Regnal succession in early medieval Ireland

Regnal succession in early medieval Ireland has been the centre of scholarly debate for the past eighty-five years. This paper contributes to the debate with an investigation of the early Irish law texts. It is argued that these law texts, especially the tracts on inheritance, reveal a certain pattern of regnal succession, which can be divided into an early and a later phase. Moreover, they allow us to define necessary criteria for eligibility for Irish kingship. The results of this examination are illustrated in the summary by the historical example of the early Síl nÁedo Sláine. Keywords: Irish regnal successionearly Irish laweligibility for kingship febas Síl nÁedo Sláine Notes 1 I am indebted to Neil McLeod and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín for their stimulating comments on the present article. 2 Eoin Mac Neill, ‘The Irish law of dynastic succession’, Studies, 8 (1919), 367-82, 640-53, reprinted in Eoin Mac Neill, Celtic Ireland (Dublin, 1921, repr. with new introduction and additional notes by Donnchadh Ó Corráin, Dublin, 1981), 114-43. For other summaries and criticisms of Mac Neill's theory see (in chronological order) Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession: A reappraisal’, Studia Hibernica, 11 (1971), 7-39, at 7; Thomas M. Charles-Edwards, Early Irish and Welsh kinship (Oxford, 1993), 89-91, Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Early Medieval Ireland 400-1200 (London, 1995), 65-6; Bart Jaski, Early Irish kingship and succession (Dublin, 2000), 27; Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan and early medieval Ireland’, in: James Hogan. Revolutionary, historian and political scientist, ed. Donnchadh Ó Corráin (Dublin, 2001), 89-115, at 97. 3 Mac Neill, Celtic Ireland, 114-117. As Mac Neill connected eligibility with the derbfhine, in his opinion every person not further removed than the fourth generation from a former king was technically a rígdomna. James Hogan, ‘The Irish law of kingship with special reference to Aileach and Cenél Eoghain’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy C, 40 (1932), 186-254, at 188, D.A. Binchy, ‘Some Celtic legal terms’, Celtica, 3 (1956), 221-231, at 225 (until he changed his view in ‘Irish history and Irish law: II’, Studia Hibernica, 16 (1976), 7-45, at 38-44, accepting the validity of Ó Corráin's argument about Irish regnal succession), Gearóid Mac Niocaill, Ireland before the Vikings (Dublin, 1972), 54-5, and Francis J. Byrne, Irish kings and high-kings (Dublin,1973, repr. Dublin, 2001), 35-6 follow Mac Neill's view, as does Michael Richter, Irland im Mittelalter. Kultur und Geschichte (München, 1996), 29-31. But inasmuch as Mac Neill's theory of regnal succession became the subject of discussion, the term rígdomna was also interpreted differently. Gearóid MacNiocaill, ‘The ‘heir designate’ in early medieval Ireland’, The Irish Jurist, 3 (1968), 326-9, translates rígdomna as ‘heir presumptive’. Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 35-7, suggests that rígdomna applied to the heads of the branches out of power, who are qualified for kingship, though at a later stage it may have happened, according to Ó Corráin, that this term lost this latter connotation and was used for the heads of branches that had no chance of succession, as a kind of ‘consolation prize’. In Charles-Edwards’ opinion (Kinship, 101-10), picking up Ó Corráin's analysis, the term rígdomna was generally attributed to a person who had the right qualifications of a king, but whether or not this implied a chance of succession is a question of the individual case: in some cases rígdomna could denote an acknowledged contender for kingship or even the ‘heir-apparent’, in others it should rather be regarded as a ‘consolation prize’. This is essentially also what Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’, 106-9, summarises in 2001, underlining his argument with historical examples. Jaski, Kingship, 236-47, associates the term rígdomna with two possible meanings: it can mean (1) that a person is generally qualified for succession (and this is the primary use of this term in the annals); or (2) that this person is supposed to succeed according to the ‘customary rule of succession’ (which is the predominant meaning of this term in literary sources). 