Skip to content

Chapter V: Part 5

Text size

_The Dalcais Dynasty._--We have already seen that the dominant race in Munster traced descent from Ailill Aulom. The Cashel dynasty claimed to descend from his eldest son Eogan, whilst the Dalcassians of Clare derived their origin from a younger son Cormac Cas. Ailill Aulom is said to have ordained that the succession to the throne should alternate between the two lines, as in the case of the Hy Neill. This, however, is perhaps a fiction of later poets who wished to give lustre to the ancestry of Brian Boruma, as very few of the Dalcais princes appear in the list of the kings of Cashel. The Dalcassians play no prominent part in history until, in the middle of the 10th century, they were ruled by Kennedy (Cennetig), son of Lorcan, king of Thomond (d. 954), by whom their power was greatly extended. He left two sons, Mathgamain (Mahon) and Brian, called Brian Boruma, probably from a village near Killaloe.[9] About the year 920 a Viking named Tomrair, son of Elgi, had seized the lower Shannon and established himself in Limerick, from which point constant incursions were made into all parts of Munster. After a period of guerrilla warfare in the woods of Thomond, Mathgamain concluded a truce with the foreigners, in which Brian refused to join. Thereupon Mathgamain crossed the Shannon and gained possession of the kingdom of Cashel, as Dunchad, the representative of the older line, had just died. Receiving the support of several of the native tribes, he felt himself in a position to attack the settlements of the foreigners in Munster. This aroused the ruler of Limerick, Ivar, who determined to carry the war into Thomond. He was supported by Maelmuad, king of Desmond, and Donoban, king of Hy Fidgeinte, and Hy Cairpri. Their army was met by Mathgamain at Sulchoit near Tipperary, where the Norsemen were defeated with great slaughter (968). This decisive victory gave the Dalcais Limerick, which they sacked and burnt, and Mathgamain then took hostages of all the chiefs of Munster. Ivar escaped to Britain, but returned after a year and entrenched himself at Inis Cathaig (Scattery Island in the lower Shannon). A conspiracy was formed between Ivar and his son Dubcenn and the two Munster chieftains Donoban and Maelmuad. Donoban was married to the daughter of a Scandinavian king of Waterford, and his own daughter was married to Ivar of Waterford.[10] In 976 Inis Cathaig was attacked and plundered by the Dalcais and the garrison, including Ivar and Dubcenn, slain. Shortly before this Mathgamain had been murdered by Donoban, and Brian thus became king of Thomond, whilst Maelmuad succeeded to Cashel. In 977 Brian made a sudden and rapid inroad into Donoban's territory, captured his fortress and slew the prince himself with a vast number of his followers. Maelmuad, the other conspirator, met with a like fate at Belach Lechta in Barnaderg (near Ballyorgan). After this battle Brian was acknowledged king of all Munster (978). After reducing the Desi, who were in alliance with the Northmen of Waterford and Limerick, in 984 he subdued Ossory and took hostages from the kings of East and West Leinster. In this manner he became virtually king of Leth Moga.

This rapid rise of the Dalcassian leader was bound to bring him into conflict with the _ardri_. Already in 982 Maelsechlainn had invaded Thomond and uprooted the venerable tree under which the Dalcais rulers were inaugurated. After the battle of Tara he had placed his half-brother Gluniarind, son of Amlaib Cuaran, in Dublin. This prince was murdered in 989 and was succeeded by Sigtrygg Silkiskeggi, son of Amlaib and Gormflaith, sister of Maelmorda, king of Leinster. In the same year Maelsechlainn took Dublin and imposed an annual tribute on the city. During these years there were frequent trials of strength between the _ardri_ and the king of Munster. In 992 Brian invaded Meath, and four years later Maelsechlainn defeated Brian in Munster. In 998 Brian ascended the Shannon with a large force, intending to attack Connaught, and Maelsechlainn, who received no support from the northern Hy Neill, came to terms with him. All hostages held by the over-king from the Northmen and Irish of Leth Moga were to be given up to Brian, which was a virtual surrender of all his rights over the southern half of Ireland; while Brian on his part recognized Maelsechlainn as sole king of Leth Cuinn. In 1000 Leinster revolted against Brian and entered into an alliance with the king of Dublin. Brian advanced towards the city, halting at a place called Glen Mama near Dunlavin (Co. Wicklow). He was attacked by the allied forces, who were repulsed with great slaughter. Maelmorda, king of Leinster, was taken prisoner, and Sigtrygg fled for protection to Ailech. The victor gave proof at once that he was not only a clever general but also a skilful diplomatist. Maelmorda was restored to his kingdom, Sigtrygg received Brian's daughter in marriage, whilst Brian took to himself the Dublin king's mother, the notorious Gormflaith, who had already been divorced by Maelsechlainn. After thus establishing peace and consolidating his power, Brian returned to his residence Cenn Corad and matured his plan of obtaining the high-kingship for himself. When everything was ready he entered Mag Breg with an army consisting of his own troops, those of Ossory, his South Connaught vassals and the Norsemen of Munster. The king of Dublin also sent a small force to his assistance. Maelsechlainn, taken by surprise and feeling himself unequal to the contest, endeavoured to gain time. An armistice was concluded, during which he was to decide whether he would give Brian hostages (i.e. abdicate) or not. He applied to the northern Hy Neill to come to his assistance, and even offered to abdicate in favour of the chief of the Cinel Eogain, but the latter refused unless Maelsechlainn undertook to cede to them half the territory of his own tribe, the Cland Colmain. The attempt to unite the whole of the Eremonian against the Eberian race and preserve a dynasty that had ruled Ireland for 600 years, having failed, Maelsechlainn submitted to Brian, and without any formal act of cession the latter became _ardri_. During a reign of twelve years (1002-1014) he is said to have effected much improvement in the country by the erection and repair of churches and schools, and the construction of bridges, causeways, roads and fortresses. We are also told that he administered rigid and impartial justice and dispensed royal hospitality. As he was liberal to the bards, they did not forget his merits.

