Chapter IV: Tribal Custom of the Irish Tribes (1)

I. THE ERIC FINE OF THE BREHON LAWS.

[Sidenote: Goidelic tribal custom differed from Cymric.]

Returning now once more to the examination of tribal custom and the structure of tribal society in the case of tribes belonging to the Celtic group, it might be expected that Cymric customs would be likely most closely to accord with those of the Celtic tribes of Ireland, Brittany, and Gaul. But it must be remembered that the Cymry whose customs are contained in the Codes, whatever their original Continental position may have been, are supposed to have come into Wales from the North, with Cunedda and his sons. The Codes therefore probably represent the customs of the Cymry of ancient Cumbria north of the Solway Frith, rather than those of the Britons, whether Goidels or Cymry, dwelling in South Wales and more or less subject for generations to Roman rule.

If the theory of the emigration from Wales and Cornwall into Brittany, as the consequence of the Saxon invasion, be correct, the Britons who emigrated into Brittany may never have shared the peculiar customs of the immigrants into Wales following upon the conquests of Cunedda and his sons. They may have had more in common with the Goidelic tribes of South Wales than with the Cymric newcomers into Wales.

These considerations may well prepare the way for the recognition of differences as well as resemblances between Cymric and Irish tribal custom.

The system of payments for homicide amongst the ancient tribes of Ireland as described in the Brehon Laws differed widely from that of the Cymric Codes.[62]

In the first place, the Brehon laws describe no scale of galanas or wergeld, directly varying with the social rank of the person killed. Gradations of rank there were indeed, and numerous enough. But there appears to have been only one _coirp-dire_, or body-fine, the same for all ranks, namely seven cumhals or female slaves--the equivalent of twenty-one cows.

[Sidenote: The Brehon _coirp-dire_ of all tribesmen the same: six cumhals and one added.]

And when this _coirp-dire_, or price of the body or life of a man, is further examined, it is found to consist of two parts: (1) one cumhal of compensation (aithgin); (2) the six cumhals of the _coirp-dire_ proper.

In the tract ‘Of every Crime’[63] it is stated:--

If the man who is dead has a son, he takes the cumhal of
compensation alone. If not alive, his father is to take it. If
not alive, his brother; if he be not alive, the nearest person
to him is to take it. And then the coirp-dire is divided:

3 cumhals to the son and the father;
1 cumhal to the brother;
1 cumhal to the son and father (_sic_);
1 to the geilfine from the lowest to the uppermost man;

--so making up the 6 cumhals of the coirp-dire.

And in the ‘Book of Aicill’ (p. 537) are these lines:

Three eric fines are counselled:

(1) There is paid full compensation;
(2) And fair honest coirp-dire;
(3) And honour-price is paid.

[Sidenote: The _eneclann_ or honour-price varied with rank. The ‘eric’ fine included both.]

Besides this coirp-dire, therefore, was the _eneclann_, honour-price or price of the face, _i.e._ payment for insult. And this was the payment, by no means confined to homicide, which varied according to rank.

These two things then--the coirp-dire of seven cumhals and the honour-price--made up together (with, in some cases, exceptional additions) the eric fine.

Next as to the persons liable for its payment.

In the Corus Bescna[64] the following statement is made relating to homicide in cases where the homicide was one of _necessity_:--

The eric fine is to be paid by the slayer’s kindred (fine), as
they divide his property (cro). He (the slayer) shall pay a
cumhal of restitution (aithgin) and as much as a son or a father
of the six cumhals of the dire-fine.

As to crimes of _non-necessity_:--[65]

he himself is to be given up for it, with his cattle and his land.

[Sidenote: The kindred of ‘near hearths’ were liable for the whole eric.]

If he has not enough to pay the eric or is not to be caught, then

it is to be paid by his son until his cattle and his land be
spent on it (or failing him) by his father in the same manner.

Lastly, failing both the son and the father,

it is to be paid by each nearest hearth (teallach) to him until
all they have is spent, or full payment of the crime is made up
among them.

So that, in the absence or in default of the murderer, at the date of this Brehon tract, his family and kindred were answerable for the whole of the eric in the case of wilful murder.

[Sidenote: The ‘hearths’ liable apparently to third cousins.]

The nearest hearths or ‘fine who bear the crimes of each kinsman of their stock’ were, according to the Senchus Mor (i. p. 261):--

1. _Geil_ fine;
2. _Derb_ fine;
3. _Iar_ fine;
4. _Ind_ fine.

I think M. D’Arbois de Jubainville[66] is probably right in explaining these four hearths or fines to be groups or grades of kindred. He divides them thus:--

{ father;
The _geil_ fine { son;
{ grandson;
{ brother.

{ grandfather;
_derb_ fine { paternal uncle;
{ nephew;
{ first cousin.

{ great-grandfather;
_iar_ fine { great-uncle;
{ great-nephew;
{ second cousin.

{ great-great-grandfather;
_ind_ fine { great-great-uncle;
{ great-great-nephew;
{ third cousin.

Whether this interpretation of the Brehon scheme of the divisions of the Irish fine or kindred be correct in every detail I shall not venture to give an opinion, further than to say that, viewed in the light of other tribal systems, it seems to me to be nearer the mark than the various other attempts to make intelligible what after all are very obscure passages in the Brehon Laws. The seventeen persons making up the four divisions of the fine or kindred must be taken, I think, as representing _classes_ of relations and not individuals; _e.g._ under the head ‘first cousin’ must be included all ‘first cousins,’ and so on throughout.

So understood, the four hearths or groups of kindred liable for the eric would include the sixteen grades nearest of kin to the criminal. He himself, or the chieftain, would form the seventeenth person on the list.

