Are we actually celebrating a slave trader?

Ellis Dee

:eek:

I remember the stories in school about St. Patrick being kidnapped by Irish pirates and made to work as a slave herding pigs in Co. Antrim. Then, after learning the language and escaping back to his homeland, becoming a priest and having a dream and going back to Ireland to put them on the road to salvation.:D

Yadda, yadda, yadda. A nice tale, but told by an organisation that, to put it mildly, falls a bit short in the credibility department.:rolleyes:

Now some researchers in Cambridge have come up with a new theory, according to which Patrick wasn't a slave at all, but a slave trader. I can't wait for the outburst of indignation from certain quarters, along the lines of "Next they'll be denying he drove the snakes out of Ireland!";)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/slave-trader-or-saint-doubt-over-patricks-origins-3053413.html

THE popular legend that St Patrick was a slave taken to Ireland by force is untrue, according to researchers in England, who claim he was actually a slave trader.
---
But a new study by Cambridge University dismisses this as "fiction" and argues the saint fled to Ireland deliberately to avoid becoming a Roman tax collector and took up a job as a slave trader instead.
The study has been published to coincide with today's St Patrick's Day celebrations.
Patrick's own father, Calpornius, was a Decurion, a Roman official responsible for tax collection.
But he exploited a bail-out clause in Roman law that allowed him to leave his post by joining the clergy on the condition the role was passed to his son. According to the study, once St Patrick was faced with the obligation to become a Decurion he chose to emigrate to Ireland.
The study also claims there is a good chance St Patrick became a slave trader as Ireland did not have a monetary economy. This means he most likely bought slaves in England and then used them to trade when he moved to Ireland, researchers have claimed
At the time slaves were also relatively easy to transport and experts believe St Patrick would have converted his family's wealth into slaves.

Fiction
Dr Roy Flechner, research fellow at Cambridge University's Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic (ASNC), said the traditional story of St Patrick was "likely to be fiction".
"In the troubled era in which Patrick lived, which saw the demise and eventual collapse of Roman government in Britain in 410, discharging the obligations of a Decurion, especially tax collecting, would not only have been difficult but also very risky," Dr Flechner said.
"It may seem strange that a Christian cleric of Patrick's stature would own slaves, but in late antiquity and the early middle ages the church was a major slave owner -- early medieval Irish legal texts regulate the church's ownership of slaves.
"The traditional story that Patrick was kidnapped from Britain, forced to work as a slave, but managed to escape and reclaim his status, is likely to be fiction.
"The traditional legend was instigated by Patrick himself in the letters he wrote, because this is how he wanted to be remembered.
"Escaped slaves had no legal status and could be killed or recaptured by anyone. The probability Patrick managed to cross from his alleged place of captivity in western Ireland back to Britain undetected, at a time when transportation was extremely complicated, is highly unlikely," Dr Flechner added.
- Stephen Cummings

It may initially seem hard to imagine the church as a slave-owner, but let us not forget the example of the Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and operated until only a few decades ago.:D

racso1975

there is a religious element to this day? I call bs!!!!!!

mattjack

Meh .. National Slave Trader Day....yeah ok.

Jesus Wept

He did a lot of good work regarding the snakes, to give him his dues.

Ellis Dee

The-Rigger wrote: »

He did a lot of good work regarding the snakes, to give him his dues.

Pity he didn't get rid of the two-legged ones while he was at it.:)

Badly Drunk Boy

Sounds a bit dodgy. Not that I'm clinging to the stories we were told in school but...nah. Sounds like people trying to be controversial.

MungBean

Always knew there was something odd bout that fella alright.

44leto

Perspective OP perspective God has forgiven his transgressions on account if it wasn't for him we would be all heathen and pagan protestants.

Archeron

You can herd pigs?? I'm outraged.

forfuxsake

Ellis Dee wrote: »

:eek:

It may initially seem hard to imagine the church as a slave-owner, but let us not forget the example of the Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and operated until only a few decades ago.:D

not at all.

Plazaman

Bring back slave trading I say, there could be jobs in it and it'd be good for the economy.

Happy St Slave Traders Day everybody.