Towards the end of Brian's reign a conspiracy was entered into between Maelmorda, king of Leinster, and his nephew Sigtrygg of Dublin. The ultimate cause of this movement was an insult offered by Murchad, Brian's son, to the king of Leinster, who was egged on by his sister Gormflaith. Sigtrygg secured promises of assistance from Sigurd, earl of Orkney, and Brodir of Man. In the spring of 1014 Maelmorda and Sigtrygg had collected a considerable army in Dublin, consisting of contingents from all the Scandinavian settlements in the west in addition to Maelmorda's own Leinster forces, the whole being commanded by Sigurd, earl of Orkney. This powerful prince, whose mother was a daughter of Cerball of Ossory (d. 887), appears to have aimed at the supreme command of all the Scandinavian settlements of the west, and in the course of a few years conquered the kingdom of the Isles, Sutherland, Ross, Moray and Argyll. To meet such formidable opponents, Brian, now an old man unable to lead in person, mustered all the forces of Munster and Connaught, and was joined by Maelsechlainn in command of the forces of Meath. The northern Hy Neill and the Ulaid took no part in the struggle. Brian advanced into the plain of Fingall, north of Dublin, where a council of war was held. The longest account of the battle that followed occurs in a source very partial to Brian and the deeds of Munstermen, in which Maelsechlainn is accused of treachery, and of holding his troops in reserve. The battle, generally known as the battle of Clontarf, though the chief fighting took place close to Dublin, about the small river Tolka, was fought on Good Friday 1014. After a stout and protracted resistance the Norse forces were routed. Maelsechlainn with his Meathmen came down on the fugitives as they tried to cross the bridge leading to Dublin or to reach their ships. On both sides the slaughter was terrible, and most of the leaders lost their lives. Brian himself perished along with his son Murchad and Maelmorda. This great struggle finally disposed of the possibility of Scandinavian supremacy in Ireland, but in spite of this it can only be regarded as a national misfortune. The power of the kingdom of Dublin had been already broken by the defeat of Amlaib Cuaran at Tara in 980, and the main result of the battle of Clontarf was to weaken the central power and to throw the whole island into a state of anarchy. Although beaten on the field of battle the Norsemen still retained possession of their fortified cities, and gradually they assumed the position of native tribes. The Dalcassian forces had been so much weakened by the great struggle that Maelsechlainn was again recognized as king of Ireland. However, the effects of Brian's revolution were permanent; the prescriptive rights of the Hy Neill were disputed, and from the battle of Clontarf until the coming of the Normans the history of Ireland consisted of a struggle for ascendancy between the O'Brians of Munster, the O'Neills of Ulster and the O'Connors of Connaught.

_From the Battle of Clontarf to the Anglo-Norman Invasion._--The death of Maelsechlainn in 1022 afforded an opportunity for an able and ambitious man to subdue Ireland, establish a strong central government, break up the tribal system and further the gradual fusion of factions into a homogeneous nation. Such a man did not arise; those who afterwards claimed to be _ardri_ lacked the qualities of founders of strong dynasties, and are termed by the annalists "kings with opposition." Brian was survived by two sons, Tadg and Donnchad, the elder of whom was slain in 1023. Donnchad (d. 1064) was certainly the most distinguished figure in Ireland in his day. He subdued more than half of Ireland, and almost reached the position once held by his father. His strongest opponent was his son-in-law Diarmait Mael-na-mBo, king of Leinster, who was also the foster-father of his brother Tadg's son, Tordelbach (Turlough) O'Brian. On the death of Diarmait in 1072 Tordelbach (d. 1086) reigned supreme in Leth Moga; Meath and Connaught also submitted to him, but he failed to secure the allegiance of the northern Hy Neill. He was succeeded by his son Muirchertach (d. 1119), who spent most of his life contending against his formidable opponent Domnall O'Lochlainn, king of Tir Eogain (d. 1121). The struggle for the sovereignty between these two rivals continued, with intervals of truce negotiated by the clergy, without any decisive advantage on either side. In 1102 Magnus Barefoot made his third and last expedition to the west with the express design of conquering Ireland. Muirchertach opposed him with a large force, and a conference was arranged at which a son of Magnus was betrothed to Biadmuin, daughter of the Irish prince. He was also mixed up in English affairs, and as a rule maintained cordial relations with Henry I. After the death of Domnall O'Lochlainn there was an interregnum of about fifteen years with no _ardri_, until Tordelbach (Turlough) O'Connor, king of Connaught, resolved to reduce the other provinces. Munster and Meath were repeatedly ravaged, and in 1151 he crushed Tordelbach (Turlough) O'Brian, king of Thomond, at Moanmor. O'Connor's most stubborn opponent was Muirchertach O'Lochlainn, with whom he wrestled for supremacy until the day of his death (1156). Tordelbach, who enjoyed a great reputation even after his death, was remembered as having thrown bridges over the Shannon, and as a patron of the arts. However, war was so constant in Ireland at this time that under the year 1145 the Four Masters describe the island as a "trembling sod." Tordelbach was succeeded by his son Ruadri (Roderick, q.v.), who after some resistance had to acknowledge Muirchertach O'Lochlainn's supremacy. The latter, however, was slain in 1166 in consequence of having wantonly blinded the king of Dal Araide. Ruadri O'Connor, now without a serious rival, was inaugurated with great pomp at Dublin.

