The Monastic Tradition of the Early Irish Church*
In 562, St. Columba left Ireland to begin a life of
self-imposed exile, preaching and converting the Pictish peoples in what is now
Scotland. He and his fellow monks landed on the island of Iona and established
a monastery there that was destined to become a major center for the Irish
missionary impulse in the British Isles. One imagines St. Columba climbing the
mountains of Iona on a clear day and looking south across the Irish Sea toward
his homeland that, according to legend, he was never to set foot upon again.
This image of St. Columba standing on a pagan land and gazing back toward his
land of birth can be seen as emblematic of the early Irish church itself and
its missionary outgrowth during the sixth to ninth centuries. The images serves
well to suggest some of the unique characteristics of the Irish church at that
time: its insularity; its fealty to tradition; its tolerance for individual
expressions of piety; and its restless, questing nature—a characteristic shared
by both the Celtic culture in which it grew, and by the particular strain of
monasticism that so influenced its development. I would like to examine some of
the formative elements that characterized the early Irish church and suggest
some of the later influences it had on European Christianity during the sixth
to ninth centuries.
Precisely when Christianity first arrived in
Ireland, and in what form, is problematic. Eliade suggests
that Coptic missionaries had introduced Christianity to the British Isles
during the second century, and that Irish Christianity can be seen as a ‘direct
descendent of the Coptic church”. (Eliade, Bk.4, 84) Liam de Paor in his book, The Peoples of Ireland, suggests that
contact between Roman Britain, Gaul and Ireland had existed since “the first
century onwards…by trade or otherwise.” (de Paor, 38) He goes on to suggest
that contact was increasingly obvious from the end of the third century onwards
when “fashions from the Roman world began to flood into Ireland”. (38)
Christianity presumably arrived in Ireland, as well, along with Roman trade
goods. But what form early Christianity took in Ireland, and to what extent
monasticism played a role in its development is unclear. The first evidence we
have is in the oft-cited reference to the bishop Palladius being sent by Pope
Celestine I in 431 to “the Irish believing in Christ.” (Baus, 518)
What
Palladius accomplished during his time in Ireland is speculative, however his
episcopal status suggest that there may have existed some sort of Roman
parochial order within the island’s emerging Christian communities. Presumably
his role as bishop was to extend and strengthen this system, if it existed. Equally
speculative is the extent and nature of the early Irish monastic movement.
Whether it was influenced by the Coptic church or (more likely) influence by
the Gaullist monasticism of St. Martin of Tours is unknown. What is known is
that St. Patrick’s famous mission to
Ireland, following on the heels of Palladius, brought with it a standardized,
Roman system of parochial organization from Britain and Gaul. Yet within one
hundred years of Patrick’s successful mission of conversion, the dominant
ecclesiastical structure of the Christian church in Ireland was not episcopal but monastic. Somehow, the
Christian church that had grown along the lines of Roman civic organization and
had followed Roman imperial expansion into the British Isles had developed its
own unique organization in Celtic Ireland. Abbots, not Bishops were the chief
clerics of the land. Monasteries, not
metropolitan sees were the chief centers of church power. How this came about, and what effects this uniquely Irish form of
ecclesiastical order had upon European Christianity bear some examination.
Kathleen Hughes, in her study of the early Irish
church, comments on the Sixth Century monastic movements in Gaul and Britain.
She says the “churches of Gaul and Britain were…very similar in organization.
But whereas monasticism in Gaul was firmly established…there is no evidence of
any comparable movement in Britain.” (Hughes, 22) She states the heretic
Pelagius was a monk (as was Patrick) but that there existed in Britain no
monastic schools or monk-bishops like those to be found in Gaul. Why this was,
Hughes suggests, was simply a “time lag (22) between the entrenchment of
monasticism in Gaul and its export to Britain. This export of Gaullist
monasticism into Britain may also have been disrupted by the course of the barbarian
invasions in Europe which began during the fourth and fifth centuries. However
this is speculation.
The question I would ask is, if the Gaullist monastic
influence was relatively weak in Britain during this time, (which would seem to
suggest that it was weak in Ireland as well) how then to explain the dominant
position monasticism came to have in Ireland during
the sixth to the ninth centuries? In Britain, monasticism seems to have
developed within
the Roman episcopal structures reintroduced by Augustine at
the end of the Sixth Century. It seems to have developed there an orderly,
cenobitical and non-missionary structure—at least until the time of the Irish
missionary movements of the seventh and eighth centuries.
