niall, seems to have been, may have been able to exert more
effectual and far-reaching influence than many of his forerunners and
successors. We shall have occasion to observe that his reign seems
to have been a relatively peaceful period, if such an epithet can be
applied to any epoch of Irish history. Whatever may have been the
measure of the High King’s authority, it was unquestionably desirable
for the new bishop, in pursuing his designs, to secure his favour or
neutrality. But the political situation and the mutual relations of the
higher potentates had, we may fairly surmise, no decisive or serious
effect on the prospects of the religion which was now about to become
firmly established in the land. Those prospects depended mainly, if not
entirely, upon gaining the tribal kings and the heads of families. The
king of Ulidia, or the King of Ireland himself, might suffer or encourage
the strange worship in his own immediate territory, might himself embrace
the faith, but beyond that he could only recommend it; and though his
example might indeed do much, he could not force any under-king and his
tribe to tolerate the presence of a Christian community in their borders.
It was not political relations but the tribal system and economic
conditions that claimed the study of a bishop who came not merely to
make individual converts, but to build up a sacerdotal society. A church
and a priesthood must have means of support, and in a country where
wealth consisted in land and cattle it was plain that, if the church was
to become a stable and powerful institution, its priests and ministers
must have lands secured for their use. But land could be obtained only
through the goodwill of those who possessed it, and therefore it was
impossible to plant a church in any territory until some noble who owned
a private estate had been persuaded to accept the Christian baptism
and to make a grant of land for ecclesiastical use, with his tribe’s
consent. The conversion of the landless classes, slaves, or farmers, or
even the lords of herds, could not lead to the foundation of churches
and the maintenance of sacerdotal institutions. The success of Patrick’s
enterprise depended on the kings of the tribes and the chiefs of the
clans.
There was another reason also why Christianity could not hope to make
considerable progress until the heads of society had been converted.
Strong tribal sentiment, expressed in the devotion of the tribesmen to
the king of the tribe, of the clansmen to the chief of the clan, was the
most powerful social bond; and while, if a chief accepted the new faith,
his clan would generally follow his example, it was not likely that if he
rejected it many of his followers would dissociate themselves from his
action. Thus on every account the process of establishing the Christian
worship and priesthood in Ireland must begin from above and not from
below.
We know little of the religious beliefs and cults in Ireland which the
Christian faith aspired to displace. If there was any one divinity who
was revered and worshipped throughout the land it was probably the sun.
There seem to have been no temples, but there were altars in the open
air, and idols were worshipped, especially in the form of pillar-stones.
Various gods and goddesses play a part in the tales of Irish mythology,
but it is not known whether any of these beings was honoured by a cult.
There was no priesthood, and it seems certain that there was no organised
religion which could be described as national.
[Sidenote: HEATHEN CULTS]
Heathenism of such a kind could oppose no formidable resistance to the
weapons of such a force as the organised religion which had swept the
Roman Empire. Heathenism is naturally tolerant; and, when there is no
powerful sacerdotal order jealous of its privileges and monopoly, a new
superstition is readily entertained. It must be admitted as probable that
the morality which the Christian faith enjoins, and the hopes which it
offers, would hardly have appealed to heathen peoples or taken possession
of their minds if it had not engaged their imaginations by mysteries
and rites. It was, above all, these mysterious rites—baptism, without
which the body and soul were condemned to everlasting torment, and the
mystical ceremony which is known as the Eucharist—that stamped the
religion as genuine in the eyes of barbarians. And it is to be observed
that Christianity, while it demanded that its converts should abandon
heathen observances and heathen cults, did not require them to surrender
their belief in the existence of the beings whom they were forbidden to
worship. They were only required to regard those beings in a new light,
as maleficent demons. For the Christians themselves, even the highest
authorities in the Church, were as superstitious as the heathen. The
belief in the _sidhe_, or fairies, which was universal in Ireland, was
not affected by Christianity, and survives at the present day. Thus the
spreading of the new religion was facilitated by the circumstance that
it made no attempt to root out the heathen superstitions as intellectual
absurdities, but only aimed at transcending and transforming them, so
that fear of deities should be turned into hatred of demons.