Diarmait MacMurchada (Dermod MacMurrough), great-grandson of Diarmait Mael-na-mBo, as king of Leinster was by descent and position much mixed up with foreigners, and generally in a state of latent if not open hostility to the high-kings of the Hy Neill and Dalcais dynasties. He was a tyrant and a bad character. In 1152 Tigernan O'Rourke, prince of Breifne, had been dispossessed of his territory by Tordelbach O'Connor, aided by Diarmait, and the latter is accused also of carrying off Derbforgaill, wife of O'Rourke. On learning that O'Rourke was leading an army against him with the support of Ruadri, he burnt his castle of Ferns and went to Henry II. to seek assistance. The momentous consequences of this step belong to the next section, and it now remains for us to state the condition of the church and society in the century preceding the Anglo-Norman invasion.

Although the Irish Church conformed to Roman usage in the matter of Easter celebration and tonsure in the 7th century, the bond between Ireland and Rome was only slight until several centuries later. Whatever co-ordination may have existed in the church of the 8th century was doubtless destroyed during the troubled period of the Viking invasions. It is probable that St Patrick established Armagh as a metropolitan see, but the history of the primacy, which during a long period can only have been a shadow, is involved in obscurity. Its supremacy was undoubtedly recognized by Brian Boruma in 1004, when he laid 20 oz. of gold upon the high altar. In the 11th century a competitor arose in the see of Dublin. The Norse rulers were bound to come under the influence of Christianity at an early date. For instance, Amlaib Cuaran was formally converted in England in 942 and was baptized by Wulfhelm of Canterbury. The antithesis between the king of Dublin and the _ardri_ seems to have had the effect of linking the Dublin Christian community rather with Canterbury than Armagh. King Sigtrygg founded the bishopric of Dublin in 1035, and the early bishops of Dublin, Waterford and Limerick were all consecrated by the English primate. As Lanfranc and Anselm were both anxious to extend their jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland, the submission of Dublin opened the way for Norman and Roman influences. At the beginning of the 12th century Gilbert, bishop of Limerick and papal legate, succeeded in winning over Celsus, bishop of Armagh (d. 1129), to the reform movement. Celsus belonged to a family which had held the see for 200 years; he was grandson of a previous primate and is said to have been himself a married man. Yet he became, in the skilful hands of Gilbert and Maelmaedoc O'Morgair, the instrument of overthrowing the hereditary succession to the primatial see. In 1118 the important synod of Rathbressil was held, at which Ireland was divided into dioceses, this being the first formal attempt at getting rid of that anarchical state of church government which had hitherto prevailed. The work begun under Celsus was completed by his successor Maelmaedoc (Malachy). At a national synod held about 1134 Maelmaedoc, in his capacity as bishop of Armagh, was solemnly elected to the primacy; and armed with full power of church and state he was able to overcome all opposition. Under his successor Gelasius, Cardinal Paparo was despatched as supreme papal legate. At the synod of Kells (1152) there was established that diocesan system which has ever since continued without material alteration. Armagh was constituted the seat of the primacy, and Cashel, Tuam and Dublin were raised to the rank of archbishoprics. It was also ordained that tithes should be levied for the support of the clergy.

_Social Conditions._--In the middle ages there were considerable forests in Ireland encompassing broad expanses of upland pastures and marshy meadows. It is traditionally stated that fences first came into general use in the 7th century. There were no cities or large towns before the arrival of the Norsemen; no stone bridges spanned the rivers; stepping stones or hurdle bridges at the fords or shallows offered the only mode of crossing the broadest streams, and connecting the unpaved roads or bridle paths which crossed the country over hill and dale from the principal _duns_. The forests abounded in game, the red deer and wild boar were common, whilst wolves ravaged the flocks. Scattered over the country were numerous small hamlets, composed mainly of wicker cabins, among which were some which might be called houses; other hamlets were composed of huts of the rudest kind. Here and there were large villages that had grown up about groups of houses surrounded by an earthen mound or rampart; similar groups enclosed in this manner were also to be found without any annexed hamlet. Sometimes there were two or three circumvallations or even more, and where water was plentiful the ditch between was flooded. The simple rampart enclosed a space called _lis_[11] which contained the agricultural buildings and the groups of houses of the owners. The enclosed houses belonged to the free men (_aire_, pl. _airig_). The size of the houses and of the enclosing mound and ditch marked the wealth and rank of the _aire_. If his wealth consisted of chattels only, he was a _bo-aire_ (cow-_aire_). When he possessed ancestral land he was a _flaith_ or lord, and was entitled to let his lands for grazing, to have a hamlet in which lived labourers and to keep slaves. The larger fort with several ramparts was a _dun_, where the _ri_ (chieftain) lived and kept his hostages if he had subreguli. The houses of all classes were of wood, chiefly wattles and wicker-work plastered with clay. In shape they were most frequently cylindrical, having conical roofs thatched with rushes or straw. The oratories were of the same form and material, but the larger churches and kingly banqueting halls were rectangular and made of sawn boards. Bede, speaking of a church built by Finan at Lindisfarne, says, "nevertheless, after the manner of the Scots, he made it not of stone but of hewn oak and covered it with reeds." When St Maelmaedoc in the first half of the 12th century thought of building a stone oratory at Bangor it was deemed a novelty by the people, who exclaimed, "we are Scotti not Galli." Long before this, however, stone churches had been built in other parts of Ireland, and many round towers. In some of the stone-forts of the south-west (Ir. _cathir_) the houses within the rampart were made of stone in the form of a beehive, and similar cloghans, as they are called, are found in the western isles of Scotland.