4 Mac Neill, Celtic Ireland, 117-8. For the legal notion of the derbfhine in Mac Neill's theory see Celtic Ireland, 118-120. Interestingly enough, David N. Dumville, ‘The aetheling: a study in Anglo-Saxon constitutional history’, Anglo-Saxon England, 8 (1979), 1-33, at 1-14, connects eligibility for kingship in England in the period from the ninth to the eleventh century (with the Anglo-Saxon term aetheling standing for any eligible aristocrat) with a three-generation-group. However, in his opinion (pp. 14-18) eligibility in pre-Viking Anglo-Saxon England depended on descent from the founder of a dynasty. 5 Mac Neill, Celtic Ireland, 121-3. 6 James Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’. A detailed discussion of Hogan's theory is given by Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’. 7 Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’, 187-9. 8 Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’, 190-3. This difference in theory between these two scholars is also highlighted by Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 92. 9 For this principle see especially Hogan's figure in ‘Irish law of kingship’, 188. For alternation in Hogan's theory, which he does not explain further, see ‘Irish law of kingship’, 189, 219. 10 Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’, 193. See also Bart Jaski, ‘Early medieval Irish kingship and the Old Testament’, Early Medieval Europe, 3 (1998), 330-344, at 336. 11 Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’. A summary of Ó Corráin's view is given by Jaski, Kingship, 28-9, and discussions of it are provided by Binchy, ‘Irish history II’, 39-44, and Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 93-95. 12 Ó Corráin stresses this again seven years later in Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘Nationality and kingship in pre-Norman Ireland’, in: Nationality and the pursuit of national independence, ed. T.W. Moody (Belfast, 1978), 1-39, at 10-11, and also gives a summary of his view in ‘Hogan’, 109-10. 13 See especially Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 29-30. 14 Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 7-9. 15 Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’, 109. 16 For the difficulties of applying Hogan's theory to historical examples of succession see Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 32-4. 17 Ian Whitaker, ‘Regnal succession among Dalriata’, Ethnohistory, 23 (1976), 343-63. 18 Whitaker, ‘Regnal succession’, 353-5. 19 Whitaker, ‘Regnal succession’, 355. 20 Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 95-100. A summary of Charles-Edwards’ theory is given by Jaski, Kingship, 29-30. 21 Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’, 194. The Succession Tract (ed. and trans. by Alexander George Richey, Ancient laws of Ireland, vol. 4 (Dublin, 1879) –hereafter AL 4-, 372-87) is a late collection of passages from various Old Irish legal texts, with the intention ‘to bring the senior before the junior in every case’, according to its compiler, Domnhall Ó Duibhdábhoirenn. Compare Richey's introduction to this tract in AL 4, ccxxiii. For the Succession Tract and its sources see Jaski, Kingship, 289-295. 22 Charles-Edwards changes this view slightly in Ireland, 90-1, where he argues that a person was a ‘potential king’, if a former king was not further removed than his grandfather in his direct agnatic lineage, and only then was he and his branch regarded as royal. 23 For the influence of febas on the eligibility of a branch, see Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 108. 24 Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 97. 25 Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 100. See also Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 107-8. 26 Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 100. 27 Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 100. Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 39. 28 Jaski, Kingship, see especially pages 113-24, 169-70, 229-36, 279-81. 29 Even though Jaski discussed many law tracts concerning succession, none of them explicitly mentions collateral succession. In his theory collateral succession is implied by the evidence of the annals (Kingship, 138-9), narrative literature and dynastic propaganda rather than by the law tracts. And a short glance at various pedigrees reveals that collateral succession must have been a component of any ‘customary rule of succession’, if such a rule was ever in existence. Thus it is necessary to investigate if collateral succession is also deducible from the law texts, and this is done below. 