The tract ‘Of every Crime’ seems to confirm the view above taken. It states (iv. 241) that ‘for the crimes of every criminal’ he himself was first liable.

If he has absconded it goes upon his chattels; living chattels or
dead chattels.

[Sidenote: The four ‘fines’ or ‘hearths’ were groups of kinsmen in grades of relationship.]

The liability falls next upon his father and his brother, but, according to the commentary, upon his son first, if he have one. These seem to be the _geilfine_ relations or nearest hearth. And after them it falls, according to the text, upon his ‘deirbhfine relations.’ And ‘if they have absconded so that they cannot be caught, his crime goes upon his chief.’ But before it goes upon the chief the iarfine and other fines come in, according to the commentary, and the _chief_ is said to be that of the _four fines_.

The reason why the crime goes upon the deirbhfine division and
the iarfine division here before it goes upon the chief is
because it is one chief over them.… _His chief_--_i.e._ the chief
of the four families (p. 243).

On the whole, therefore, according to whatever rules of kinship a fine may have been divided into the ‘four nearest fines or hearths,’ we can hardly be wrong in considering them not as four artificial groups including in all seventeen individuals, but as four _family groups_ arranged in the order in which liability for a kinsman’s crime was to be shared.

[Sidenote: The same groups both received and paid eric.]

The full liability for the eric would then, as in the Cymric case, fall upon the four groups or hearths as a whole. But, again as in the Cymric case, the amount falling upon each of them was defined and divided among the individuals composing it. The same family division held good both as regards payment and receipt of eric.[67]

The general correspondence between the obligation to pay and the right to receive a share in fines is shown by another passage from the Senchus Mor:

The feini charge the liability of each kinsman [comfogius] upon
the other in the same way as he obtained his eric fine and his
inheritance.[68]

The penalties for any other crime than homicide fell in the first instance upon the criminal alone, and the person injured took the whole of the compensation for his injury.

But it was not so in the case of homicide. It was not a matter for the individual alone. Both in payment and receipt it was, as with the Cymry, a joint interest of the kindred.

The following passage makes this clear:--

What is the reason that it is upon himself alone every crime that
a person commits goes, _except killing_, provided he has the
means of paying it?

_Answer._ Because, though it be against him alone evil is done,
_except killing_, it is to himself alone it shall be paid. Every
_killing_, however, which he commits, it is not he alone that
shall pay for, though he has the means of paying for it, but it
goes upon the family (fine), and this is now the reason: because
though it were himself or his son that had been killed, it is the
whole family (fine) that would take the body fine (coirp-dire) of
either of them, and not his son or father.[69]

[Sidenote: The solidarity of the kindred.]

A still clearer indication of this solidarity of the family or kindred occurs in the Book of Aicill (p. 541) in regard to the right of the several members, according to relationship, to share in composition for a kinswoman abducted without their consent. If taken without her own consent, honour-price was to be paid to herself, and also honour-price was to be paid to her chiefs, and her relations, according to the nature of their relationship to her. This presumably was for the breach of their protection. Should death overtake her before she was restored, coirp-dire and honour-price were to be paid to her family. In case of her consent it was the same except that she could claim no honour-price for herself.

So far, then, we have felt our way to the following conclusions:--

[Sidenote: Summary of the rules as to eric.]

(1) That the eric for homicide in Ireland was shared by the family in grades of relationship elaborately fixed, but which it is not necessary to discuss further.

(2) In cases of innocent homicide the family, _i.e._ four nearest hearths or grades of kindred, shared the eric with the slayer, _i.e._ the slayer was only liable to pay a share of the eric.

(3) In cases of intentional homicide the goods of the murderer all had to go first, and only the remainder was thrown upon his kindred. But (except _inter se_) they were liable to the kindred of the slain for the whole of what the slayer could not pay.

(4) The eric consisted of two parts--the coirp-dire and the honour-price. The coirp-dire was seven cumhals, one of which was for restitution (_aithgin_), the other six cumhals being the _coirp-dire_ proper.

(5) As in other laws, there were sometimes additional payments for breach of protection or privilege &c.

II. THE HONOUR-PRICE (ENECLANN).

It is necessary next to direct special attention to the honour-price (eneclann).

The question at once arises, _whose_ honour-price had to be paid?

In the first place, according to a passage in the Book of Aicill, it is the honour-price of the _slayer_ that had to be paid, _i.e._ the higher the rank of the slayer the greater the payment to the kindred of the person slain.

[Sidenote: The honour-price of the slayer.]

The passage alluded to occurs almost at the beginning of the Book of Aicill (p. 99). The heading, literally translated, is: ‘Fines are doubled by anger (ferg).’ Then follows a long commentary, in which the point seems to be limited to _secret_ murder, and the doubling seems to be the result of the _concealment_. This is quite consistent with tribal feeling as shown in other laws, concealment of the slain person on the part of the murderer being considered a grave aggravation. The passage is as follows:--

_Fines are doubled by anger (ferg)._

The double of _his own honour-price_ is due of each and every
person, whether native freeman, stranger, foreigner, daerman, or
looker-on, for the crime of _secret_ murder.[70]

And then the commentary goes on to say that if it was the same person who killed and concealed

a fine of 7 cumhals and full honour-price for the concealing, and
7 cumhals and full honour-price for the killing, which is twice 7
cumhals and double honour-price upon a native freeman for secret
murder.

Obviously the _honour-price_ in both cases is that of the murderer, for a little further on is a statement that

the same fine is upon a native freeman for looking on at the
killing of a native freeman, or a stranger, or a foreigner, or a
daerman.[71]

[Sidenote: The honour-price of the slain or of his kinsmen.]