Here and there in the neighbourhood of the hamlets were patches of corn grown upon allotments which were gavelled, or redistributed, every two or three years. Around the _duns_ and _raths_, where the corn land was the fixed property of the lord, the cultivation was better. Oats was the chief corn crop, but wheat, barley and rye were also grown. Much attention was paid to bee-keeping and market-gardening, which had probably been introduced by the church. The only industrial plants were flax and the dye-plants, chief among which were woad and rud, roid (a kind of bed-straw?). Portions of the pasture lands were reserved as meadows; the tilled land was manured. There are native names for the plough, so it may be assumed that some form of that implement, worked by oxen, yoked together with a simple straight yoke, was in use in early times. Wheeled carts were also known; the wheels were often probably only solid disks, though spoked wheels were used for chariots. Droves of swine under the charge of swineherds wandered through the forests; some belonged to the _ri_, others to lords (_flaith_) and others again to village communities. The house-fed pig was then as now an important object of domestic economy, and its flesh was much prized. Indeed, fresh pork was one of the inducements held out to visitors to the Irish Elysium. Horned cattle constituted the chief wealth of the country, and were the standard for estimating the worth of anything, for the Irish had no coined money and carried on all commerce by barter. The unit of value was called a _set_, a word denoting a jewel or precious object of any kind. The normal _set_ was an average milch-cow. Gold, silver, bronze, tin, clothes and all other kinds of property were estimated in _sets_. Three _sets_ were equal to a _cumal_ (female slave). Sheep were kept everywhere for their flesh and their wool, and goats were numerous. Horses were extensively employed for riding, working in the fields and carrying loads. Irish horsemen rode without saddle or stirrups. So important a place did bee-culture hold in the rural economy of the ancient Irish that a lengthy section is devoted to the subject in the Brehon Laws. The honey was used both in cooking and for making mead, as well as for eating.

The ancient Irish were in the main a pastoral people. When they had sown their corn, they drove their herds and flocks to the mountains, where such existed, and spent the summer there, returning in autumn to reap their corn and take up their abode in their more sheltered winter residences. This custom of "booleying" (Ir. _buaile_, "shieling") is not originally Irish, according to some writers, but was borrowed from the Scandinavians. Where the tribe had land on the sea-coast they also appear to have migrated thither in summer. The chase in the summer occupied the freemen, not only as a source of enjoyment but also as a matter of necessity, for wolves were very numerous. For this purpose they bred dogs of great swiftness, strength and sagacity, which were much admired by the Romans.

The residences within enclosing ramparts did not consist of one house with several apartments, but every room was a separate house. Thus the buildings forming the residence of a well-to-do farmer of the _bo-aire_ class as described in the Laws, consisted of a living-house in which he slept and took his meals, a cooking-house, a kiln for drying corn, a barn, a byre for calves, a sheep-fold and a pigsty. In the better classes the women had a separate house known as _grianan_ (sun-chamber). The round houses were constructed in the following manner. The wall was formed of long stout poles placed in a circle close to one another, with their ends fixed firmly in the ground. The spaces between were closed in with rods (usually hazel) firmly interwoven. The poles were peeled and polished smooth. The whole surface of the wicker-work was plastered on the outside and made brilliantly white with lime, or occasionally striped in various colours, leaving the white poles exposed to view. There was no chimney; the fire was made in the centre of the house and the smoke escaped through a hole in the roof, or through the door as in Hebridean houses of the present day. Near the fire, fixed in a kind of holder, was a candle of tallow or raw beeswax. Around the wall in the houses of the wealthy were arranged the bedsteads, or rather compartments, with testers and fronts, sometimes made of carved yew. At the foot of each compartment, and projecting into the main room, there was a low fixed seat, often stuffed with some soft material, for use during the day. Besides these there were on the floor of the main apartment a number of detached movable couches or seats, all low, with one or more low tables of some sort. In the halls of the kings the position of each person's bed and seat, and the portion of meat which he was entitled to receive from the distributor, were regulated according to a rigid rule of precedence. Each person who had a seat in the king's house had his shield suspended over him. Every king had hostages for the fealty of his vassals; they sat unarmed in the hall, and those who had become forfeited by a breach of treaty or allegiance were placed along the wall in fetters. There were places in the king's hall for the judge, the poet, the harper, the various craftsmen, the juggler and the fool. The king had his bodyguard of four men always around him; these were commonly men whom he had saved from execution or redeemed from slavery. Among the miscellaneous body of attendants about the house of a king or noble were many Saxon slaves, in whom there was a regular trade until it was abolished by the action of the church in 1171. The slaves slept on the ground in the kitchen or in cabins outside the fort.

The children of the upper classes in Ireland, both boys and girls, were not reared at home but were sent elsewhere to be fostered. It was usual for a chief to send his child to one of his own sub-chiefs, but the parents often chose a chief of their own rank. For instance, the _ollam fili_, or chief poet, who ranked in some respects with a tribe-king, sent his sons to be fostered by the king of his own territory. Fosterage might be undertaken out of affection or for payment. In the latter case the fee varied according to rank, and there are numerous laws extant fixing the cost and regulating the food and dress of the child according to his position. Sometimes a chief acted as foster-father to a large number of children. The cost of the fosterage of boys seems to have been borne by the mother's property, that of the daughters by the father's. The ties created by fosterage were nearly as close and as binding on children as those of blood.

There is ample evidence that great laxity prevailed with regard to the marriage tie even after the introduction of Christianity, as marrying within the forbidden degrees and repudiation continued to be very frequent in spite of the efforts of the church. Marriage by purchase was universal, and the wealth of the contracting parties constituted the primary element of a legitimate union. The bride and bridegroom should be provided with a joint fortune proportionate to their rank. When they were of equal rank, and the family of each contributed an equal share to the marriage portion, the marriage was legal in the full sense and the wife was a wife of equal rank. The church endeavoured to make the wife of a first marriage the only true wife; but concubinage was known as an Irish institution until long after the Anglo-Norman invasion, and it is recognized in the Laws. If a concubine had sons her position did not differ materially in some respects from that of a chief wife. As the tie of the sept was blood, all the acknowledged children of a man, whether legitimate or illegitimate, belonged equally to his sept. Even adulterine bastardy was no bar to a man becoming chief of his tribe, as in the case of Hugh O'Neill, earl of Tyrone. (See O'NEILL.)