30 Hogan, ‘Irish law of kingship’, 193-4. Compare Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’, 99. For the relationship of Mac Neill's theory with the law of inheritance see Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 7. For the importance of the Irish law tracts for the understanding of ‘Celtic’ kingship see Daniel A. Binchy, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Kingship (Oxford, 1970), 1. 31 The system of Irish kinship has long been at the centre of various theories. The most recent theory is established by Neil McLeod, ‘Kinship’, Ériu, 51 (2000), 1-22. The final gelfhine is there discussed and illustrated on pages 3-4. Whereas Mac Neill deduced from the annals and genealogies that the derbfhine was the kin-group that was decisive for regnal succession, the law texts that deal with inheritance refer to the gelfhine in most cases, and for that reason this three-generation-group is the basis for this theory. 32 Being the one who was entitled to an extra share and who had the ‘choice of shares’, according to the well-known maxims – ‘the youngest divides, the older choose’ (and one text adds ‘according to their qualities’), and ‘the senior is entitled to free choice’ (Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Aus dem irischen Recht III. 4. Die falschen Urteilssprüche Caratnia's’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 15 (1925), 302-70, at 317). See the discussion of the relevant sources in Jaski, Kingship, 117-19 and especially the passages of the Succession Tract in AL 4, 372-3. Note that the Collectio Canonum Hibernensis (abbreviated as CCH below – ed. by Hermann Wasserschleben, Die irische Kanonensammlung (second edition, Leipzig, 1885, repr. Aalen, 1966)) 32.4 explicitly states that a father should not divide the inheritance as he pleased, and thus should not give the headship to a favoured son. Furthermore, CCH 31.18 seems to deal with the case that the oldest son died before his father and in this case the part of the inheritance that was especially reserved for him (including the cumal senorba –to be discussed later-, even though this is not explicitly mentioned there) was divided among his sons, his brothers, and their ‘successors’ (i.e., the sons of the brothers in the case that the latter were dead). As will become obvious from the following discussion, the headship of the family would go to the next brother in line in that instance. For a discussion and translation of this passage of CCH see Jaski, Kingship, 118. Donnchadh Ó Corráin, ‘The early Irish churches: some aspects of organisation’, in: Irish Antiquity, ed. Donnchadh Ó Corráin (Cork, 1981), 327-341, at 333, correctly points out that CCH perfectly agrees with secular law tracts concerning the questions of inheritance. (The letters A & B refer to the figure below, which is merely an example to illustrate the argument.) 33 For example, Cóic Conara Fugill (abbreviated as CCF below - edited and translated into German by Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Cóic conara fugill. Die fünf Wege zum Urteil. Ein altirischer Rechtstext’, Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1925, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 7, repr. in: Rudolf Thurneysen: Gesammelte Schriften, Band III, Keltisches Recht (Tübingen, 1995), 3-87) §§3 and 71 (and possibly connected with the latter, §72). Moreover, the reference to the cumal senorba - which is discussed below - might then apply only to this form of succession, i.e. by the oldest son. But if CCF §72 is regarded as independent, this paragraph could also refer to succession on a larger scale. See below. Another passage in the Succession Tract (AL 4, 372-3) states that seniority determined the succession to the headship of the gelfhine. Note also that flaith gelfhine can have different meanings, depending on how the gelfhine is supposed to be structured in that instance. 