Mr. Loverman

I hope this story turns out to be 100% true so...absolutely nothing will change.

the keen edge

Ellis Dee wrote: »

It may initially seem hard to imagine the church as a slave-owner, but let us not forget the example of the Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and operated until only a few decades ago.:D

If by It may initially seem you actually mean It's not at all, I'd agree with you.

El Horseboxo

So St. Patrick was real? Always thought he was in the same category as leprechauns and jobs in Ireland.

Wibbs

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Sounds a bit dodgy. Not that I'm clinging to the stories we were told in school but...nah. Sounds like people trying to be controversial.

It does indeed. Patrick in his own writings heavily condemned slavery as an institution and even threatened excommunication on slavers when some of his "flock" were taken in a slave raid. He was very anti slavery. As were many local clerics who came after him. This was a cultural shock to a society where slavery and slave raiding was a given. Even so slavery of the old kind dropped off massively in the wake of his and other local Irish church missions.

Now one could argue as the researchers have that he changed his tune as this is how he wanted to be remembered. However that is hard to square with the fact that slavery at the time wasn't considered morally repugnant by the church or any of the societies within the church. In that cultural background a better rejig of his story would have been to claim he was a slave trader who saw the light. Even that would be odd given the church he belonged to wouldn't have seen it as a big moral improvement. More they would have seen it as somewhat controversial and would see his actual anti slavery rants as really controversial, because he was strongly suggesting a large scale active business of the Roman church was immoral.

Indeed he and the early Irish church were pretty much alone in this in the larger church. The article points out that the church was heavily involved in the practice(no great shock given they were Romans). Good example of this is the story of why the pope sent Augustine to England to convert same(a bit too late mind you. We were there for over a century doing it). Said pope was wandering through the slave market in Rome where he spied two young children. He remarked on their beauty and asked where they were from. He was told they were "Angles". He made a jokey word play saying they looked like Angels and should be brought into the faith as a people. A couple of things stand out from this. 1) The pope was a shít comedian and no Oscar Wilde. 2) they openly held slave markets in Catholic Rome and didn't see it as a moral problem even where young kids were concerned and 3) there's no mention of him freeing these children. Not so surprising given the Jesus himself makes no direct mention of the morality or not of slavery.

Plus how does "At the time slaves were also relatively easy to transport" square with "at a time when transportation was extremely complicated"? Go back to your research lads and apply some logic and common sense.

Mr. Loverman

Wibbs wrote: »

Patrick in his own writings heavily condemned slavery as an institution and even threatened excommunication on slavers when some of his "flock" were taken in a slave raid.

I was at a recent event run by the government of an African country (don't want to mention exactly what or who so I am staying vague on purpose) which was about how corruption is bad and how they think this and that and will do this and that about corruption. The politicians doing the talking were some of the most corrupt feckers you could meet.

So writing something while doing something else isn't exactly uncommon.

Sunnyisland

I dont care now what he was,Happy St patrick's day to you all,It must be one of the very few days that the majority agree on being Irish & happy.Its just one day,enjoy it :-)

Wibbs

El Horseboxo wrote:

So St. Patrick was real?

Yep, though the snakes and shamrock stuff were later additions. It seems there were two "patricks" as well. An earlier one and the one we know of today that wrote his experiences. They appear to have become mixed together as one story.

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

I was at a recent event run by the government of an African country (don't want to mention exactly what or who so I am staying vague on purpose) which was about how corruption is bad and how they think this and that and will do this and that about corruption. The politicians doing the talking were some of the most corrupt feckers you could meet.

So writing something while doing something else isn't exactly uncommon.

Oh so true Mr L, but you have to take into account the mindset of the writers at the time. Today most of us, well we're pretty meh about religious faith. This was very different back then. They believed in reality of this stuff the way you or I would believe in the reality of gravity. This would go double for "born again" missionary types. Especially one like Patrick who was going beyond the borders of the "Pax Romana" into a wild land.

Plus like I said the Church he was pledging his very life to with the real good chance of losing same promoting it was perfectly OK with slavery and it made up much of their coffers.

To take your example and cloak it in the times, it would be like the same African leaders all being very open about corruption and being big into promoting it as a good thing and one leader at the end coming out strongly agin it.