The food of the Irish was very simple, consisting in the main of oaten cakes, cheese, curds, milk, butter, and the flesh of domestic animals both fresh and salted. The better classes were acquainted with wheaten bread also. The food of the inhabitants of the Land of Promise consisted of fresh pork, new milk and ale. Fish, especially salmon, and game should of course be added to the list. The chief drinks were ale and mead.

The dress of the upper classes was similar to that of a Scottish Highlander before it degenerated into the present conventional garb of a highland regiment. Next the skin came a shirt (_leine_) of fine texture often richly embroidered. Over this was a tightly fitting tunic (_inar_, _lend_) reaching below the hips with a girdle at the waist. In the case of women the _inar_ fell to the feet. Over the left shoulder and fastened with a brooch hung the loose cloak (_brat_), to which the Scottish plaid corresponds. The kilt seems to have been commonly worn, especially by soldiers, whose legs were usually bare, but we also hear of tight-fitting trousers extending below the ankles. The feet were either entirely naked or encased in shoes of raw hide fastened with thongs. Sandals and shoes of bronze are mentioned in Irish literature, and quite a number are to be seen in museums. A loose flowing garment, intermediate between the _brat_ and _lend_, usually of linen dyed saffron, was commonly worn in outdoor life, and was still used in the Hebrides about 1700. A modified form of this over-tunic with loose sleeves and made of frieze formed probably the general covering of the peasantry. Among the upper classes the garments were very costly and variously coloured. It would seem that the number of colours in the dress indicated the rank of the wearer. The hair was generally worn long by men as well as women, and ringlets were greatly admired. Women braided their hair into tresses, which they confined with a pin. The beard was also worn long. Like all ancient and semi-barbarous people, the Irish were fond of ornaments. Indeed the profusion of articles of gold which have been found is remarkable; in the Dublin Museum may be seen bracelets, armlets, finger-rings, torques, crescents, gorgets, necklets, fibulae and diadems, all of solid gold and most exquisite workmanship.

The principal weapons of the Irish soldiers were a lance, a sword and a shield; though prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion they had adopted the battle-axe from the Scandinavians. The shields were of two kinds. One was the _sciath_, oval or oblong in shape, made of wicker-work covered with hide, and often large enough to cover the whole body. This was doubtless the form introduced by the Brythonic invaders. But round shields, smaller in size, were also commonly employed. These were made of bronze backed with wood, or of yew covered with hide. This latter type scarcely goes back to the round shield of the Bronze age. Armour and helmets were not generally employed at the time of the Anglo-Norman invasion.

In the Brehon Laws the land belongs in theory to the tribe, but this did not by any means correspond to the state of affairs. We find that the power of the petty king has made a very considerable advance, and that all the elements of feudalism are present, save that there was no central authority strong enough to organize the whole of Irish society on a feudal basis. The _tuath_ or territory of a _ri_ (represented roughly by a modern barony) was divided among the septs. The lands of a sept consisted of the estates in severally of the lords (_flathi_), and of the _ferand duthaig_, or common lands of the sept. The dwellers on each of these kinds of land differed materially from each other. On the former lived a motley population of slaves, horse-boys, and mercenaries composed of broken men of other clans, many of whom were fugitives from justice, possessing no rights either in the sept or tribe and entirely dependent on the bounty of the lord, and consequently living about his fortified residence. The poorer servile classes or cottiers, wood-cutters, swine-herds, &c., who had a right of domicile (acquired after three generations), lived here and there in small hamlets on the mountains and poorer lands of the estate. The good lands were let to a class of tenants called _fuidirs_, of whom there were several kinds, some grazing the land with their own cattle, others receiving both land and cattle from the lord. _Fuidirs_ had no rights in the sept; some were true serfs, others tenants-at-will; they lived in scattered homesteads like the farmers of the present time. The lord was responsible before the law for the acts of all the servile classes on his estates, both new-comers and _senchleithe_, i.e. descendants of _fuidirs_, slaves, &c., whose families had lived on the estate during the time of three lords. He paid their blood-fines and received compensation for their slaughter, maiming or plunder. The _fuidirs_ were the chief source of a lord's wealth, and he was consequently always anxious to increase them.

The freemen were divided into freemen pure and simple, freemen possessing a quantity of stock, and nobles (_flathi_) having vassals. Wealth consisted in cattle. Those possessed of large herds of kine lent out stock under various conditions. In the case of a chief such an offer could not be refused. In return, a certain customary tribute was paid. Such a transaction might be of two kinds. By the one the freemen took _saer_-stock and retained his status. But if he accepted _daer_-stock he at once descended to the rank of a vassal. In this way it was possible for the chief to extend his power enormously. Rent was commonly paid in kind. As a consequence of this, in place of receiving the farm produce at his own home the chief or noble reserved to himself the right of quartering himself and a certain number of followers in the house of his vassal, a practice which must have been ruinous to the small farmers. Freemen who possessed twenty-one cows and upwards were called _airig_ (sing, _aire_), or, as we should say, had the franchise, and might fulfil the functions of bail, witness, &c. As the chief sought to extend his power in the _tuath_, he also endeavoured to aggrandize his position at the expense of other _tuatha_ by compelling them to pay tribute to him. Such an aggregate of _tuatha_ acknowledging one _ri_ was termed a _morthuath_. The ruler of a _morthuath_ paid tribute to the provincial king, who in his turn acknowledged at any rate in theory the overlordship of the _ardri_.