But besides this honour-price of the criminal, as we have seen, other payments had apparently to be made to the relatives of the slain, for breach of their protection or for injury sustained, and these were measured by the honour-price of the recipients and not by that of the criminal.

It is not quite clearly stated that these payments were a part of the eric, but we may suppose that they were in a sense a buying off of the right of feud, and accepted in lieu of the right of joining in the avengement of the crime and in the feud, for which the eric was the composition.

[Sidenote: The honour-price of the protector of the slain.]

A passage in the Book of Aicill (p. 107) incidentally seems to show that the son of a person slain could choose whether to claim honour-price on the scale of his own social rank, according to right of property, or of the status of his father or grandfather, or that of the chieftain under whose protection he lived.

If, having been given his choice of taking honour-price in
right of property, or honour-price in right of his father and
his grandfather, he made choice of honour-price in right of his
property, and decay came upon his property so that he has [left]
but the kingship of the three handles--the handle of his flail,
the handle of his hatchet, and the handle of his wood axe; he is
(then) entitled to but one screpall for his worthiness if he be
worthy; and if he be not worthy he is entitled to nothing, unless
children have been born to him afterwards which he had not before
on the day of making his choice, and if they have been born he
has honour-price in right of them.

The passage goes on to mention the case of his having made choice ‘to have honour-price in right of his relations or in right of his chief.’

In the Senchus Mor (i. p. 275), without direct mention of the case of homicide, is the following statement:--

The honour-price is fourfold. Full honour-price is due to one for
his father, half honour-price for his father’s brother, one third
honour-price for his son or his daughter, one fourth honour-price
for his grandson.

On the whole it may be gathered from the Brehon tracts that, whilst the coirp-dire or body fine was a fixed amount, the eric or full payment was complex, involving, besides the coirp-dire, the honour-price of the slayer according to his rank, and also payments to the relations of the slain, regulated by their honour-price and rank, and nearness of relationship to the slain person, by way of reparation for the insult or injury involved, or for breach of their protection, &c.

In order to judge how much these payments of honour-price added to the eric, we must seek to learn something of the character of the various grades and ranks, and the amount of the honour-price of each.

III. THE GRADATIONS IN RANK UNDER THE BREHON LAWS.

The gradations in the honour-price, as stated in the ‘Crith Gabhlach,’ become very important from the light thrown by them upon the structure of tribal society in Ireland.

[Sidenote: The ‘midboth’ or ordinary freeman and his food allowance.]

At the bottom of the list of these grades is mentioned the _midboth_ man or ordinary freeman without land or cows (?). He is said to be entitled, as food allowance, to the humblest fare of ‘milk and stirabout’ and for himself alone (iv. 301).

His honour-price is only a dairt heifer or colpach heifer, and his honour-price (as that of other grades) is also the limit of the value of his oath or pledge. He is a man who has not yet attained to a household of his own. When he has done that he seems to rise to the next rank of an _og-aire_, _i.e._ a young _aire_.

Suddenly, we are told of the og-aire that he has seven cows and a bull, seven pigs, seven sheep, and a horse. He also has a cow land, _i.e._ land to graze seven cows, for which a cow is paid every year by him to his chief. He has an ox, and a fourth part of the needful for ploughing: _i.e._ presumably he joins with others in making up a plough team of four oxen. Surely these have been supplied to him by his chief, as in the case of the Cymric ‘da.’ His proportionate stock (turcreicc) is eight cows, which with his land he gets from a bo-aire, possessed of surplus cattle, and he pays to him a food-rent ‘bes tigi’ (like the Welsh gwestva) of a cow and a pig, &c. Should his stock increase he does not always become at once a _bo-aire_, ‘because four or five such may occupy the land of a bo-aire, and it would not be easy for each of them to be a bo-aire’ (iv. pp. 305-309).

[Sidenote: The ‘bo-aire.’]

So in the same way a _bo-aire_ has land of twice seven cumhals, and he has half of a full ploughing apparatus, and his proportionate stock (from his chief) is twelve cows; and a colpach heifer is his food-rent; and his honour-price is five seds.

A bo-aire may have a full and complete plough team and twenty cows and other things, and he may even rise to the giving of proportionate stock to tenants of his own if his stock should have grown too much for his land. But he still may remain a bo-aire. He may, however, rise from a bo-aire into a _flaith_ (or chief), when he has double as much as an ‘aire desa’ and has established himself with a _green_ round his homestead, and so surrounded his house with a _precinct_ in which he can give protection to cattle taken in distress, this being one of the important duties and functions of a chief (flaith) (iv. pp. 309-317).

It would seem that even when a man had risen to be the chief of his kindred (fine) he might still be simply a bo-aire, and not necessarily yet a _flaith chief_.

In another tract, among other disconnected items are the following:--

Whatever number of the divisions of the bo-aires happen to be
contending, though one of them be older than the others, the
grade which is most wealthy, _i.e._ in point of wealth, it is it
that takes precedence.

He is a hill of chieftainship in the third person.

Unless his father and grandfather were flaith, though he may be
of the same race as to his origin, his chieftainship is lost to
him.

A plebeian chief is one whose father or grandfather was not a
chief (flaith). (iv. pp. 379-381.)

It would seem from these statements that to become a flaith from the rank of bo-aires something like an election was needful, and that wealth weighed most in the election. It shows, however, that it was election out of a class or family in which the flaithship descended from father to son, and that one of the qualifications was that a man’s father and grandfather before him must have been flaiths.

[Sidenote: The ‘aire desa.’]

So too in the ‘Crith Gabhlach’ (iv. p. 321) the _aire desa_ must be the son of an aire and the grandson of an aire. He has (probably a minimum of) ten tenants, five _giallna_ and five _saer_, and gets a food-rent from each. But he himself takes proportionate stock from his chief, for which he pays food-rent in the same way.