Mr. Loverman

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh so true Mr L, but you have to take into account the mindset of the writers at the time. Today most of us, well we're pretty meh about religious faith. This was very different back then. They believed in reality of this stuff the way you or I would believe in the reality of gravity. This would go double for "born again" missionary types. Especially one like Patrick who was going beyond the borders of the "Pax Romana" into a wild land.

Plus like I said the Church he was pledging his very life to with the real good chance of losing same promoting it was perfectly OK with slavery and it made up much of their coffers.

To take your example and cloak it in the times, it would be like the same African leaders all being very open about corruption and being big into promoting it as a good thing and one leader at the end coming out strongly agin it.

Slave trader denialist！

who the fug

Calpornius

What information have we got on this guy, thought the only paper we have by someone called patrick is his reply to charges brought by the chuch against him.

did he mention his father in that letter

theteal

so does this mean we can still get pished and watch the egg chasing later?????

senorwipesalot

What did St. Patrick say as he was driving the snakes out of Ireland?




Are ye alright back there snakes.

Sindri

Wibbs wrote: »

Even that would be odd given the church he belonged to wouldn't have seen it as a big moral improvement. More they would have seen it as somewhat controversial and would see his actual anti slavery rants as really controversial, because he was strongly suggesting a large scale active business of the Roman church was immoral.

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

Doc Ruby

Sindri wrote: »

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

Indeed, there are all sorts of murky facts when you start digging - the "celtic cross" for example was used as a religious symbol going back well into the bronze age. Rome surely didn't like us.

Anyways if the Cambridge lads are that jealous they can start international England day and everyone can sit around drinking tea and complaining about the quality of the dentists.

tweedledee

Wasn't "Saint " Patrick, Welsh?????? The Irish are like the Chinese, take another countries product, give it a wee tweek and say its theirs. Ohh except the Chinese will do a lot of hard work for a little amount of money whereas the Irish will do very little work for a lot of money.......;)

woodoo

Pure guess work by the university. It doesn't matter what they say. These academics are given far too much credence anyway.

cloptrop

Fecking protestants trying to bash my church again, thats all this is , speculation , go way with yerselves and get your own drunkfuelled orgy of a day.
Still a bit sore about not getting to have confirmation I reckon.

Slaves were traded at the time so he was a slave trader

He was a snake herder now feck off and leave him alone , hes not Jebadiah Springfield.

The-Rigger

The-Rigger wrote: »

He did a lot of good work regarding the snakes, to give him his dues.

Yeah, but he kicked out the poor moles too.

Wibbs

Sindri wrote: »

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

Dunno about that S. Many of the early writings are making attempts to connect Ireland and the Irish with the larger roman church and it's backstory. Many of the clerics made the journey to Rome to bring back books and such. Fiannan(colmcilles mentor) was one off the top of my head.

Columbanus went to Rome too. He probably summed up the Irish church attitude I reckon. He was deeply respectful to and loved the "mother church", but also wasn't afraid to ignore them or raise questions/holy hell over it's dodgy practices as he saw them come up. He was a rebel, but from within. He didn't want to hurt the church, but reckoned he could save it from itself. He seems to have had a particular venom reserved for bishops who sat on their holes safe in their towns while he was off founding monasteries all over the place. In fairness he was a bit of a hard arse on the ascetic front. He'd make Buddha look like a pissed desolute. He tended to piss off local rulers too. He had a few prices on his head in his time. I've no religion in me personally but I always admired him and guys like Colmcille and Brendan the navigator. Real balls to the wall guys. No way were they "father wishy washy" at all. Kow towing to the status quo, theologically and physically was something that went against their grain and they weren't afraid of pointing this out to commoner, king or pope. Better yet they didn't just bitch about things they actually changed things for the better in the institution they followed. That's the biggy. Without the early Irish church private confession as Catholic folks know it today would not be around.

Never mind the literature and learning they saved and copied like mad things. Not just theological stuff either. Classical works of Rome and the like. That did raise eyebrows in others. The venerable Bede in Britain noted these "fancies" the Irish monks were copying, while pointing out that an Irish education was the best there was. An education that they gave away for free. Quite unlike most of the rest of Europe at the time. If you made it here they'd feed you and teach you. They were big into open source knowledge.