The privileges and tributes of the provincial kings are preserved in a remarkable 10th century document, the _Book of Rights_. The rules of succession were extraordinarily complicated. Theoretically the members of a sept claimed common descent from the same ancestor, and the land belonged to the freemen. The chief and nobles, however, from various causes had come to occupy much of the territory as private property: the remainder consisted of tribe-land and commons-land. The portions of the tribe-land were not occupied for a fixed term, as the land of the sept was liable to gavelkind or redistribution from time to time. In some cases, however, land which belonged originally to a _flaith_ was owned by a family; and after a number of generations such property presented a great similarity to the gavelled land. A remarkable development of family ownership was the _geilfine_ system, under which four groups of persons, all nearly related to each other, held four adjacent tracts of land as a sort of common property, subject to regulations now very difficult to understand.[12] The king's mensal land, as also that of the tanist or successor to the royal office appointed during the king's lifetime, was not divided up but passed on in its entirety to the next individual elected to the position. When the family of an _aire_ remained in possession of his estate in a corporate capacity, they formed a "joint and undivided family," the head of which was an aire, and thus kept up the rank of the family. Three or four poor members of a sept might combine their property and agree to form a "joint family," one of whom as the head would be an _aire_. In consequence of this organization the homesteads of airig commonly included several families, those of his brothers, sons, &c. (see BREHON LAWS).

The ancient Irish never got beyond very primitive notions of justice. Retaliation for murder and other injuries was a common method of redress, although the church had endeavoured to introduce various reforms. Hence we find in the Brehon Laws a highly complicated system of compensatory payment; but there was no authority except public opinion to enforce the payment of the fines determined by the brehon in cases submitted to him.

There were many kinds of popular assemblies in ancient Ireland. The sept had its special meeting summoned by its chief for purposes such as the assessment of blood-fines due from the sept, and the distribution of those due to it. At larger gatherings the question of peace and war would be deliberated. But the most important of all such assemblies was the fair (_oenach_), which was summoned by a king, those summoned by the kings of provinces having the character of national assemblies. The most famous places of meeting were Tara, Telltown and Carman. The _oenach_ had many objects. The laws were publicly promulgated or rehearsed; there were councils to deal with disputes and matters of local interest; popular sports such as horse-racing, running and wrestling were held; poems and tales were recited, and prizes were awarded to the best performers of every _dan_ or art; while at the same time foreign traders came with their wares, which they exchanged for native produce, chiefly skins, wool and frieze. At some of these assemblies match-making played a prominent part. Tradition connects the better known of these fairs with pagan rites performed round the tombs of the heroes of the race; thus the assembly of Telltown was stated to have been instituted by Lugaid Lamfada. Crimes committed at an _oenach_ could not be commuted by payment of fines. Women and men assembled for deliberation in separate _airechta_ or gatherings, and no man durst enter the women's _airecht_ under pain of death.

The noble professions almost invariably ran in families, so that members of the same household devoted themselves for generations to one particular science or art, such as poetry, history, medicine, law. The heads of the various professions in the _tuath_ received the title of _ollam_. It was the rule for them to have paying apprentices living with them. The literary _ollam_ or _fili_ was a person of great distinction. He was provided with mensal land for the support of himself and his scholars, and he was further entitled to free quarters for himself and his retinue. The harper, the metal-worker (_cerd_), and the smith were also provided with mensal land, in return for which they gave to the chief their skill and the product of their labour as customary tribute (_bestigi_).

AUTHORITIES.--_The Annals of the Four Masters_, ed. J. O'Donovan (7
vols., Dublin, 1856); _Annals of Ulster_ (4 vols., London, 1887-1892);
Keating's _Forus Feasa ar Eirinn_ (3 vols., ed. D. Comyn and P.
Dinneen, London, 1902-1908); E. Windisch, _Tain Bo Cualnge_ (Leipzig,
1905), with a valuable introduction; P. W. Joyce, _A Social History of
Ancient Ireland_ (2 vols., London, 1903), also _A Short History of
Ireland from the Earliest Times to 1608_ (London, 1895); A. G. Richey,
_A Short History of the Irish People_ (Dublin, 1887); W. F. Skene,
_Celtic Scotland_ (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1876-1880); J. Rhys, "Studies
in Early Irish History," in _Proceedings of the British Academy_, vol.
i.; John MacNeill, papers in _New Ireland Review_ (March 1906-February
1907); _Leabhar na gCeart_, ed. O'Donovan (Dublin, 1847); E. O'Curry,
_The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_, ed. W. K. Sullivan (3
vols., London, 1873); G. T. Stokes, _Ireland and the Celtic Church_,
revised by H. J. Lawlor (London^6, 1907); J. Healy, _Ireland's Ancient
Schools and Scholars_ (Dublin^3, 1897); H. Zimmer, article "Keltische
Kirche" in Hauck's _Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und
Kirche_ (trans. A. Meyer, London, 1902), cf. H. Williams, "H. Zimmer
on the History of the Celtic Church," _Zeitschr. f. celt. Phil._ iv.
527-574; H. Zimmer, "Die Bedeutung des irischen Elements in der
mittelalterlichen Kultur," _Preussische Jahrbucher_, vol. lix., trans.
J. L. Edmands, _The Irish Element in Medieval Culture_ (New York,
1891); J. H. Todd, _St Patrick, the Apostle of Ireland_ (Dublin,
1864); J. B. Bury, _Life of St Patrick_ (London, 1905); W. Reeves,
_Adamnan's Life of Columba_ (Dublin, 1857; also ed. with introd. by J.
T. Fowler, Oxford, 1894); M. Roger, _L'Enseignement des lettres
classiques d'Ausone a Alcuin_ (Paris, 1905); J. H. Todd, _The War
of the Gaedhil with the Gall_ (London, 1867); L. J. Vogt, _Dublin som
Norsk By_ (Christiania, 1897); J. Steenstrup, _Normannerne_, vols.
ii., iii. (Copenhagen, 1878-1882); W. G. Collingwood, _Scandinavian
Britain_ (London, 1908). (E. C. Q.)