[Sidenote: The ‘aire ard.’]

The _aire ard_ has twenty tenants, ten _giallna_ and ten _saer_, and in his turn he takes proportionate stock from his chief (iv. p. 325).

[Sidenote: The ‘aire tuisi.’]

The _aire tuisi_ has twenty-seven tenants, fifteen giallna and twelve saer, and he takes himself proportionate stock from a king, ‘and he makes corus-arrangements _in the raith right of his father and grandfather_,’ whatever this may be (iv. 325).

[Sidenote: The ‘aire forgaill.’ The ‘Ri-tuaithe.’]

Above him is the _aire forgaill_, with forty tenants; and at the head of the flaith or chieftain grade comes the _Ri-tuaithe_, who is the chief or King of a Tuath.

[Sidenote: The lower grades take stock from the higher and pay food-rents to them.]

We need not attempt to discuss the details of this hierarchy of chieftains. It is enough that, throughout, the lower chieftain takes stock from and pays food-rents to the higher chieftain, or the Ri-tuaithe, as the case may be. So that the grades of tribal rank were connected by the link formed by the receipt of an allotment of stock from, and the payment of food-rent to, the next superior grade.

* * * * *

Concentrating attention now on the ‘fine’ or group dependent upon a single flaith or chief, we have seen that it consisted not only of his kindred, but also of other dependents.

[Sidenote: The other tenants of a chieftain.]

We have seen that the chief had both _giallna_ and _saer_ tenants, and that he supplied these tenants with stock, and received food-rent and services in return.

In the second volume of the Senchus Mor[72] are two chapters on _Saer-raith_ and _Daer-raith_. And the two kinds of tenancy are explained somewhat as follows.

[Sidenote: Effect of continuance of tenancy for three lives.]

In the _saer_-raith the stock is given without any pledge, and the return for it is one-third in value as food-rent every year, and the tenant has to perform what is translated as homage, and to do service on the dun-fort, at harvest time, and on military expeditions, but he does no manual labour. The saer tenant cannot separate from his own hereditary tribal chieftain, or refuse to take stock from him, and to that extent he seems to be _adscriptus glebæ_. But if he chooses to receive stock from another chief he can give it up when he likes, unless not having returned it _for three lifetimes_, he has let the chief get a permanent hold on him, but this must not be so as to rob his own tribe of their innate rights (p. 219). This freedom to take stock from other chieftains does not, therefore, seem to alter his position or that of his successor as permanent tenants of their own hereditary chieftain. And this applies both to his higher chieftain of _kingly_ rank, and his own lesser chieftain of _flaith_ rank.

He cannot separate from his own king (ri) at any time, either in
_saer_-rath or _daer_-rath, unless the chief be indigent.… His
own _aire_ of the _flaith_ grade is in the same position as his
own _king_ (p. 211).

On the other hand, whilst in the case of stock taken from another chieftain the contract can be ended on either side (except after three lives), the hereditary king or chieftain cannot, without good reason, withdraw the stock from the tenants.

If he be his own king he can never take away either his _saer_
stock or _daer_ stock unless the tenant be indigent, and there
are no life separations between the tenant and his own hereditary
king unless either of them act illegally, &c.…

The tightness of the tribal bond is shown still more clearly by the statement that the chieftain himself is not competent to forgive, so as to bind his successors, the food-rent due from the tenant.

The food-rent is free to the successors of the chief; for the
chief is not competent to forgive the payment of what supplies
his house (p. 213).

So much we gather from the chapter on _saer_-rath. Now as to _daer_-rath (p. 223). No one was bound to take _daer_ stock from any one, not even from his own chieftain or king. Taking daer stock was therefore a matter of contract, and a contract by a tribesman affected his _fine_ or kindred.

The stock is received by the tenant either with or without the
knowledge of the _fine_, for if it was unknown to them they could
impugn his contract, but if it was within their knowledge, though
the stock be ever so great, it is fastened upon them.

The fine had a voice, presumably lest it should be found that cattle in their family herd, unknown to them, might belong to some outside chieftain. And further, if continued for three lives, the obligation might become permanent, as in the case of saer stock.

[Sidenote: ‘Fuidhir’ tenants become _adscripti glebæ_ after three generations.]

Besides these _daer_ and _saer_ tenants who had taken stock from their chieftain or king, and who seem to have been to a great extent _adscripti glebæ_, there is mention of _fuidhir_ tenants. They seem to be strangers, admitted, like the Cymric alltuds, upon a chieftain’s land, and, like the Cymric alltuds, free to move away, until by residence for three generations they also have become recognised as freemen, and at the same time _adscripti glebæ_.

In the tract, ‘Divisions of the Tribe of a Territory,’[73] is the following mention of the fuidhir tenants, confirming what has been said above.

It occurs in the commentary:--

His fuidhir tenants, _i.e._ they become free during the time of
three persons; the fourth man is called a daer-bothach person;
the _fifth is a sencleithe_ person.

The fifth person would be the great-great-grandson of the original fuidhir. Further on (p. 287) is the following:--

The families of the fuidhir tenants are subject to manifold
divisions. The son is enriched in the same ratio as his father,
and the father does not sell anything to the prejudice of his
sons, grandsons, great-grandsons, or great-great-grandsons.

[Sidenote: The fifth generation become ‘sencleithe.’]

The chief point of interest is that the men of the fourth generation of fuidhirs, according to the above-quoted passages, became _daer-bothach_ persons--half free men--and the fifth generation _sencleithe_, so that the family, like the Cymric stranger, grew into freedom in four or five generations.