Eliade states that western monasticism was not
merely a case of “diffusion from Egypt”; that there were distinctive forms of
monasticism developing in diverse regions “almost spontaneously”. (Eliade,
Bk.10, 45) Both coenobitical and anchoritic monasticism had local roots in
Spain, Gaul, Italy and North Africa. Egypt may have been a model of
eremeticism, according to Eliade, but not its sole exporter.
Irish monasticism, too, can be seen as something
developing ‘spontaneously’. And it also had diverse forms: it was both
anchoritic and coenobitical; ascetic and scholarly; contemplative and
missionary. Thus, while the diffusion of monastic practices from Gaul or the
Loire Valley (or even Egypt) may have been responsible for initiating monasticism
in Ireland, the reasons monasticism took such a hold over the island (but not
in the rest of the British Isles) must have something to do with the nature of
the society into which Christianity and its practices were first introduced.
In her excellent study on early Irish monasticism,
Lisa Bitel outlines the basic structure of Celtic Ireland in the time of the
first Christian missionaries. Irish society was organized in kin groups or
tribes called “tuátha”. Groups ranging in size from 500 to 12000 shared a
common name and lived under a complex set of property, marriage and inheritance
laws. In Ireland, there may have been approximately 150 such tribal groupings.
Each tuátha had a king as its leader, whose primary responsibility was to
negotiate the relationship of the kin group with other groups. The first point
of note here had to do with the power of the king. In contrast to Germanic
kings, who held great authority over their respective tribes, in Ireland, the
king “enforced decisions but did not make them. He fought wars but was not
supposed to initiate them.” (Bitel, 146) Irish kings had relatively little
power in comparison to their European counterparts. As well, in Ireland there
was no great island-wide ruler. Kings and tribes vied for power but no dominant
central royal figure emerged in Ireland until the twelfth century. The fact
that authority in Ireland was diffuse, and there were no cities such as were
found in Europe, made it difficult for the early clergy to establish and
maintain Roman episcopal structures. And since there had never been roman
occupation of Ireland, there were no pre-existing roman civic models upon which
the early church could build. Hughes
states that Ireland was the first direct implantation of Christianity on a pagan
culture without the mediating influence of the Roman Empire. (Hughes, 27)
A second important factor shaping early Irish monasticism was the
complex system of property rights that existed in Celtic Ireland. The basic
unit of social organization was the extended family (“fine”). This group held
property in common so that each
member had a say in the disposal or sale of the “fine’s” land a king or “fine’
leader could not donate land to the clergy in the same manner a Gaullist or
Germanic rulers could—the land, held in common, was simply not his to give
away. Instead the practice came about of having family members join the newly
established monastic community to ensure their donated property stayed in the
family. Eventually clan members became abbots and such offices often became
hereditary, with particular clans or “fines” associated with particular
monasteries or groups of monasteries
Already we can see the advantage a monastic system would have over an episcopal
system in such a society. Monasteries could expand residential facilities and
accept more new members than could a parochial system: there could always be
new monks added to the system but places for new priests and lay clergy could
not be so readily accommodated. Compared to the local parish, monasteries were
seen by the Irish as much more accessible institutions where authority often
rested with close kin members. There was another important aspect of local
control—donated lands could have monasteries built on them and the land be kept
under some degree of control by the “fine” the land would likely retain its
productive value with the monasteries keeping it under cultivation and
benefiting the “fine” through labour and various fee arrangements. The Roman
parochial system did not easily accommodate itself into this tightly-knit web
of local property and kinship traditions. My point is that local authority
ultimately took precedence over any kind of metropolitan authority that
attempted to establish itself. Bishoprics, with distant centers of authority,
did not sit well with the Irish. The result was that traditional Celtic clan
organization became the model upon which early Irish Christianity built its
basic organizing structure rather than the Roman model ecclesiastical
organization. And it was monasticism that was most suitable to adapt itself to
this structure. Thus, in the development of Irish monasticism, we witness clan
conflict and clan rivalry; territorial disputes; property and inheritance laws
all playing a central role in the establishment of the uniquely monastic
character of the early Irish church.