_History from the Anglo-Norman Invasion._

"Bull" of Adrian IV.

According to the _Metalogus_ of John of Salisbury, who in 1155 went on a mission from King Henry II. to Pope Adrian IV., the only Englishman who has ever occupied the papal chair, the pope in response to the envoy's prayers granted to the king of the English the hereditary lordship of Ireland, sending a letter, with a ring as the symbol of investiture. Giraldus Cambrensis, in his _Expugnatio Hibernica_, gives what purports to be the text of this letter, known as "the Bull Laudabiliter," and adds further a _Privilegium_ of Pope Alexander III. confirming Adrian's grant. The _Privilegium_ is undoubtedly spurious, a fact which lends weight to the arguments of those who from the 19th century onwards have attacked the genuineness of the "Bull." This latter, indeed, appears to have been concocted by Gerald, an ardent champion of the English cause in Ireland, from genuine letters of Pope Alexander III., still preserved in the _Black Book of the Exchequer_, which do no more than commend King Henry for reducing the Irish to order and extirpating _tantae abominationis spurcitiam_, and exhort the Irish bishops and chiefs to be faithful to the king to whom they had sworn allegiance.[13]

Henry was, indeed, at the outset in a position to dispense with the moral aid of a papal concession, of which even if it existed he certainly made no use. In 1156 Dermod MacMurrough (Diarmait MacMurchada), deposed for his tyranny from the kingdom of Leinster, repaired to Henry in Aquitaine (see _Early History_ above). The king was busy with the French, but gladly seized the opportunity, and gave Dermod a letter authorizing him to raise forces in England. Thus armed, and provided with gold extorted from his former subjects in Leinster, Dermod went to Bristol and sought the acquaintance of Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke, a Norman noble of great ability but broken fortunes. Earl Richard, whom later usage has named Strongbow, agreed to reconquer Dermod's kingdom for him. The stipulated consideration was the hand of Eva his only child, and according to feudal law his sole heiress, to whose issue lands and kingdoms would naturally pass. But Irish customs admitted no estates of inheritance, and Eva had no more right to the reversion of Leinster than she had to that of Japan. It is likely that Strongbow had no conception of this, and that his first collision with the tribal system was an unpleasant surprise. Passing through Wales, Dermod agreed with Robert Fitzstephen and Maurice Fitzgerald to invade Ireland in the ensuing spring.

The invasion of Strongbow.

About the 1st of May 1169 Fitzstephen landed on the Wexford shore with a small force, and next day Maurice de Prendergast brought another band nearly to the same spot. Dermod joined them, and the Danes of Wexford soon submitted. According to agreement Dermod granted the territory of Wexford, which had never belonged to him, to Robert and Maurice and their heirs for ever; and here begins the conflict between feudal and tribal law which was destined to deluge Ireland in blood. Maurice Fitzgerald soon followed with a fresh detachment. About a year after the first landing Raymond Le Gros was sent over by Earl Richard with his advanced guard, and Strongbow himself landed near Waterford on the 23rd of August 1170 with 200 knights and about 1000 other troops.

The natives did not understand that this invasion was quite different from those of the Danes. They made alliances with the strangers to aid them in their intestine wars, and the annalist writing in later years (_Annals of Lough Ce_) describes with pathetic brevity the change wrought in Ireland:--"Earl Strongbow came into Erin with Dermod MacMurrough to avenge his expulsion by Roderick, son of Turlough O'Connor; and Dermod gave him his own daughter and a part of his patrimony, and Saxon foreigners have been in Erin since then."

Most of the Norman leaders were near relations, many being descended from Nesta, daughter of Rhys Ap Tudor, prince of South Wales, the most beautiful woman of her time, and mistress of Henry I. Her children by that king were called Fitzhenry. She afterwards married Gerald de Windsor, by whom she had three sons--Maurice, ancestor of all the Geraldines; William, from whom sprang the families of Fitzmaurice, Carew, Grace and Gerard; and David, who became bishop of St David's. Nesta's daughter, Angareth, married to William de Barri, bore the chronicler Giraldus Cambrensis, and was ancestress of the Irish Barries. Raymond le Gros, Hervey de Montmorency, and the Cogans were also descendants of Nesta, who, by her second husband, Stephen the Castellan, was mother of Robert Fitzstephen.

While waiting for Strongbow's arrival, Raymond and Hervey were attacked by the Danes of Waterford, whom they overthrew. Strongbow himself took Waterford and Dublin, and the Danish inhabitants of both readily combined with their French-speaking kinsfolk, and became firm supporters of the Anglo-Normans against the native Irish.

Alarmed at the principality forming near him, Henry invaded Ireland in person, landing near Waterford on the 18th of October 1172. Giraldus says he had 500 knights and many other soldiers; Regan, the metrical chronicler, says he had 4000 men, of whom 400 were knights; the _Annals of Lough Ce_ that he had 240 ships. The Irish writers tell little about these great events, except that the king of the Saxons took the hostages of Munster at Waterford, and of Leinster, Ulster, Thomond and Meath at Dublin. They did not take in the grave significance of doing homage to a Norman king, and becoming his "man."

Henry II. in Ireland.