This gradual growth of fuidhirs into sencleithe tenants in five generations of occupation is illustrated by the retention of rights for a corresponding period. In the Book of Aicill (p. 157) is a statement that the land of an imbecile person (a fool’s land) is not lost to his descendants, though they be also imbeciles, ‘till five persons:’ that is, till the fifth generation.

The number of generations required does not, however, seem to have been absolutely uniform.

The following is from the ‘Crith Gabhlach’ (p. 321):--

If there be service from them (cottier and fuidhir tenants which
he, the chief, brings upon the land) to ‘flaith’ chiefs to nine
times nine (years?), they are cottiers and fuidhir tenants; they
are _sencleithe_ tenants from that out.

In the Editor’s note (p. 350) to the sequel to the ‘Crith Gabhlach,’ there is a statement that the sencleithe tenant was a man who came from his natural chief to settle under another chief; and if he or his successors continued away during the time of three successive chiefs, with the knowledge of the former chief, and unclaimed by him or his successors, he or they then became ‘sencleithe,’ and could not go away of themselves nor be claimed by the other.[74]

[Sidenote: Comparison with Cymric custom as to strangers, and as to the link between chief and tribesmen made by bestowal and acceptance of cattle.]

These passages, taken together, seem to imply that after five, or sometimes three, generations of tenancy under the same chieftain or his successors, the fuidhir tenants became in some sense _adscripti glebæ_, like the Cymric alltuds, and at the same time formed a group of kindred very much like a Cymric gwely.

Beyond this it is not easy to realise the position of the _sencleithe_ person. The text of the Brehon law tracts is often very obscure, and the commentary so imperfect that the suggestion again and again occurs to the student that the commentator may sometimes himself be groping in the dark. Moreover, all the Brehon tracts have not yet been published, so that we have as yet only part of the evidence before us. Still it seems to be safe to say that there are indications that, as in Wales, there were rungs in the social ladder by which the stranger or unfree tenant might, after a certain number of generations, climb into something like freedom and tribal rights at the cost of becoming at the same time attached to the land of the chieftain; and that to the freeman also the grades of social rank were in some measure dependent upon the social position of fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers as well as upon the acceptance of stock and the payment of food-rent and the performance of services to chieftains of higher rank.

Further, without pressing too far resemblances which are not complete between Irish and Cymric custom, it may at least be suggested that the Irish example of the acceptance of stock by the young og-aire from the chief of his family, or some higher chieftain whose man he was or became, may throw some light upon the Cymric provision of _da_ or cattle to the young tribesman who became ‘man and kin’ to the chieftain who gave it for his maintenance. In the Irish instance, this bestowal and acceptance of stock was part of a system which ran through all ranks and grades. And it seems to have formed the natural link connecting one social rank with another, and securing some kind of solidarity in the whole kindred or tribe, in addition to the tie of blood relationship and sometimes as a substitute for it.

We are now in a position to consider the amount of the honour-price of the various grades in tribal society as exhibited in the Brehon tracts, and to judge how far it was an important addition to the coirp-dire, and whether it raised the Irish _eric_ to an amount at all near to that of the _galanas_ of the Cymric Codes.

[Sidenote: The amount of the honour-price of each grade.]

In the ‘Crith Gabhlach’ the honour-price of each grade is given as below:--

Midboth men a dairt heifer or colpach heifer
Og-aire 3 seds of cow kind
Bo-aire 5 seds or = 1 cumhal
_Aire desa_ 10 seds or = 2 cumhals
Aire ard 15 seds or = 3 cumhals
Aire tuisi 20 seds or = 4 cumhals
Aire forgaill 15 seds (_sic_; ? 30 seds) or = 6 cumhals.[75]
_Ri_-tuaith 7 cumhals

The honour-price is given in the ‘Crith Gabhlach’ in seds. The number of cumhals or female slaves is taken from a list in the Book of Aicill (p. 475) and from a statement in the Senchus Mor (i. p. 76) in which the honour-price of the aire forgaill is stated to be 6 cumhals.

It seems, then, that the honour-price of the Ri-tuaith, the highest chieftain, was seven cumhals, whilst the honour-price of the bo-aire only amounted to one cumhal, that of the og-aire to only three two-year-old heifers, whilst that of the simple freeman without land or cattle was only one single heifer.

[Sidenote: Difference between the Irish ‘eric’ and the Cymric ‘galanas.’]

The whole eric fine for homicide, including the coirp-dire and additional payments of honour price, evidently fell very far short of that of the Cymric galanas. Even in the case of the Ri-tuaith or highest chieftain slain by one of his own rank, the eric can hardly have exceeded the galanas of the young unmarried Cymric tribesman--viz. of sixty cows.

[Sidenote: The honour-price the limit of the power of protection.]

The importance under Irish tribal custom of the honour-price of a tribesman, and its graduation in proportion to rank, position, and wealth in the tribe, is apparent quite apart from the question of homicide. It ruled the value of ‘his oath, of his guarantee, of his pledge, and of his evidence.’ These according to the ‘Crith Gabhlach’ (p. 307) were the four things in which he acted to the extent of his honour-price, and he was not competent to undertake liabilities beyond this limit. This becomes very important when we realise how large a place the system of compurgation, or the support of a kinsman by the oaths of his fellow-kinsmen, filled in tribal usage.

On the other hand, whilst the honour-price of a tribesman or chieftain was the limit up to which his power of giving protection to his fellow-tribesmen by oath or pledge or otherwise extended, it also was the measure of his own protection. He was entitled to his honour-price not only in case of homicide. If he was satirised or insulted, or if the protection he afforded to others was violated, or his house was burned, or any one stole from him, out of his house or in it, or forced his wife or his daughter, his honour-price was the measure of the amount of redress he could claim for the wrong. The analogy of this to the Cymric _saraad_ is obvious, and something like it is found in most tribal systems.

