Regnal succession in early medieval Ireland
2004; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 30; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/j.jmedhist.2004.08.004
ISSN1873-1279
Autores Tópico(s)Chinese history and philosophy
ResumoAbstract 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 Dligid (Di Astud Chirt ocus Dligid is ed. and trans. by Robert Atkinson, Ancient Laws of Ireland, vol. 5 (Dublin, 1901) –hereafter abbreviated as AL 5-, 427-93, where the relevant passage can be found on pages 438-9). The relevant passage of that law tract is edited and translated by Simms, ‘Commentaries’, 35-6. 49 In a later gloss to the just mentioned passage in Di Astud Chirt ocus Dligid, which is omitted in AL but given by Simms, it is argued that a commoner does not become king. See also Jaski, ‘Old Testament’, 340. 50 Neil McLeod, ‘Interpreting Early Irish Law: status and currency (Part 1)’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 41 (1986), 46-65, at 60-65; Neil McLeod, ‘Interpreting Early Irish Law: status and currency (Part 2)’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 42 (1987), 41-115, at 41-56. Compare Charles-Edwards’ discussion of the different grades of nobility as given in Críth Gablach (Thomas Charles-Edwards, ‘Críth Gablach and the law of status’, Peritia, 5 (1986), 53-73, at 56-63). Críth Gablach is edited by Daniel A. Binchy, Críth Gablach (Dublin, 1941, reprinted 1970), and translated by Eoin Mac Neill, ‘The law of status or franchise’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy C, 36 (1923), 265-316, at 281-316. Since Binchy's paragraphs differ from Mac Neill's, I give Binchy's paragraph numbers first, with Mac Neill's in brackets. 51 Críth Gablach §27 (112): ‘The aire túise, ‘leading noble’, why is he so called? Because he is leader of his kindred’. Translation by Mac Neill, ‘Law of status’, 298. Mac Neill comments (‘Law of status’, 298-9): ‘If an aire túise becomes a vassal client, his lord must be a king.’ See also Míadshlechta (AL 4, 346-7). 52 AL 4, 326-7; McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 42-3; Binchy, Críth Gablach, 73. 53 See also Charles-Edwards, ‘Law of status’, 62: ‘If we grant that the king would be the head of his own cenél, namely the royal kindred, the aire tuísea would be the head of a non-royal kindred.’ 54 McLeod, ‘Interpreting 1’, 62-65; ‘Interpreting 2’, 44. See also Carine Bruy, ‘Tánaise ríg: an alternative interpretation’, Études Irlandaises, 27-2 (Autumn 2002), 77-105, at 94-5. For the functions of an aire forgill see Míadshlechta (AL 4, 346-7). 55 McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 43-46. The size of his war-band corresponds to the thirty base clients of an aire forgill. Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Die Bürgschaft im irischen Recht’, Abhandlungen der preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1928, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Nr. 2, repr. in: Thurneysen, Gesammelte Schriften III, 90-174, at 101, supposes that an ánruth may have been the highest grade of nobility after the king. For the function of an ánruth see also Míadshlechta (AL 4, 348-9). Note that ánruth was a hereditary position, i.e. that the father and grand-father of a respective ánruth (ego) must also have held this office for ego to be totally accepted in that office. See further below. 56 McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 43, and furthermore McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 54. For the aire forgill acting as surety on behalf of his túath, see Jaski, Kingship, 259-60. 57 Críth Gablach §29 (114). Quoted from Mac Neill (‘Law of status’, 300). See also Hogan's (‘Irish law of kingship’, 245), Binchy's (‘Legal terms’, 222) and Bruy's (‘Tánaise ríg’, 77) translation and Jaski, Kingship, 248. Compare Ó Corráin, ‘Irish regnal succession’, 36-7, who argues that this definition merely reflects a jurist's ideal. For the symbolism of the term tánaise ríg see Thomas Charles-Edwards, ‘The heir-apparent in Irish and Welsh Law’, Celtica, 9 (1971), 180-190, at 187-190. 