Henry's farthest point westward was Cashel, where he received the homage of Donald O'Brien, king of Thomond, but he does not appear to have been present at the famous synod. Christian O'Conarchy, bishop of Lismore and papal legate, presided, and the archbishops of Dublin, Cashel and Tuam attended with their suffragans, as did many abbots and other dignitaries. The primate of Armagh, the saintly Gelasius, was absent, and presumably his suffragans also, but Giraldus says he afterwards came to the king at Dublin, and favoured him in all things. Henry's sovereignty was acknowledged, and constitutions made which drew Ireland closer to Rome. In spite of the "enormities and filthinesses," which Giraldus says defiled the Irish Church, nothing worse could be found to condemn than marriages within the prohibited degrees and trifling irregularities about baptism. Most of the details rest on the authority of Giraldus only, but the main facts are clear. The synod is not mentioned by the Irish annalists, nor by Regan, but it is by Hoveden and Ralph de Diceto. The latter says it was held at Lismore, an error arising from the president having been bishop of Lismore. Tradition says the members met in Cormac's chapel.

Henry at first tried to be suzerain without displacing the natives, and received the homage of Roderick O'Connor, the high king. But the adventurers were uncontrollable, and he had to let them conquer what they could, exercising a precarious authority over the Normans only through a viceroy. The early governors seemingly had orders to deal as fairly as possible with the natives, and this involved them in quarrels with the "conquerors," whose object was to carve out principalities for themselves, and who only nominally respected the sovereign's wishes. The mail-clad knights were not uniformly successful against the natives, but they generally managed to occupy the open plains and fertile valleys. Geographical configuration preserved centres of resistance--the O'Neills in Tyrone and Armagh, the O'Donnells in Donegal, and the Macarthies in Cork being the largest tribes that remained practically unbroken. On the coast from Bray to Dundalk, and by the navigable rivers of the east and south coasts, the Norman put his iron foot firmly down.

Prince John landed at Waterford in 1185, and the neighbouring chiefs hastened to pay their respects to the king's son. Prince and followers alike soon earned hatred, the former showing the incurable vices of his character, and pulling the beards of the chieftains. After eight disgraceful months he left the government to John de Courci, but retained the title "Dominus Hiberniae." It was even intended to crown him; and Urban III. sent a licence and a crown of peacock's feathers, which was never placed on his head. Had Richard I. had children Ireland might have become a separate kingdom.

Henry II. had granted Meath, about 800,000 acres, to Hugh de Lacy (d. 1186), reserving scarcely any prerogative to the crown, and making his vassal almost independent. De Lacy sublet the land among kinsmen and retainers, and to his grants the families of Nugent, Tyrell, Nangle, Tuyt, Fleming and others owe their importance in Irish history. It is not surprising that the Irish bordering on Meath should have thought De Lacy the real king of Ireland.

King John.

During his brother Richard I.'s reign, John's viceroy was William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, who married Strongbow's daughter, and thus succeeded to his claims in Leinster. John's reputation was no better in Ireland than in England. He thwarted or encouraged the Anglo-Normans as best suited him, but on the whole they increased their possessions. In 1210 John, now king, visited Ireland again, and being joined by Cathal Crovderg O'Connor, king of Connaught, marched from Waterford by Dublin to Carrickfergus without encountering any serious resistance from Hugh de Lacy (second son of the Hugh de Lacy mentioned above), who had been made earl of Ulster in 1205. John did not venture farther west than Trim, but most of the Anglo-Norman lords swore fealty to him, and he divided the partially obedient districts into twelve counties--Dublin (with Wicklow), Meath (with Westmeath), Louth, Carlow, Kilkenny, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Kerry and Tipperary. John's resignation of his kingdom to the pope in 1213 included Ireland, and thus for the second time was the papal claim to Ireland formally recorded.

Henry III. (1216-1272).

During Henry III.'s long reign the Anglo-Norman power increased, but underwent great modifications. Richard Marshal, grandson of Strongbow, and to a great extent heir of his power, was foully murdered by his own feudatories--men of his own race; and the colony never quite recovered this blow. On the other hand, the De Burghs, partly by alliance with the Irish, partly by sheer hard fighting, made good their claims to the lordship of Connaught, and the western O'Connors henceforth play a very subordinate part in Irish history. Tallage was first imposed on the colony in the first year of this reign, but yielded little, and tithes were not much better paid.

Objections to Irish clergy.

Separation of the two races.

On the 14th of January 1217 the king wrote from Oxford to his justiciary, Geoffrey de Marisco, directing that no Irishman should be elected or preferred in any cathedral in Ireland, "since by that means our land might be disturbed, which is to be deprecated." This order was annulled in 1224 by Honorius III., who declared it "destitute of all colour of right and honesty." The pope's efforts failed, for in the 14th century several Cistercian abbeys excluded Irishmen, and as late as 1436 the monks of Abingdon complained bitterly that an Irish abbot had been imposed on them by lay violence. Parliament was not more liberal, for the statute of Kilkenny, passed in 1366, ordained that "no Irishman be admitted into any cathedral or collegiate church, nor to any benefice among the English of the land," and also "that no religious house situated among the English shall henceforth receive an Irishman to their profession." This was confirmed by the English parliament in 1416, and an Irish act of Richard III. enabled the archbishop of Dublin to collate Irish clerks for two years, an exception proving the rule. Many Irish monasteries admitted no Englishmen, and at least one attempt was made, in 1250, to apply the same rule to cathedrals. The races remained nearly separate, the Irish simply staying outside the feudal system. If an Englishman slew an Irishman (except one of the five regal and privileged bloods) he was not to be tried for murder, for Irish law admitted composition (_eric_) for murder. In Magna Charta there is a proviso that foreign merchants shall be treated as English merchants are treated in the country whence the travellers came. Yet some enlightened men strove to fuse the two nations together, and the native Irish, or that section which bordered on the settlements and suffered great oppression, offered 8000 marks to Edward I. for the privilege of living under English law. The justiciary supported their petition, but the prelates and nobles refused to consent.

Edward I. (1272-1307).

Comments

Log in to leave a comment.