[Sidenote: A typical case of eric from the Senchus Mor.]

Finally, imperfect and vague in some points as may be the result of the foregoing examination of the Irish evidence, we are now perhaps in a position to appreciate, for what it is worth, the curious case described in the Senchus Mor.[76] It may be taken so far as it goes as a precedent or indication of the way in which the intricate matters connected with the eric fine and honour-price were worked out in practice, though it is difficult to explain all the rulings of the Brehon experts.

The matter in dispute was between two of the three principal races of Erin--the Feini or ‘men of the North’ and the Ulaidh or ‘men of the South.’ Fergus was the son of the King of the Ulaidh. Owing to a quarrel amongst the Feini, Eochaidh Belbhuidhe, being expelled by Conn of the Hundred Battles, had fled from his own tribe and put himself under the protection of Fergus.

Whilst under the protection of Fergus, Eochaidh was killed by Asal the son of Conn, and by four sons of Buidhe, and a grandson of Buidhe. The latter, being the son of Buidhe’s daughter _Dorn_ by a stranger, was not acknowledged by her kindred (fine).

The eric fine for this outrage upon the protection of Fergus was thus arranged:--He was to have three times seven cumhals, _i.e._ seven cumhals in gold, seven in silver, and land of seven cumhals called _Inbher-Ailbhine_.

This was in satisfaction for the crime of the six murderers, viz. the son of Conn, and the four sons and the grandson of Buidhe. Five out of the six slayers apparently were able to pay their share. But not so the sixth, viz. the grandson of Buidhe, the illegitimate son of his daughter Dorn, who, being unrecognised by the kindred, apparently had no claim for help from them. Consequently Dorn, the mother of the illegitimate grandson, was handed over to Fergus as a bondwoman in pledge for her son’s share of the eric.

So matters stood for a time. But a new trouble arose, which seems to have upset the whole settlement and made it necessary to consider it over again, from the beginning.

It would seem that after all there was a question whether the land _Inbher-Ailbhine_ was permanently handed over, or only for a time, and redeemable within the period of the lives of three chieftains, because there was a question whether such a period had expired or not. And again it was claimed that Dorn was only given in _temporary_ bondage as a pledge for her illegitimate son’s share of the eric.

Besides these doubts, new circumstances had created a new position. Fergus was unfortunate enough to have suffered a blemish on his face. This, being a serious matter in a chieftain, was studiously kept from his knowledge. Dorn, acting as bondwoman, was one day, according to the story, preparing a bath for Fergus. Fergus complained that she was too slow about it and struck her with his horse-whip. She, being vexed, reproached him with his blemish, and for this insult Fergus slew her on the spot. Very shortly afterwards Fergus himself died.

This then was the new position, causing a new quarrel between the two tribes and involving the reopening of the old one. The interest lies in the way in which it was settled.

[Sidenote: Final balance of payments agreed to.]

A balance was now struck between the crimes on each side, beginning with the slaying of Eochaidh while under the protection of Fergus, as follows:--

Fergus, being king of a province, was entitled to 18 cumhals
both as airer-fine and honour-price for the violation of his
protection. There were also due to him 9 cumhals for his half
airer-fine and half honour-price for Dorn’s insult in reproaching
him with the blemish; so that this was altogether 27 cumhals to
Fergus.

On the other side the Feini claimed as follows:--

Honour-price was demanded by the Feini for the killing of (Dorn)
the pledge, for the pledge they had given was without limitation
of time, and for it 23 cumhals were payable by Fergus for
airer-fine and honour-price, for the authority of Fergus was
opposed at the time.

This seems to have settled the matter between the two tribes; _i.e._, so to speak, the public matter between the Feini and Fergus’s people. But there were individual rights to be considered also. Besides these 23 cumhals due to his tribe,

Buidhe was entitled to honour-price for the killing of his
daughter, _i.e._ he was an _aire-forgaill_ of the middle rank and
was entitled to 6 cumhals as honour-price. Her brother was also
entitled to honour-price for her death; he was an _aire-ard_ and
was entitled to 4 cumhals as his honour-price.

Why the other brother had no claim for honour-price does not appear--perhaps the one brother was the representative of the brothers as a class. The total sum demanded on Dorn’s side was therefore 23 + 6 + 4 cumhals = 33 cumhals.

So that this which the men of the South demanded amounted to 33
cumhals, and the men of the North demanded 27; and a balance
was struck between them, and it was found that an excess of 6
cumhals was due by the men of the North, for which the land
_Inbher-Debhline_ was again restored by the men of the North.

The commentary goes on to say:--

And it is evident from this, that when a man has paid eric fine,
should the person to whom it has been paid commit a crime against
him, the law orders that his own eric fine should be restored to
the former should it be better than the other eric fine.

In this case the land which had been taken by Fergus as ‘seven cumhals of land’ was returned to pay for the balance due of six cumhals only.

It will be observed that whilst the father and brother of Dorn had their own honour-price allowed for her slaying, no _coirp-dire_ was claimed for the life of Dorn herself. The reason is given as follows:--

What is the reason that the land was restored by the people of
the North and that the eric-fine for the woman was not restored,
whereas both had been given (to Fergus) as eric-fine for
trespass? The reason is the woman committed an offence in the
North for which she was forfeited, and the land did not commit
any offence for which it could be forfeited, but it was returned
in part payment for that trespass (_i.e._ the killing of Dorn).

IV. THE CURRENCY IN WHICH THE BREHON FINES WERE PAID.

Before leaving the Irish coirp-dire and honour-price, allusion must be made to the currency in which they were paid.