34 CCF §72. The relevant passage of this paragraph is translated by Jaski, Kingship, 114: ‘For that is what he who should be accepted in the lordship of the family is entitled to, i.e. the cumal senorba’. Compare Thurneysen's translation of CCF §72, which deals as a separate paragraph of the original tract with this problem, whereas in CCF §3 this matter only occurs in a gloss. 35 Myles Dillon, ‘The relationship of mother and son, of father and daughter, and the law of inheritance with regard to women’, in: Studies in early Irish law, ed. D.A. Binchy (Dublin, 1936), 129-179, at 142. For the cumal senorba see also Thurneysen, ‘Cóic conara fugill’, 70; Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Irisches Recht. I. Díre. Ein altirischer Rechtstext. II. Zu den unteren Ständen in Irland’, Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1931, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 2, repr. in: Thurneysen, Gesammelte Schriften III, 175-261, at 252; Charles Plummer, ‘Notes on some passages in the Brehon Laws. IV’, Ériu, 10 (1926-8), 113-129, at 113-4; Ó Cróinín, Ireland, 70; Fergus Kelly, Early Irish farming (Dublin, 1997), 415; and Bart Jaski, ‘Cú Chulainn, gormac and dalta of the Ulstermen’, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 37 (Summer 1999), 1-31, at 18, who explicitly stresses the indivisibility of the cumal senorba ‘as demesne of the lordship’, as he does in Kingship, 120. 36 Central passages for general redistribution are Kinship Poem §§6 and 7 (The Kinship Poem is edited, translated and discussed by Dillon, ‘Relationship’, 137-8, and also translated - without glosses - by Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 510-11 and discussed by him on pp. 65-6, as well as in Charles-Edwards, ‘Kinship, status and the origins of the hide’, Past and Present, 56 (1972), 3-33, at 19-20). CCH 32.15 also deals with this topic. For the aspects of redistribution relevant to this discussion, see Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 65-6, 70; Fergus Kelly, A guide to early Irish law (Dublin, 1988), 103-4; Kelly, Early Irish farming, 413-5. 37 This is deduced from a gloss on §2 of the Kinship Poem. The interpretation of this passage, i.e., that sons were entitled to a proportional part of the deceased father's share, is Dillon's (‘Relationship’, 138), and it is very convincing. See also Kelly, Guide, 103. 38 Jaski (Kingship, 229) also argues for succession within one generation before it moves on to the next, but he does not prove this on legal grounds, and neither does he explain collateral succession on the basis of the rules for redistribution and reallocation. 39 Compare Kelly, Guide, 104. 40 This gloss is edited and translated by Katharine Simms, ‘The contents of later commentaries on the Brehon law tracts’, Ériu, 49 (1998), 23-40, at 35-37 (gloss 8). Compare also gloss 2 to the same passage. The passages of the Succession Tract that emphasize the decisiveness of wealth are listed by Richey, AL 4, ccxxiv. 41 The gloss is the H1 gloss to note b of Dillon's edition of this passage (‘Relationship’, 137), which is the H1 gloss to note 2 in his translation (‘Relationship’, 137). A different translation is given by Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 511. My reading of this gloss basically agrees with Dillon's interpretation (‘Relationship’, 138) of it. 42 Usually the derbfhine was reckoned from a living man (McLeod, ‘Kinship’, 4-6). In this case, however, the question is what happened to the land that was attributed to the headship of the descendants of the eponymous ancestor A, and thus the reckoning must have started from this long-deceased person. Hence, I believe that the gelfhine of A mentioned in these law texts is the final gelfhine of McLeod's theory (‘Kinship’, 3-4), consisting of A, his sons and grandson, and that the derbfhine of A consists of this final gelfhine of A with an added fourth generation, i.e. the great-grandsons of A. Compare Mac Neill, Celtic Ireland, 174. 43 The gloss is the H1 gloss to note a of Dillon's edition of this passage (‘Relationship’, 137), which is the H1 gloss to note 1 in his translation (‘Relationship’, 137). A different translation is given by Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 510. The above suggested interpretation is given by Dillon, ‘Relationship’, 138, and Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 511. See also Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 65-6. 44 Edited and translated by Dillon, ‘Relationship’, 141, from whom this translation is taken. 