Well he didn’t do that, but it might have been using him as an explanation for the conversion of Ireland at large. Remember Ireland had already seen some serious Christianization by this point. That and Christian Ireland was not so complete a transition as in other places. The Irish actually brought Latin to the Saxons and their eventual english language, through missions. All the while local traditions still abounded, particularly since Roman Britons like St. Patrick converted people, but the collapse of any authority in Britain let alone no authority over Ireland meant a unique development. Gaelic culture was active, and many Catholic elements became a part of it. Native Irish wouldn’t be overwhelmingly ruled by a foreign power till the Normans. St. Patrick plays the central role in folk Catholicism in Ireland. Which I wouldn’t call a cultural genocide. The Celts are not a singular culture, and the conversions of the Irish kept a lot of native culture, if not the original religion itself intact. Not dissimilar to the Scandinavians, many of whom would be converted by the Irish they attempted to enslave and rule. I am hesitant with colonialist framings of just religious spread, particularly in a case like Ireland in which the catholic native population has been actually faced with serious genocide attempts cultural and physical. It just feels simplistic, and like something that can easily be used to discredit the indigeneity of the Irish people. No constructed pagan past is more genuine than the adopted culture of the actual inhabitants
7th century writings have a much more combative Patrick who fights Pagans, but the snakes thing is not attributed to Patrick till the 13th century. The Romans also remarked on their absence so it was probably a little symbolic tie between snakes as evil pests with conversion, while also answering a genuine question of why there are not snakes around.
he was e*glish
:connolly-shining:
