Chapter III: A.d. 446-843 (2)

Of the various customs and peculiarities which distinguished the ancient Irish, as well as the Scoto-Irish, none has given rise to greater speculation than that of _fosterage_; which consisted in the mutual exchange, by different families, of their children for the purpose of being nursed and bred. Even the son of the chief was so entrusted during pupilarity with an inferior member of the clan. An adequate reward was either given or accepted in every case, and the lower orders, to whom the trust was committed, regarded it as an honour rather than a service. “Five hundred kyne and better,” says Campion, “were sometimes given by the Irish to procure the nursing of a great man’s child.” A firm and indissoluble attachment always took place among foster-brothers, and it continues in consequence to be a saying among Highlanders, that “affectionate to a man is a friend, but a foster-brother is as the life-blood of his heart.” Camden observes, that no love in the world is comparable by many degrees to that of foster-brethren in Ireland.[108] The close connexion which the practice of fosterage created between families, while it frequently prevented civil feuds, often led to them. But the strong attachment thus created was not confined to foster-brothers, it also extended to their parents. Spenser relates of the foster-mother to Murrough O’Brien, that, at his execution, she sucked the blood from his head, and bathed her face and breast with it, saying that it was too precious to fall to the earth.

It is unnecessary, at this stage of our labours, to enter upon the subject of clanship; we mean to reserve our observations thereon till we come to the history of the clans, when we shall also notice some peculiarities or traits of the Highlanders not hitherto mentioned. We shall conclude this chapter by giving lists of the Pictish and Scoto-Irish Kings, which are generally regarded as authentic. A great many other names are given by the ancient chroniclers previous to the points at which the following lists commence, but as these are considered as totally untrustworthy, we shall omit them.

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE PICTISH KINGS, CHIEFLY ACCORDING TO THE PICTISH CHRONICLE.

+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+
| | | Date of |Duration| Date |
|Series.| NAMES AND FILIATIONS. | Access- | of | of |
| | | ion. | Reigns.| Death.|
+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+
| 1 | DRUST, the son of Erp, | | | 451 |
| 2 | TALORC, the son of Aniel, | 451 |4 years.| 455 |
| 3 | NECTON MORBET, the son of Erp, | 455 | 25 | 480 |
| 4 | DREST Gurthinmoch, | 480 | 30 | 510 |
| 5 | GALANAU ETELICH, or GALANAN | | | |
| | ERELECH, | 510 | 12 | 522 |
| 6 | DADREST, | 522 | 1 | 523 |
| 7 | DREST, the son of Girom, | 523 | 1 | 524 |
| | DREST, the son of Wdrest, with | | | |
| | the former, | 524 | 5 | 529 |
| | DREST, the son of Girom, alone, | 529 | 5 | 534 |
| 8 | GARTNACH, the son of Girom, | 534 | 7 | 541 |
| 9 | GEALTRAIM, or CAILTRAIM, the | | | |
| | son of Girom, | 541 | 1 | 542 |
| 10 | TALORG, the son of Muircholaich,| 542 | 11 | 553 |
| 11 | DREST, the son of Munait, | 553 | 1 | 554 |
| 12 | GALAM, with Aleph, | 554 | 1 | 555 |
| | GALAM, with Bridei, | 555 | 1 | 556 |
| 13 | BRIDEI, the son of Mailcon, | 556 | 30 | 586 |
| 14 | GARTNAICH, the son of Domelch, | | | |
| | or Donald, | 586 | 11 | 597 |
| 15 | NECTU, or NECHTAN, the nephew | | | |
| | of Verb, | 597 | 20 | 617 |
| 16 | CINEOCH, or KENNETH, the son of | | | |
| | Luthrin, | 617 | 19 | 636 |
| 17 | GARNARD, the son of Wid, | 636 | 4 | 640 |
| 18 | BRIDEI, the son of Wid, | 640 | 5 | 645 |
| 19 | TALORC, their brother, | 645 | 12 | 657 |
| 20 | TALLORCAN, the son of Enfret, | 657 | 4 | 661 |
| 21 | GARTNAIT, the son of Donnel, | 661 | 6½ | 667 |
| 22 | DREST, his brother, | 667 | 7 | 674 |
| 23 | BRIDEI, the son of Bili, | 674 | 21 | 695 |
| 24 | TARAN, the son of Entifidich, | 695 | 4 | 699 |
| 25 | BRIDEI, the son of Dereli, | 699 | 11 | 710 |
| 26 | NECHTON, the son of Dereli, | 710 | 15 | 725 |
| 27 | DREST, and Elpin, | 725 | 5 | 730 |
| 28 | UNGUS, or ONNUST, the son of | | | |
| | Urguist, | 730 | 31 | 761 |
| 29 | BRIDEI, the son of Wirguist, | 761 | 2 | 763 |
| 30 | CINIOCH, or KENNETH, the son of | | | |
| | Wredech, | 763 | 12 | 775 |
| 31 | ELPIN, the son of Wroid, | 775 | 3½ | 779 |
| 32 | DREST, the son of Talorgan, | 779 | 5 | 784 |
| 33 | TALORGAN, the son of Ungus or | | | |
| | Angus, | 784 | 2½ | 786 |
| 34 | CANAUL, the son of Tarla, | 786 | 5 | 791 |
| 35 | CONSTANTINE, the son of | | | |
| | Urguist, | 791 | 30 | 821 |
| 36 | UNGUS, the son of Urguist, | 821 | 12 | 833 |
| 37 | DREST, the son of Constantine, | | | |
| | and Talorgan, the son of | | | |
| | Wthoil, | 833 | 3 | 836 |
| 38 | UUEN, or UVEN, the son of Ungus,| 836 | 3 | 839 |
| 39 | WRAD, the son of Bargoit, | 839 | 3 | 842 |
| 40 | BRED, or BRIUDI, | 842 | 1 | 843 |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SCOTO-IRISH KINGS, FROM THE YEAR 503 TO 843.

+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+
| | | Date of |Duration| Date |
|Series.| NAMES AND FILIATIONS. | Access- | of | of |
| | | ion. | Reigns.| Death.|
+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+
| | | A.D. | Years. | A.D. |
| 1 | FERGUS, the son of Erc, | 503 | 3 | 506 |
| 2 | DOMANGART, the son of Fergus, | 506 | 5 | 511 |
| 3 | COMGAL, the son of Domangart, | 511 | 24 | 535 |
| 4 | GAVRAN, the son of Domangart, | 535 | 22 | 557 |
| 5 | CONAL, the son of Comgal, | 557 | 14 | 571 |
| 6 | AIDAN, the son of Gavran, | 571 | 34 | 605 |
| 7 | EOACHA’-Bui, the son of Aidan, | 605 | 16 | 621 |
| 8 | KENNETH-Cear, the son of | | | |
| | Eoacha’-Bui, | 621 | ¼ | 621 |
| 9 | FERCHAR, the son of Eogan, the | | | |
| | first of the race of Lorn, | 621 | 16 | 637 |
| 10 | DONAL-BREAC, the son of | | | |
| | Eoacha’-Bui, | 637 | 5 | 642 |
| 11 | CONAL II., the grandson of } | | | |
| | Conal I. } | 642 | 10 | 652 |
| 12 | DUNGAL reigned some years with} | | | |
| | Conal, } | ... | ... | ... |
| 13 | DONAL-Duin, the son of Conal, | 652 | 13 | 665 |
| 14 | MAOL-Duin, the son of Conal, | 665 | 16 | 681 |
| 15 | FERCHAR-Fada, the grandson of | | | |
| | Ferchar I., | 681 | 21 | 702 |
| 16 | EOACHA’-Rinevel, the son of | | | |
| | Domangart, and the grandson | | | |
| | of Donal-breac, | 702 | 3 | 705 |
| 17 | AINBHCEALACH, the son of | | | |
| | Ferchar-fada, | 705 | 1 | 706 |
| 18 | SELVACH, the son of }| | | |
| | Ferchar-fada, reigned over }| | | |
| | Lorn from 706 to 729, }| ... | ... | ... |
| 19 | DUNCHA BEG reigned over Cantyre}| | | |
| | and Argaill till 720, }| 706 | 27 | 733 |
| 20 | EOCHA’ III., the son of }| | | |
| | Eoacha’-rinevel, over Cantyre}| | | |
| | and Argaill, from 720 to 729;}| | | |
| | and also over Lorn from 729 }| | | |
| | to 733, }| ... | ... | ... |
| 21 | MUREDACH, the son of | | | |
| | Ainbhcealach, | 733 | 3 | 736 |
| 22 | EOGAN, the son of Muredach, | 736 | 3 | 739 |
| 23 | AODH-Fin, the son of Eoacha’ | | | |
| | III., | 739 | 30 | 769 |
| 24 | FERGUS, the son of Aodh-fin, | 769 | 3 | 772 |
| 25 | SELVACH II., the son of Eogan, | 772 | 24 | 796 |
| 26 | EOACHA’-Annuine IV., the son of | | | |
| | Aodh-fin, | 796 | 30 | 826 |
| 27 | DUNGAL, the son of Selvach II., | 826 | 7 | 833 |
| 28 | ALPIN, the son of | | | |
| | Eoacha’-Annuine IV., | 833 | 3 | 836 |
| 29 | KENNETH, the son of Alpin, | 836 | 7 | 843 |
+-------+---------------------------------+---------+--------+-------+

It is right to mention that the Albanic Duan omits the names between Ainbhcealach and Dungal (17-27), most of which, however, are contained in the St. Andrews’ list.