EG have a read of Colmcille's defence in the first known copyright case in history. Backstory: Colm's mentor Finnian brought a holy book back from Rome. He guarded same fiercely. Oul Colm thought "fcuk that Ted, it needs to be shared with all". So in the dead of night he sneaks in grabs the book and copies it. Finnian catches him and has a shítfit over this and brings it to the high king.

Colmcille wrote:

My friend’s claim seeks to apply a worn out law to a new reality. Books are different to other possessions and the law should recognise this. Learned men like us, who have received a new heritage of knowledge through books, have an obligation to spread that knowledge, by copying and distributing those books far and wide. I haven’t used up Finnian’s book by copying it. He still has the original and that original is none the worse for my having copied it. Nor has it decreased in value because I made a transcript of it. The knowledge in books should be available to anybody who wants to read them and has the skills or is worthy to do so; and it is wrong to hide such knowledge away or to attempt to extinguish the divine things that books contain. It is wrong to attempt to prevent me or anyone else from copying it or reading it or making multiple copies to disperse throughout the land. In conclusion I submit that it was permissible for me to copy the book because, although I benefited from the hard work involved in the transcription, I gained no worldly profit from the process, I acted for the good of society in general and neither Finnian nor his book were harmed.

*

Bear in mind folks this is from the mid sixth bloody century. Deep in the so called dark ages. I love how he makes the point about how you can't apply old laws to new technology. He could have been speaking about the internet and copyright law today. So the next time you or you see someone write on torrents/music, film piracy and the like and say "it's not stealing as the original is unharmed etc", your fellow paddy from 1400 odd years ago was well ahead of the curve and would likely have signed the recent anti Sherlock's law petition.

The kings response was fairly modern too, though from the other angle

King Diarmaid wrote:

I don’t know where you get your fancy new ideas about people’s property. Wise men have always described the copy of a book as a child-book. This implies that someone who owns the parent-book also owns the child-book. To every cow its calf, to every book its child-book. The child-book belongs to Finnian.

The airy fairy stuff of the land of saints and scholars we got in school and in the media barely scratches the surface of what these guys and gals(Brigid a classic example) were responsible for, both in Ireland and throughout Europe. Even little things... The next time you say it's 6 or whatever o clock, consider that the word "clock" comes from the Irish word for "bell". The bell that rang the hours from monasteries.






*I know I'm odd , but I got a bit of a thrill from putting Colmcille's name into vbulletins quote tags. I reckon he'd get a thrill from that too.

Hande hoche!

cloptrop wrote: »

Fecking protestants trying to bash my church again, thats all this is , speculation , go way with yerselves and get your own drunkfuelled orgy of a day.
Still a bit sore about not getting to have confirmation I reckon.



He was a snake herder now feck off and leave him alone , hes not Jebadiah Springfield.

Is it not first communion?

44leto

So it was Patrick who enslaved us into the catholic church and now after 1800 years of their rule we are finally unshackling ourselves,,huzzar.

Fratton Fred

44leto wrote: »

So it was Patrick who enslaved us into the catholic church and now after 1800 years of their rule we are finally unshackling ourselves,,huzzar.

Actually, it was the English.

Well, the Norman English anyway.

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Anyways if the Cambridge lads are that jealous they can start international England day and everyone can sit around drinking tea and complaining about the quality of the dentists.

Sounds like an average day at Eircom.

44leto

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actually, it was the English.

Well, the Norman English anyway.

Actually they came later.

Doc Ruby

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds like an average day at Eircom.

Ah now I know its early yet but surely you can do better Fred, generations of slandered English dentists are depending on you to uphold their good name!