[Sidenote: Payment in cumhals or female slaves.]

The most significant point was the payment in _cumhals_ or female slaves. The cumhal was equated with three cows, but the payment was reckoned and stated in cumhals. The female slave was the prominent customary unit of payment, and doubtless a common object of commerce and trade.

[Sidenote: Cumhal = three cows or ounces of silver.]

The equation of the cumhal and the cow with silver was also remarkable. The cow was equated with the Roman ounce, and the cumhal with three ounces.

From a passage in the Senchus Mor (i. p. 247) and the Book of Aicill (pp. 371-377), the following table of values is evolved:--

8 wheat-grains = pinginn of silver
24 ” (3 pinginns) = screpall
72 ” (3 screpalls) = sheep (B. of A. p. 377)
96 ” (4 screpalls) = dairt heifer
576 ” (6 dairts) = bo, or cow, or unga
1728 ” (3 bo) = cumhal or female slave

These silver values as compared with those of the Cymric Codes seem at first sight to be singularly low. The Welsh cow, as we have seen, was valued in silver at three Saxon ounces, and the male and female slave each at a pound of twelve ounces. The Welsh value of the cow was roughly three times, and that of the slave three and one third times, the Irish silver value.

This Irish equation between cattle and silver must surely have been made at a time when silver was of quite exceptional value in Ireland. But there is some reason to believe that an earlier equation had been made with gold of a very different character.

[Sidenote: An older equation with gold.]

Professor Ridgeway has called attention to an interesting story from the life of St. Finian in the Book of Lismore (fol. 24, b.c.), in which an ounce of gold was required for the liberation of a captive, and a ring of gold weighing an ounce was accordingly given.

Now, if the ounce of gold is put in the place of the cumhal or female slave, the gold values of the Brehon monetary reckonings would be:--

Cumhal = 576 wheat-grains = ounce
Bo or cow = 192 ” = stater or ox unit
Dairt heifer = 32 ” = tremissis

These gold values, if established, would take their place at once as following the gold system of Constantine, and probably might belong therefore to a period in which the Continental ratio of gold to silver would be 1:12, and the silver values fairly consistent with those of the Welsh and other tribes. The cumhal or female slave would then equal twelve ounces or one pound of silver as in Wales. This, however, must not be taken as proved. It is with the silver values of the Brehon Laws that we are here concerned. And we should be tempted to refer this silver value to the period of Charlemagne’s attempted introduction of the ratio of 1:4 were it not that, as we shall see, it seems to date back to a period some centuries earlier.

There is another point of interest in connection with the early Irish monetary reckoning.

[Sidenote: The reckoning in scores of Roman ounces, _i.e._ the ‘Mina Italica.’]

We have seen that in the Brehon Laws the smallest silver unit was the _screapall_ or scripulum. And it has already been mentioned that the scripulum was also known as the _denarius Gallicus_, of which 24 went to the Roman ounce of 576 wheat-grains, as in the Brehon Laws, and that a score of ounces made the mina Italica of twice 5760 wheat-grains. It is curious to find in a passage quoted by Petrie[77] from the _Fodla Feibe_ in the Book of Ballymote,[78] a full and exact appreciation of the number of wheat-grains in the scripulum and the Roman ounce. The wheat-grains, according to this passage, are to be taken from wheat grown on typically rich soil which produces ‘the three roots,’ and 24 wheat-grains are the weight of the ‘screapall’ of silver, and 576 the weight of the ‘uinge’ or ounce. Further it is stated that the full weight which the _Tinde_ or weighing bar is to weigh is--not a pound: there is no mention of the pound--but _seven score ounces_.[79] Now this reckoning, not in pounds, but in _scores of ounces_, has already been alluded to as, consciously or unconsciously, a reckoning in so many of the _mina Italica_. Petrie quotes a passage from the ‘Annals of the Four Masters’ in which this payment in scores is illustrated.[80]

A.D. 1029. Amlaff, son of Sitric, lord of the Danes, was captured
by Mahon O’Riagain, lord of Bregia, who exacted 1,200 cows as his
ransom, together with seven score British horses and three score
ounces of gold and the sword of Carlus … and three score ounces
of white silver as his fetter ounces, and four score cows for
word and supplication, and four hostages to O’Riagain himself as
a security for peace and the full value of the life of the third
hostage.

Apart, however, from the monetary system of the Brehon Laws, the fact remains that the real currency of early Irish custom seems to have been in _cumhals_ or _female slaves_. The coirp-dire and the honour-price of the Brehon tracts were reckoned in cumhals, and we shall find that there appears to be good evidence that both payment in female slaves and the equation of the female slave with three Roman ounces of silver go back to a very early period.

V. THE IRISH COIRP-DIRE AND HONOUR-PRICE TRACED FURTHER BACK THAN THE BREHON LAWS.

The evidence regarding the coirp-dire of the Brehon Laws and its payment in female slaves does not rest on those laws alone.

[Sidenote: St. Patrick’s ‘pretium hominis’ of ‘seven ancillæ.’]

St. Patrick, in his ‘Confessions,’[81] treats the _pretium hominis_ as a well-known unit of value. These are the words of St. Patrick:--

Vos autem experti estis quantum erogavi illis qui judicabant per
omnes regiones quas ego frequentius visitabam; censeo enim non
minimum quam pretium quindecim hominum distribui illis.

You know by experience how much I have paid out to those who
were judges in all the regions which I have often visited; for I
think that I have given away to them not less than the _pretium
quindecim hominum_.