FOOTNOTES:

[79] See Innes’s _Essay_, vol. i.

[80] This is the date commonly given, although Mr. E. W. Robertson makes it 502 on the authority of Tighernach, while O’Donovan (_Annals of the Four Masters_, vol. i. p. 160) makes it 506.

[81] Vol. i. p. 212.

[82] _Early Kings_, vol. i. p. 5.

[83] _Early Kings_, vol. ii. p. 305.

[84] At this time, and up at least to the 11th century, present Scotland was known as Albania, Alban, or Alba, the term Scotland or Scotia being generally applied to Ireland, unless where there is some qualifying term, as Nova. Burton thinks it not safe to consider that the word Scot must mean a native of present Scotland, when the period dealt with is earlier than the middle of the 12th century.

[85] Skene in his _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. cx., makes the date to be about 495 or 498.

[86] Skene’s _Chronicles of the Picts and Scots_, p. cxiii.

[87] More recently the invaluable labours of E. W. Robertson, Burton, Forbes-Leslie, Joseph Robertson, Grub, Skene, and Maclauchlan, have been the means of putting the history of this period on its proper footing.

[88] Vol. i. ch. vi.

[89] Dr. Maclauchlan’s _Early Scottish Church_, pp. 32, 33.

[90] Druid is said to be derived from a word meaning ‘oak,’ common to many of the Indo-European tongues.

[91] _Eccles. Hist._, vol. i. p. 49.

[92] Grub’s _Ecc. Hist._, vol. i. p. 51.

[93] _Book of Deer_, Preface. Further details concerning the early Scottish church will be given at the end of this volume.

[94] There is some confusion here; Dr. Maclauchlan places this conflict in the reign of Brude son of Derile, who, according to our list, did not succeed till 699.

[95] Book V. c. 24.

[96] See the Ulster Annals, where an account is given of all these conflicts.

[97] _Highlanders_, vol. i. p. 65.

[98] _Early Kings_, vol. i. p. 39.

[99] Skene’s _Chron. of Picts and Scots_, p. cxv.

[100] Dr. Reeves supposes this to be Culross in Perthshire.--Maclauchlan.

[101] Dr. Skene, in his preface to the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, endeavours to prove, by very plausible reasoning, and by comparison of various lists of kings, that for a century previous to the accession of Kenneth to the Pictish throne, Dalriada was under subjection to the Anglian monarchy, and was ruled by Pictish sovereigns. In an able paper, however, read recently by Dr. Archibald Smith before the Antiquarian Society of Scotland, he shows that Argyleshire was invaded but not subdued by Ungus, king of the Picts, in 736 and 741. Dr. Smith supported his conclusion by reference to passages in the annals of Tigernach, of Ulster, and the Albanic Duan, which seemed to him to give an intelligible and continuous account of regal succession in Dalriada, but afforded no countenance to the theory of Pinkerton of the entire conquest of the Scots in Britain by Ungus, nor to the conclusion Dr. Skene has come to, viz., the complete supremacy of the Picts in the Scottish Dalriada, and the extinction of Dalriada as a Scottish nation from the year 741 to the era of a new Scottish kingdom founded by Kenneth Macalpin in the year 843. On the contrary, he was convinced that Aodh-fionn was the restorer of its full liberty to the crushed section of Lorn, and that he was, at the close of his career, the independent ruler of Dalriada as a Scottish nation.

[102] Scotland, vol. i. p. 329.

[103] See Skene’s preface to _Chronicle of Picts and Scots_, p. xcviii. et seq., for some curious and ingenious speculation on this point.