45 Translation by Jaski, Kingship, 287. I have the bracketed additions for the sake of clarity. Compare the translation of Plummer, ‘Notes IV’, 113: ‘(In the case of) two of chieftain grade of the same age, lots must be cast between them, and whichever of them (wins and) enters on the chiefship, the c. s. and choice of share must be given to him.’ The words dagradh flatha which Plummer translates as ‘two of chieftain grade’ are probably better translated as ‘two of lordly’, i.e. ‘noble (or royal?) grade’. 46 Interestingly enough, a passage in Míadshlechta (Míadshlechta is ed. and trans. in AL 4, 344-69; the passage I am referring to can be found on pages 346-7) mentions that a ‘king of kings’, defined as a king over seven kings, is entitled to a cumal for each of these kings. See also Kelly (Guide, 101), who notes that a passage of the unpublished Lawes of Ireland, which he translates in note 10 on the same page, attaches a portion of land to kingship. For king's land (mruig ríg) in general see Kelly, Early Irish farming, 403-4. 47 Jaski, Kingship, 188 criticises Charles-Edwards’ argument in this respect: ‘It [the three-generation-group] distinguishes between lords and commoners, but not between kings and lords, and applies to base clientship for three generations, not to free clientship, which would be the bond established between the king and the main nobility in the túath.’ 48 That it was unlawful for an outsider (in kindred terms, i.e. a ‘non-kinsman’) to seize a kingship is expressed in Di Astud Chirt ocus Astud Chirt ocus is ed. and trans. by Ancient of Ireland, vol. 5 (Dublin, –hereafter as AL where the relevant passage can be found on pages The relevant passage of that law tract is edited and translated by Simms, 49 In a later gloss to the mentioned passage in Di Astud Chirt ocus which is in AL but given by Simms, it is argued that a does not become See also Jaski, Testament’, Neil McLeod, Early Irish status and Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 41 at Neil McLeod, Early Irish status and Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 42 at Compare Charles-Edwards’ discussion of the different of nobility as given in Charles-Edwards, and the law of 5 at is edited by Daniel A. Binchy, (Dublin, reprinted 1970), and translated by Eoin Mac Neill, ‘The law of status or Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy C, 36 at from Mac I give paragraph with Mac Neill's in 51 ‘The is he he is of his Translation by Mac Neill, of Mac Neill comments of an a his must be a See also Míadshlechta (AL 4, AL 4, McLeod, Binchy, See also Charles-Edwards, of that the king would be the of his the the would be the of a McLeod, See also an at For the of an see Míadshlechta (AL 4, McLeod, The of his to the base of an Rudolf Thurneysen, im irischen Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang Philologisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 2, repr. in: Thurneysen, Gesammelte Schriften III, at that an may have been the grade of nobility the For the of an see also Míadshlechta (AL 4, Note that was a i.e. that the father and of a must also have this for to be accepted in that See further below. 56 McLeod, and McLeod, For the as on of his see Jaski, Kingship, from Mac Neill of See also Hogan's law of kingship’, terms’, and translation and Jaski, Kingship, Compare Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, who argues that this merely a For the of the term see Thomas Charles-Edwards, ‘The in Irish and Welsh Celtica, 9 (1971), at law of kingship’, that was used for every person eligible for kingship. In Binchy terms’, a with an ‘heir-apparent’, but in and in (Kingship, his an a in his and and in he argues on the same in terms’, with the In a is an the king and eligible on one person. Jaski (Kingship, argues that the was the according to the ‘customary rule of succession’, but he adds that he also an the of his points out that the was not the and that it was not for the not to succeed the king for various possible argues that ‘the as defined in was by an who to a new of the of succession: one where the would be as to the to the choice of a the of a For a of the and new to the discussion, see Ó Cróinín, Ireland, For among see Whitaker, ‘Regnal succession’, See also Byrne, Irish kings, This is illustrated by Charles-Edwards, of See For the see