Further, in the ‘Tripartite Life’ St. Patrick is represented as putting the alternative between the death of a transgressor and the payment of seven cumhals (‘_Aut reum morti aut VII. ancillas reddere debet_’).[82] The evidence for this coirp dire and its payment in ancillæ seems to be thrown back by these passages to the fifth century.

[Sidenote: Evidence of the ‘Canones Hibernenses.’]

Further, when we turn to the series of ‘Canones Hibernenses’ published in Wasserschleben’s work, _Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche_ (p. 136), we find repeated evidence that the ‘pretium hominis,’ or ‘pretium sanguinis,’ of seven ancillæ, was a well-recognised unit of payment in ecclesiastical quarters more or less connected with the Irish and Breton Churches.

The first group of these Canons is headed ‘_De disputatione Hybernensis Sinodi et Gregori Nasaseni sermo de innumerabilibus peccatis incipit_.’

The first clause of this group imposes a penance for parricide of fourteen years in bread and water and satisfaction; or half this only if there was no intention.

The next clause imposes for ordinary homicide seven years’ penance in bread and water.

Clauses 8 and 10 fix the ‘prætium animæ’ of a pregnant woman (including woman and child) at twelve ancillæ.

[Sidenote: _Ancilla_ of same value in silver as the Brehon _cumhal_.]

Clause 9 fixes for us the silver value of the _ancilla_ and seems to show that it was the same as the silver value of the cumhal in the Brehon Laws.

The clause is as follows:--

XII. Altilia[83] vel XIII. sicli (? XII.) prætium uniuscujusque
ancillæ.

Ecclesiastical usage retained to some extent the use of Roman phraseology. The siclus or sicilicus, as we have already seen, was the didrachma of two Roman _argentei_ or silver drachmæ. And as the drachma after Nero was one eighth of the Roman ounce, so the _siclus_ was one quarter. The Altilia was the ‘fattened heifer’ possibly of Irish custom.[84] Twelve fattened heifers or sicli equalled therefore three Roman ounces--_i.e._ the exact silver value of the cumhal of the Brehon Laws. Here, therefore, in these so-called Irish Canons the ancilla seems to be reckoned at the Brehon silver value of the cumhal.

Having gained this point we proceed to examine the other clauses.

In title III., headed ‘_Synodus Hibernensis decrevit_,’ are the following:[85]--

[Sidenote: Seven ancillæ the price of a man’s life.]

Sanguis episcopi vel excelsi principis vel scribæ qui ad terram
effunditur, si colirio indiguerit, eum, qui effuderit, sapientes
crucifigi judicant, vel VII. ancillas reddat.

The blood of a bishop or high prince or a scribe poured on the
ground, _si colirio indiguerit_,[86] the ‘sapientes’ judge that
he who sheds it shall be crucified or pay seven ancillæ.

Here, obviously, the VII. ancillæ are the price of the life of the criminal--the seven cumhals of the coirp-dire. The canon adds the following:--

Si in specie, tertiam partem de argento et comparem verticis
de auro latitudinem nec non et similem oculi de gemma pretiosa
magnitudine reddat.

If paid in specie, one third must be paid in silver, and of
gold of the size of the crown of the head, and also the like in
precious stone of the size of an eye.

These passages seem to have a curious correspondence with the following passage in the Brehon Laws (sequel to the ‘Crith Grabhlach,’ iv. p. 363):--

As to the shedding of a bishop’s blood, if it reaches to the
ground as blood that requires a tent the guilty person is to be
hanged for it, or it is seven cumhals that are to be paid for his
sick maintenance and his eric.

If the wound be in his face, the breadth of his face of silver is
paid, and of the crown of his head of gold.

The canons go on to state that if the blood does not reach the ground _nec colirio indigeat_ the hand of the striker is to be cut off, or the half of VII. ancillæ paid, if the act is done with intention; if not, the price of one ancilla is to be paid.

Another clause states that if a bishop be struck or violently handled, without effusion of blood, half the price of VII. ancillæ is to be paid.

In all these cases the fines are reckoned in a unit of VII. ancillæ or the half of it. The cutting off of the hand of the criminal is reckoned as equal to half of VII. ancillæ. The VII. ancillæ is the recognised unit.

When, in other clauses, dealing with the case of the same things done to a _priest_, a lesser punishment is decreed, still _the price of VII. ancillæ_ is the price of the life of the criminal. If the blood of a priest is shed and reaches the ground, _donec colorium subfert_, the hand of the criminal is to be cut off, or half of VII. ancillæ to be paid, if the act be intentional. If not intentional, the price of one ancilla is enough.

In title IV., _Dejectione_, after a clause stating that he who ejects a poor man kills him, and he who meets a person ready to perish and does not succour him kills him, there follows this clause:--

Si quis jecerit episcopum et si mortuus fuerit, accipiatur ab eo
pretium sanguinis ejus L. ancillas reddit, id est VII. ancillas
uniuscujusque gradus vel l. annis peniteat et ex his accipiuntur
VII. ancille de jectione ejus.

If any one ejects a bishop and if he should be dead, let there
be received for him the price of his blood, let him render
fifty ancillæ, _i.e._ seven ancillæ for each grade of rank, or
do penance fifty years, and from these shall be received seven
ancillæ _de jectione ejus_.[87]

[Sidenote: ‘Pretium sanguinis’ seven ancillæ.]

Here the ordinary ‘_pretium sanguinis_’ or _coirp-dire_ is again clearly reckoned at VII. ancillæ, and the bishop, being of the seventh grade of rank in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, is to be paid for sevenfold.

It is also worth notice that in these clauses the cutting off of a hand is reckoned as _half_ of the ‘_pretium sanguinis_.’ This is in full accordance with the Brehon rule laid down in the ‘Book of Aicill’ (iii. p. 349).