[104] We shall take the liberty of quoting here an extract from an able and ingenious paper read by Dr. Skene before the Soc. of Ant., in June 1861, and quoted in Dr. Gordon’s _Scotichronicon_, p. 83. It will help, we think, to throw a little light on this dark subject, and assist the reader somewhat to understand the nature and extent of the so-called Scottish conquest. “The next legend which bears upon the history of St. Andrews is that of St. Adrian, at 4th March. The best edition of this legend is in the Aberdeen Breviary, and it is as follows:--Adrian was a native of Hungary, and after preaching there for some time, was seized with a desire to preach to other people; and having gathered together a company, he set out ‘ad orientales Scotiæ partes que tunc a Pictis occupabantur,’ _i.e._, ‘to the eastern parts of Scotland, which were then occupied by the Picts,’--and landed there with 6,606 confessors, clergy, and people, among whom were Glodianus, Gayus, Minanus, Scobrandus, and others, chief priests. These men, with their bishop, Adrian, ‘deleto regno Pictorum,’ _i.e._, ‘the Pictish kingdom being destroyed,’--did many signs, but afterwards desired to have a residence on the Isle of May. The Danes, who then devastated the whole of Britain, came to the Island, and there slew them. Their martyrdom is said to have taken place in the year 875. It will be observed that they are here said to have settled in the east part of Scotland, opposite the Isle of May, that is in Fife, while the Picts still occupied it; that the Pictish kingdom is then said to have been destroyed; and that their martyrdom took place in 875, thirty years after the Scottish conquest under Kenneth M’Alpin. Their arrival was therefore almost coincident with the Scottish conquest; and the large number said to have come, not the modest twenty-one who arrived with Regulus, but 6,606 confessors, clergy, and people, shows that the traditionary history was really one of an invasion, and leads to the suspicion at once that it was in reality a part of the Scottish occupation of the Pictish kingdom. This suspicion is much strengthened by two corroborative circumstances: 1st, the year 875, when they are said to have been slain by the Danes, falls in the reign of Constantine, the son of Kenneth Macalpin, in his fourteenth year, and in this year the Pictish chronicle records a battle between the Danes and the Scots, and adds, that after it, ‘occasi sunt Scotti in Coachcochlum,’ which seems to refer to this very slaughter. 2d. Hector Boëce preserves a different tradition regarding their origin. He says--‘Non desunt qui scribant sanctissimos Christi martyros Hungaros fuisse. _Alii ex Scotis Anglisque gregarie collectos_’--_i.e._, ‘Some write that the most holy martyrs of Christ were Hungarians. Others (say) that they were collected from the Scots and English.’ There was therefore a tradition that the clergy slain were not Hungarians, but a body composed of Scotti and Angli. But Hadrian was a bishop; he landed in the east of Fife, within the parochia of S. Regulus, and he is placed at the head of some of the lists of bishops of St. Andrews as first bishop. It was therefore the Church of St. Andrews that then consisted of clergy collected from among the Scotti and the Angli. The Angli probably represented the Church of Acca, and the Scotti those brought in by Adrian. The real signification of this occupation of St. Andrews by Scottish clergy will be apparent when we recollect that the Columban clergy, who had formerly possessed the chief ecclesiastical seats among the Picts, had been expelled in 717, and Anglic clergy introduced--the cause of quarrel being the difference of their usages. Now, the Pictish chronicle states as the main cause of the overthrow of the Pictish kingdom, a century and a half later, this very cause. It says--‘Deus enim eos pro merito suæ malitiæ alienos ac otiosos hæreditate dignatus est facere, quia illi non solum Deum, missam, ac præceptum spreverunt sed et in jure æqualitatis _aliis_ aequi _pariter_ noluerunt.’ _I.e._, ‘For God, on account of their wickedness, deemed them worthy to be made hereditary strangers and idlers; because they contemned not only God, the mass, and the precept (of the Church), but besides refused to be regarded as on the same equality with others.’ They were overthrown, not only because they despised ‘Deum missam et præceptum,’ but because they would not tolerate the other party. And this great grievance was removed, when St. Andrews appears at the head of the Scottish Church in a solemn Concordat with the king Constantine, when, as the Pictish Chronicle tells us, ‘Constantinus Rex et Cellachus Episcopus leges disciplinasque fidei atque jura ecclesiarum evangeliorum que _pariter cum Scottis_ devoverunt custodiri.’ _I.e._, ‘King Constantine and Bishop Kellach vowed to preserve the laws and discipline of the faith and the rights of the churches and gospels, equally with the Scots.’ Observe the parallel language of the two passages. In the one, the ‘Picti in jure æqualitatis aliis,’ that is, the Scottish clergy, ‘aequi pariter noluerunt,’ and in the other the King and the Bishop of St. Andrews ‘vowed to preserve the laws and discipline of the faith,’ ‘_pariter cum Scottis_,’ the thing the Picts would not do. It seems plain, therefore, that the ecclesiastical element entered largely into the Scottish conquest; and a main cause and feature of it was a determination on the part of the Scottish clergy to recover the benefices they had been deprived of. The exact coincidence of this great clerical invasion of the parochia of St. Andrews by ecclesiastics, said by one tradition to have been Scots, and the subsequent position of St. Andrews as the head of the Scottish Church, points strongly to this as the true historic basis of the legend of S. Adrian.”

[105] Lib. ix. c. xxiv.

[106] O’Connor’s Dissert.

[107] Lib. viii. c. 45.

[108] Holland’s Camden, Ireland, p. 116.