[Sidenote: DRUIDISM AND SORCERY]
The chief pretenders to the possession of wizardry and powers of
divination in Ireland were the Druids,[66] who correspond, but not in all
respects, to the Druids of Gaul. They joined to their supernatural lore
innocent secular learning, skill in poetry, and knowledge of the laws
and history of their country. They gave the kings advice and educated
their children. The high value which was attached to their counsels
rested naturally on their prophetic powers. They practised divination
in various forms, with inscribed rods of yew, for instance, or by means
of magic wheels.[67] They could raise the winds, cover the plains with
darkness, create envelopes of vapour,[68] which rendered those who moved
therein invisible. Though learned in things divine, they did not form a
sacerdotal class; and in their religious functions they might be compared
rather to augurs than to priests. It was their habit to shave their heads
in front from ear to ear and to wear white garments. It was inevitable
that these men should be unfriendly to the introduction of new beliefs
which threatened their own position, since it condemned the practice
of divination and those kindred arts on which their eminent power was
based. But their opposition could not be effective, because they had no
organisation.
The fact, then, that the Christian Church, by its recognition of demons
as an actual power with which it had to cope, stood in this respect on
the same intellectual plane as the heathen, was an advantage in the task
of diffusing the religion. The belief in demons as a foe with which the
Church had to deal was expressed officially in the institution of a
clerical order called exorcists, whose duty it was, by means of formulae,
to exorcise devils at baptism.[69] Patrick had exorcists in his train,
and it was not unimportant that the Christian, going forth to persuade
the heathen, had such equipments of superstition. He was able to meet the
heathen sorcerer on common ground because he believed in the sorceries
which he condemned.[70] He was as fully convinced as the pagan that
the powers of magicians were real, but he knew that those powers were
strictly limited, whereas the power of his own God was limitless. Patrick
could never have said to an Irish wizard, as children of enlightenment
would now say, “Your magic is imposture; your spells cannot really raise
spirits or control the forces of nature; you cannot foretell what is to
come.” He would have said, “Yes, you can do such miracles by the aid of
evil powers, but those powers are subject to a good power whose religion
I preach, and are impotent except through his permission.” This point of
mental agreement between the Christian priest and the heathen whom he
regarded as benighted, their common belief in the efficacy of sorcery,
though they put different interpretations on its conditions,[71] was
probably not an insignificant aid in the propagation of the Christian
religion. It may be said, more generally, that if Christianity had
offered to men only its new theological doctrine with the hope of
immortal life and its new ethical ideals, if it had come simple and
unadorned, without an armoury of mysteries, miracles, and rites, if it
had risen to the height of rejecting magic not because it was wicked but
because it was absurd, it could never have won half the world.
[Sidenote: PROPHECY OF THE DRUIDS]
It was natural that the spread of new religious ideas should excite the
misgivings of the Druids, but so long as the new doctrine was professed
only here and there in isolated households, they could hardly gauge its
force or estimate the danger. It is not unlikely that shortly before
the coming of Palladius they awoke to the fact that a faith, opposed
to their own interests, was gaining ground, for, at the same time, the
Christian communities were discovering that they deserved and required
a bishop and an ecclesiastical organisation. The apprehension of the
Druids may be reflected in a prophecy attributed to the wizards of the
High King. They foretold that a foreign doctrine would seduce the people,
overthrow kings, and subvert the old order of things, and they designated
the preacher of the doctrine in these oracular words:[72] “Adzehead
will come with a crook-head staff; in his house, with hole-head robe,
he will chant impiety from his table; from the front (eastern) part of
his house all his household will respond, So be it, so be it.” It would
not be legitimate to build any theory on an alleged prophecy, when we
cannot control its date. But we may admit, without hesitation, that this
ancient verse, which was assuredly composed by a pagan, contains nothing
inconsistent with the tradition that it was current before the coming
of Patrick. There is nothing to stamp it as an oracle _post eventum_.
The knowledge which it shows of Christian usages was accessible to the
Druids, inasmuch as Christianity was already known, had already won
converts, in Ireland. And if, as we have seen reason to believe, the
Christians of Ireland negotiated for the appointment of a bishop a year
or two before the sending of Palladius, there would be no difficulty
in supposing that the Druids at this juncture, aware that a leader was
expected, expressed their apprehensions in this form. But whatever be the
truth about the oracle, whether it circulated in the mouths of men before
the appearance of Palladius and Patrick, or was first declared at a later
period, it possesses historical significance as reflecting the agitation
of heathenism, roused at length to alarm at the growth of the foreign
worship.