This says little, however, about the type of piety
practiced by the early monks of Ireland. Irish monasticism was noted for its
acceptance of eremitical practices and anchoritic communities. Hermits and
anchorites were a common feature of monastic settlements. Often there would be
separate locations within these spiritual communities for such monks to live
and practice their ascetic rituals. Asceticism was a feature of Celtic paganism
and, as such, the presence of anchoritic monks was well received by both the
pagan and the growing native Christian populations. The piety of such monks was
perceived by the populace as being comparable to that found in the practices
honoured only a short time ago by their pagan ancestors before the arrival of
Christianity. The practice of early Irish monks withdrawing from society to
lead an isolated ascetic existence also prefigures the later tradition of the
‘wandering Irish’ or “peregrini” who were so well known on the continent. This form of
self-imposed exile to remoter parts of the countryside is a distinctive feature
of the early Irish church. It is in contrast with the monasticism of St. Martin
of Tours in Gaul that has a more contemplative and coenobitical tradition.
Interestingly, the Irish hermetical exile may have been influenced by
traditional Irish kinship laws that posited the expulsion from the kin group
for criminal activity. Because of the intricate nature of Irish kinship
organization, such expulsion must have been seen as a severe and brutal
punishment. Thus, the emerging native Irish clergy, as they took up such a
lifestyle, must have viewed the penance of separation from kin group (and late
separation from Ireland itself) as a great sacrifice and an expression of a
sincere and personal piety.
However, isolation and exile were not the only
expressions of piety open to the Irish clergy—community and missionary work
played as great a role. As I have said earlier, the complex nature of kinship
laws and property rights of native Ireland more readily accepted monasticism as
the chief ecclesiastical organization over and above the episcopal organization
of Rome. Local authority, local kinship ties, land grants, farm production
arrangements, as well as the important resources of spiritual ministry and
clerical literacy all played important roles in the establishment and growth of
monastic centers. The present-day Irish cities of Bangor, Clonfert and Armagh
were three such centers in which hundreds, even thousands, of monks and laity
lived. In these ‘spiritual towns’ were areas devoted to the practice of ascetic
piety I have mentioned, as well as reliquaries, churches, monastic schools, lay
and monastic residences, craft shops, farms and so on. These locations also
incorporated ecclesiastical administration facilities that might include the
administration of numerous monasteries located locally or at some distance from
the center. The point I wish to emphasize is the co-operative nature of the
relationship that existed between the clergy and the laity at most monastic
settlements (no matter how large). While there must always be concerns over the
course of such settlements’ spiritual growth, given the close bonds established
between the two groups, nevertheless there must have been a greater
appreciation on the part of the clergy for the role they could play in terms of
community service, given the close proximity in which religious and secular
lived and worked.
This infusion of community-based contacts from the
outset of Irish monasticism may help to explain, in part, the later missionary
movements of the Irish monks during the sixth to ninth centuries. As well, the
more isolated and contemplative discipline promoted in Gaul, under the aegis of
St. Martin, may help to explain why it was the Irish and then the Anglo-Saxon
missionaries who first established missions to re-Christianize Northern and
Eastern Europe after the barbarian invasions. The lay community was part of
early Irish monastic life in a way not found in most Western monastic
movements. Monasticism in Ireland was a ‘grass roots’/abbacy affair:
decentralized, with authority remaining in the hands of local property owners.
Irish society itself was decentralized and local in nature and as such it was
an ideal partner for a monastic Christianity. A more centralized rule and a
more structured monastic hierarchy would come only as Irish society itself
developed such organization.
In the late Sixth Century, the impulse for exile—to
leave home and do penance in searching for Christ—led St. Columba to Iona.
Earlier penitential Irish monks had journeyed on pilgrimage, both within
Ireland and across the European continent, and continued to do so. But the
Irish missionary movement may be said
to have begun with St. Columba’s establishment at Iona. Here I would like to
suggest some of the effects that the unique Christian church of Ireland may
have had upon European Christianity.
The barbarian invasions of the British Isles seemed
to have incapacitated the English church of the late Roman Empire, and it was
not until Augustine’s arrival in Canterbury near the end of the Sixth century
that the process of re-Christianizing Britain began by the English. The Irish
had already begun this process in England with St. Columba’s mission at
Pictland and Abbot Aidan’s Lindisfarne settlement in Northumbria. Clearly, by
the middle of the Seventh Century much of what is now modern Scotland had been
converted by Irish monks. During the next half century English missionary
outreach began to expand northward. Also during this time the struggle for
ecclesiastical authority between the Irish and English churches grew, with
authority being ceded in Britain to the Roman episcopal authority of Canterbury.