Keith186

Ellis Dee wrote: »

:eek:

I remember the stories in school about St. Patrick being kidnapped by Irish pirates and made to work as a slave herding pigs in Co. Antrim. Then, after learning the language and escaping back to his homeland, becoming a priest and having a dream and going back to Ireland to put them on the road to salvation.:D

Yadda, yadda, yadda. A nice tale, but told by an organisation that, to put it mildly, falls a bit short in the credibility department.:rolleyes:

Now some researchers in Cambridge have come up with a new theory, according to which Patrick wasn't a slave at all, but a slave trader. I can't wait for the outburst of indignation from certain quarters, along the lines of "Next they'll be denying he drove the snakes out of Ireland!";)

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/slave-trader-or-saint-doubt-over-patricks-origins-3053413.html

It may initially seem hard to imagine the church as a slave-owner, but let us not forget the example of the Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and operated until only a few decades ago.:D

That's BS. Everyone knows he's our Patron Saint of Drinking.

Den_M

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Patrick wasn't a slave at all, but a slave trader

Get out! You're banned from this historical society. You and your children, and your children's children...for three months

megafan

Sindri wrote: »

The early Irish church though wasn't affiliated with Rome, in fact some believe it to have been opposed to Rome.

The early Christian church was more than likely affiliated to the other part of the Roman Empire Constantinople, the "Orthodox church".. late in the life of the Roman empire it split in two & long after Rome fell Constantinople continued on successfully for centuries & as the sea was the way to travel at that time the costal part of western Europe was relatively easily accessible... At the time of the Norman invasion 1170ish the Pope Rome was sponsoring them (The Normans) to bring the "true" church to ungodly Irish & in actual fact the hierarchy & set up of the modern Irish church dates from this period... & maybe the "New Roman" church used the myth of St Patrick on the Irish populace to make it seem the same management was in control??:rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Ah now I know its early yet but surely you can do better Fred, generations of slandered English dentists are depending on you to uphold their good name!

I've never met a dentist with a good name, so I'll have to disappoint you there.

Fratton Fred

44leto wrote: »

Actually they came later.

See above.

ejmaztec

Plazaman wrote: »

Bring back slave trading I say, there could be jobs in it and it'd be good for the economy.

Happy St Slave Traders Day everybody.

They did bring slavery back, but the slaves are now called interns.

jill_valentine

Plazaman wrote: »

Bring back slave trading I say, there could be jobs in it and it'd be good for the economy.

Happy St Slave Traders Day everybody.

http://www.jobbridge.ie/

Den_M wrote: »

Get out! You're banned from this historical society. You and your children, and your children's children...for three months

You guys, this post deserved a much bigger laugh.

44leto

Fratton Fred wrote: »

See above.

See Wiki
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSaint_Patrick&ei=T4dkT6baF5GyhAer88WKCA&usg=AFQjCNH79e0xLzRW-zwcJwiy_otX8rSkYA&sig2=MkrZzfS_lKilmWYoK5PZlg

Patrick came to Ireland somewhere between 360 to 480 predating the Normans by at least 500 years. Catholicism did come later, but our own form of pagan/Christianity was routed in that time.

ejmaztec

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

jill_valentine

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Hear hear. Animal powers are much cooler.

Sunnyisland

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Sure if we didn't have St patrick who would we have named all those babies after Ireland without its paddies ...never

Doc Ruby

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever St Patrick was, he did more damage to Ireland than anyone else ever did. Bring back the pagans.

Now yer talkin. If I get to say "By Crom's balls!" without having to be quoting a movie, I'm in.

suicide_circus

woodoo wrote: »

Pure guess work by the university. It doesn't matter what they say. These academics are given far too much credence anyway.

Bingo. So much of this historical academia is just conjecture and completely unproveable and as such, pretty pointless, its just a lot of eternal students living off the state (through grants, bursaries or being lecturers/proffs) and they occasionally have to release a piece or controversial guess work to justify their existence.

DEFTLEFTHAND

suicide_circus wrote: »

Bingo. So much of this historical academia is just conjecture and completely unproveable and as such, pretty pointless, its just a lot of eternal students living off the state (through grants, bursaries or being lecturers/proffs) and they occasionally have to release a piece or controversial guess work to justify their existence.

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

cloptrop

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Is it not first communion?

The minor details arnt whats important here, we have better sacrements and holidays than them , they are jealous. Thats whats important.

bonzodog2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've never met a dentist with a good name, so I'll have to disappoint you there.

My dentist when I was a kid was Mr. Head. I thought that was a good name !