Kelly, Guide, Kelly, Early Irish farming, Binchy, Thurneysen, ‘Cóic conara fugill’, Thurneysen, ‘Irisches Mac Niocaill, Ireland, Jaski, Kingship, connects these with the cumal For the that should be interpreted as in to a king see The translation of with to a was used by Mac See See also Binchy, terms’, Ó Corráin regnal succession’, suggests that the had the same legal status as the and that a later This is also out by Ó Cróinín, Ireland, For the of this term in the annals as to and a discussion of Hogan's opinion on this see Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’, Charles-Edwards, of ‘It is a that the is a of a kindred though to the in has not been as a McLeod, ‘For I would be to that the grade of the of or But see Binchy, who argues that the was ‘the of the probably only between kings as and This does not that the in wealth was the same for who to this A to the grade in three the the and the Jaski, Kingship, might in but the two are and the grade is to the this might also be by the different out Compare Charles-Edwards, of who suggests that ‘the has the febas and political to be a and that a a he regarded as a as by Ó Corráin out of their Even though rígdomna could have different at different a rígdomna seems to have been a person of influence and a of his thus I would regard him as to the some scholars a rígdomna with an eligible for kingship, and the is generally as the ‘heir-apparent’, if not the and is at the same a of the this might the argument Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Ireland 2000), that if not succeed to kingship, they were at to status for their Translation by Simms, Compare the translation in AL grade with his with is no that are In the Succession Tract (AL 4, the question is the i.e. in grade’ is in of succession. This also seems to that the for kingship were of the Jaski, Kingship, 71 Compare Binchy, terms’, from Charles-Edwards, See also the translation by Mac Neill, of See the discussions in (Dublin, Jaski, Kingship, Testament’, Charles-Edwards, Kinship, Ireland, Mac Niocaill, Ireland, This text is edited and translated by Jaski, Kingship, The translation given is D.A. Binchy, ‘The and of Ériu, 18 at argues that this text was between and a view that is accepted by ‘The in the legal tract 5 at who notes that the Old Irish glosses be later than The other two sources are and Míadshlechta (AL 4, that an is the son and of a The relevant passage can be found in AL 4, The translation given is Kinship, is trans. into by Old Irish tract on in: M. Charles and and ed. and trans. into German by Thurneysen, The translation above is from McLeod, CCF states that the headship of the gelfhine should be by a person who is the son of a flaith and the of this that to the headship of a family had to have an agnatic of two of lords over and he had to be a over conara fugill’, as a in this passage. a very can be found in a to a passage in Di Astud ocus edited and translated by Simms, without any reference to the gelfhine. See Kelly, Guide, A son had no the of (ed. and trans. by Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Aus dem irischen Recht I. Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 14 See Neil McLeod, Early Irish law translates the relevant and Kelly, Guide, For the of see especially Kelly, Guide, Jaski ‘Cú Charles-Edwards, Ireland, Mac Niocaill, Ireland, by is ed. and trans. in and Ancient laws of Ireland, vol. 2 (Dublin, The relevant passage can be found on pages edited and translated by Daniel Binchy, Ériu, 12 at See also McLeod Jaski, ‘Cú For the of see Binchy, of

Ancient history · Archaeology · Celtic languages · Ecological succession · Genealogy · Inheritance (genetic algorithm · Irish · Linguistics · Monarchy · Political science · Politics · Welsh · Chinese history and philosophy · Classics · Historical Studies of British Isles · History · Law · Medieval Literature and History · Philosophy

• War, hazards, and economic degradation in Thomond, 1276-1318

  Vinicius Marino Carvalho•2022

  Add to list

• Os triunfos de tarlac

  Open Access•Vinicius Marino Carvalho, Amanda Daltro De Viveiros Pina•Os triunfos de tarlac•2022

  Add to list

• Celtic Fosterage

  Open Access•Peter Parkes•Comparative Studies in Society…•2006

  Add to list

• Early mechanisms of abbatial succession

  Open Access•Patrick McAlary•Early Medieval Europe•2022

  Add to list