Meanwhile, Irish missions had begun on the continent, the most famous being the
mission of St. Columbanus. In 592, only a generation after St. Columba’s Iona
mission, Columbanus and his monks began to establish monasteries throughout the
Frankish, Germanic and Frisian kingdoms—at Luxeuil, Annegray and Peronne, for
example. In Italy Columbanus established one final monastery before his death,
at Bobbio. In all, there may have been upwards of one hundred monasteries
throughout Europe operating under the Rule of Columbanus. The monasteries
established by Columbanus and his fellow monks were often greeted with approval
by local rulers, particularly the Franks. The Merovingian rulers usually
welcomed the Irish missionaries as they had earlier welcomed the Irish
pilgrims—both for their piety and for the advantages to be gained in having a
new religious presence in their countries to counter-balance the authority of
the established local clergy. It must be remembered that the establishment of
new monasteries in Europe dedicated to a more rigorous piety, and practicing
more direct pastoral care and actively converting pagans comes at a time of
general spiritual impoverishment and ennui found during the twilight years of
Merovingian rule. The very fact of Irish missions prove a stimulus; first to
Anglo-Saxons who experienced Irish piety directly then to the Frankish church.
The Irish missionaries were also welcomed by the early Carolingian rulers, and
in some respects the introduction of centers of Irish piety within the
Carolingian empire may have done much to fuel the later Carolingian church
reforms that sought a broad, church-wide renewal in spiritual values.
Further Irish influences can be seen in the rich
tradition of manuscript production, both within Ireland and in continental
Irish monasteries. The Irish schools practiced a high standard of academic
excellence, promoting Latin writing and copying secular and religious works.
This excellence in scholarly aspects of monasticism may have had something to do
with the original eclecticism of Irish monasteries—with the wide range of
people and skills found in them. As a result, Irish monasteries achieved a high
level of proficiency in Latin grammar, manuscript illumination, gold and metal
work, wood and stone carving and so on. As well, the rule of Columbanus,
private confessions, Irish penitential practices and “Vision” literature also
had their influences on European Christianity. Perhaps the greatest effect of
the Irish church lay in its influence upon the Carolingian reformers whose
exposure to, and familiarity with, Irish piety laid the ground work for major
church reforms of the ensuing centuries.
But the Irish church, it seems, was too
idiosyncratic, too decentralized to make lasting institutional changes in its
own right upon the course European Christianity. It would be up to ‘mainstream’
Benedictines and the great papal reformers for that. For example, during the
course of the Carolingian empire, all the monastic houses operating under the
Rule of Columbanus adopted the Benedictine Rule. And Viking invasions into
Ireland may have blunted some of the missionary ‘zeal’; or perhaps it was Irish
reformers, the ascetic Culdees as one example, or the growing centralization of
Irish political and episcopal power that acted to limit the missionary
enthusiasm of the Irish monastic movement.
Nevertheless it was this enthusiasm with which the
Irish monastics first became known to the world and it was because of this enthusiasm that they
were most respected.
Works Cited
Bitel, Lisa M.
Isle of the Saint: Monastic Settlement
and Christian Community in Early Ireland. Cornell University Press. New
York, 1990
Baus, Karl and
Hans-Geog Beck. History of the Church,
vol.II. The Crossroad Publishing Company Ltd. N.Y., 1985
Hughes,
Kathleen. The Church in Early Irish
Society. Metheun and company Ltd. London, 1966
De Paor, Liam.
The Peoples of Ireland: From Prehistory
to Modern Times. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame, Indiana, 1986.
Latourette,
Kenneth Scott. A History of the expansion
of Christianity, vol.2. Harper and Brothers Publishers, New Youk, 1938.
Whitelock, D
and R. MckKitterrick, Eds. Ireland in
Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge, 1982
Bieler,
Ludwig. Ireland: Harbinger of the Middle
Ages. Oxford University Press. London, 1963.
PROF'S COMMENTS: This is excellent, a fascinating, in-depth, thorough account. One problem—and it’s a big one: you present a great deal of information, upon which you base your conclusions, yet the information passes WITHOUT proper source citation. Footnoting (or some other citation practice) serves 2 purposes: it gives the reader specific references, to check facts or even to pursue a point further; it separates your “fact pool” from the conclusions you draw from it. Tedious, yes, but necessary. Otherwise, GREAT job: you demonstrate a very high quality of thought here, based on very extensive research.
*I wrote this during the stone age, back at university. Thought I would put it up in case anyone might be interested. It not, rebury it under the cairn.
No comments:
Post a Comment