58 Hogan (‘Irish law of kingship’, 245) believes that tánaise ríg was originally used for every person eligible for kingship. In 1952, Binchy (‘Legal terms’, 221-4) equates a tánaise ríg with an ‘heir-apparent’, but in 1941 (Críth Gablach, 107-8) and in 1968 (Kingship, 26) his definition resembles more an ‘heir-designate’, a tánaise ríg being, in his opinion, ‘chosen’ and ‘appointed’ respectively, and in fact he argues on the same lines in 1952 (‘Legal terms’, 225), with the tánaise ríg being ‘elected’. In Richter's description (Irland, 30) a tánaise rig is an ‘heir-designate’, since the king and all eligible candidates agreed on one person. Jaski (Kingship, 247-276) argues that the tánaise ríg was the ‘heir-apparent’ according to the ‘customary rule of succession’, but he adds that he also held an important position, being the representative of his túath. He furthermore points out that the tánaise ríg was not the ‘heir-designate’, and that it was not unusual for the tánaise ríg not to succeed the king for various possible reasons. Most recently, Bruy (‘Tanáise ríg’, 96) argues that ‘the tánaise ríg, as defined in Críth Gablach, was introduced by an ecclesiastical writer who wanted to promote a new conception of the settlement of royal succession: one where the successor would be designated beforehand so as to avoid the conflicts linked to the choice of a candidate after the death of a king.’ For a comparison of the terms tánaise ríg and rígdomna, introducing new source material to the discussion, see Ó Cróinín, Ireland, 67-9. For tanistry among Dál Ríata, see Whitaker, ‘Regnal succession’, 356-7. See also Byrne, Irish kings, 37-9. 59 This is illustrated by Charles-Edwards, ‘Law of status’, 59. 60 See above. 61 For the senchláithe see Kelly, Guide, 35-6; Kelly, Early Irish farming, 441-2; Binchy, Críth Gablach, 105; Thurneysen, ‘Cóic conara fugill’, 77; Thurneysen, ‘Irisches Recht’, 81-3; Mac Niocaill, Ireland, 68. 62 Jaski, Kingship, 257, connects these senchléithi directly with the cumal senorba. 63 For the possibility that tánaise ríg should be interpreted as ‘second in command’ to a king see Bruy, ‘Tánaise ríg’, 79-93. The litteral translation of tánaise ríg with ‘second to a king’ was already used by Mac Neill. See above. See also Binchy, ‘Legal terms’, 221. Ó Corráin (‘Irish regnal succession’, 37) suggests that the tánaise ríg originally had the same legal status as the aire forgill, and that Críth Gablach reflects a later development. 64 AU 848.5. This is also pointed out by Ó Cróinín, Ireland, 67, 69. For the rare occurrences of this term in the annals as compared to tánaise abbad and a discussion of Hogan's opinion on this matter, see Ó Corráin, ‘Hogan’, 103-6. 65 Charles-Edwards, ‘Law of status’, 62: ‘It is a fair guess that the aire forgaill is a member of a royal kindred who, though almost equal to the tánaise ríg in wealth, has not been chosen as a future king.’ McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 53: ‘For I would be willing to suggest that the aire forgill grade consisted largely of the members of royal or ex-royal families.’ But see Binchy, Críth Gablach, 72, who argues that the aire forgill was ‘the highest of the non-royal grades’, probably dividing only between kings (denoted as royals) and nobility. 66 This does not necessarily imply that the increase in wealth was the same for everyone who ascended to this rank. A commentary to Uraicecht Becc sub-divides the aire forgill grade in three sub-grades: the lowest, the middle and the best aire forgill. Jaski, Kingship, 257-8. These expressions might reflect differences in wealth, but since the lowest two grades are often taken together and the highest grade is comparable to the tánaise ríg, this sub-division might also be explained by the different functions pointed out above. 67 Compare Charles-Edwards, ‘Law of status’, 62, who suggests that ‘the aire forgaill has the febas ‘social and political standing’ to be a king’ and that a rígdomna, a title he regarded as a consolation prize as outlined by Ó Corráin (see above), came out of their ranks. Even though rígdomna could have meant different things at different times, a rígdomna seems to have been a person of influence and a representative of his kingdom, thus I would regard him as belonging to the aire forgill grade. Since some scholars equate a rígdomna with an eligible candidate for kingship, and the tánaise ríg is generally taken as the ‘heir-apparent’, if not the ‘heir-designate’, and is at the same time a sub-division of the aire forgill, this might underline the argument above. Thomas Charles-Edwards, Early Christian Ireland (Cambridge, 2000), 91 proposes that if rígdomnai did not succeed to kingship, they were at least able to secure royal status for their branches. 68 Translation by Simms, ‘Commentaries’, 37. Compare the translation in AL 5, 441: ‘every grade with his proper retinue along with it.’ There is no doubt that nobles are meant. 69 In the Succession Tract (AL 4, 374-5) the question ‘Who is the highest, i.e. in grade’ is asked in respect of succession. This also seems to imply that the contenders for kingship were members of the highest noble grade. 70 Jaski, Kingship, 256-8. 71 Compare Binchy, ‘Legal terms’, 222. 72 Críth Gablach §12 (86). Cited from Charles-Edwards, ‘Status’, 9. See also the translation by Mac Neill, ‘Law of status’, 290. 73 See the discussions in Liam Breatnach, Uraicecht na ríar (Dublin, 1987), 94-98; Jaski, Kingship, 171-180; ‘Old Testament’, 341-2; Charles-Edwards, Kinship, 98; Ireland, 92-3; Mac Niocaill, Ireland, 66-7. 74 This text is edited and translated by Jaski, Kingship, 178. The translation given is Jaski's. D.A. Binchy, ‘The date and provenance of Uraicecht Becc’, Ériu, 18 (1958), 44-54, at 51-4, argues that this text was composed between AD 678 and 683, a view that is accepted by Liam Breatnach, ‘The ecclesiastical element in the Old-Irish legal tract Cáin Fhuithirbe’, Peritia, 5 (1986), 36-52, at 45-6, who notes that the Old Irish glosses cannot be much later than that. The other two important sources are Críth Gablach §24 (107) and Míadshlechta (AL 4, 348-9), stating that an aire déso is the son and grandson of a noble. 75 The relevant passage can be found in AL 4, 382-5. The translation given is Charles-Edwards’, Kinship, 98. 76 Berrad Airechta §45. Berrad Airechta is trans. into English by Robin Stacey: ‘Berrad Airechta: An Old Irish tract on suretyship’, in: T. M. Charles Edwards et. al. (eds): Lawyers and laymen (Cardiff, 1986), 210-233, and previously ed. and trans. into German by Thurneysen, ‘Bürgschaft’, 88-175. The translation above is taken from McLeod, ‘Interpreting 2’, 43-4. 77 CCF §67 states that the headship of the gelfhine should be taken by a person who is the son of a flaith and the grandson of another. Basically this means that whoever wanted to take the headship of a family had to have an agnatic lineage of two generations of lords over base-clients and he himself had to be a lord over base-clients. Thurneysen (‘Cóic conara fugill’, 69) regards n-gelfhine as a wrong addition in this passage. Indeed, a very similar statement can be found in a commentary to a passage in Di Astud Cirt ocus Dligid, edited and translated by Simms, ‘Commentaries’, 36-7, without any reference to the gelfhine. 78 See Kelly, Guide, 81-3. A son had no contractual capacity until the termination of fosterage. Cáin Aicillne §38 (ed. and trans. by Rudolf Thurneysen, ‘Aus dem irischen Recht I. Das Unfrei-Lehen’, Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie, 14 (1923), 375). See Neil McLeod, Early Irish contract law (Sydney, 1992), 63 (who translates the relevant passage) and Kelly, Guide, 88. For the practice of fosterage see especially Kelly, Guide, 86-90; Jaski ‘Cú Chulainn’, 21-24; Charles-Edwards, Ireland, 115-117; Mac Niocaill, Ireland, 59. 79 Berrad Airechta §10 (trans. by Robin Stacey, ‘Berrad Airechta’, 211). 80 Cáin Íarraith is ed. and trans. in W. Neilson Hancock and Thaddeus O'Mahoney, Ancient laws of Ireland, vol. 2 (Dublin, 1869), 147-93. The relevant passage can be found on pages 186-7. 81 Bretha Crólige §7, edited and translated by Daniel Binchy, Ériu, 12 (1934), 1-77, at 8. See also McLeod ‘Interpreting 2’, 58-9; Jaski, ‘Cú Chulainn’, 23. 82 For the dating of Bretha Crólige, see Binchy, ‘Bretha Crólige’, 1-2, of Berrad Airechta
Referência(s)