THE FINÉ OR SEPT IN IRELAND, AND THE TRIBE IN WALES.
[Sidenote: Origin of the _Finé_ or Sept.]
Among the changes produced in the social organisation of the tribe by
external influence and internal progress, not the least striking was the
gradual development within it of the _Finé_ or septs. Though the word
_Finé_ is undoubtedly used for the whole confraternity of the members of
the tribe, viewed as a community united together by a supposed common
origin, yet, in its strict technical sense, it was applied to those
divisions of the tribe which may be called septs or clans.
As soon as the superior advance of some members of the tribe over the
others in wealth and importance produced a relation of superior and
dependant by the latter becoming _Ceile_ or tenants of the former, while
their possessions became hereditary in their families, the germ of the
_Finé_ or sept was formed. When the _Boaire_, or cow-lord, was led by
wealth in cattle to give over the excess of his stock to other members
of the tribe, who became his _Ceile_ or dependants, a _Finé_ in its most
restricted sense was formed, and the _Aire Coisring_, as he was called,
became also the _Aire Finé_, or head of an inferior sept.[193]
[Sidenote: The _Ciné_ or kinsfolk.]
The acquisition of part of the tribe land as the absolute property of
individuals, and their advance as wealthy land as well as cattle owners,
led to its further development. The _Aire_ who owned an estate in land
which raised him to the position of a _Flath_ or chief, and was enabled
to transmit it to his descendants, led to the settlement of his family
and kinsfolk on the land. He was not considered as fully entitled to the
privileges of a territorial lord unless his father and grandfather had
likewise been an _Aire_; and when three generations had thus been
settled on the land, the offshoots of these generations formed a group
consisting of the nearest agnates of the chief, which would increase in
number as the generations went on. These were the _Ciné_, or kinsfolk of
the head of the tribe, and to them were added those freemen of the tribe
who claimed a common origin with them, and who placed themselves under
the chief as his _Ceile_ or dependants.
[Sidenote: The _Ceile_ or tenants.]
The same causes which operated in the feudal system to lead the odal
proprietors to commend themselves to an overlord as his vassals, and
gradually extinguished the more ancient class of independent
landholders, tended likewise in the Irish tribal system to absorb the
original freemen of the tribe in the class of the _Ceile_ or dependants
of the chief, and thus to add to his following and to form a constituent
part of the _Finé_ or sept.
With the _Saor Ceile_, or free dependants, the basis was a mutual
contract for a fixed period usually of seven years, by which the _Flath_
or chief gave a portion of stock proportionate to the food-rent he was
to receive in return, and was entitled along with this to the homage of
the tenant during the subsistence of the contract, and to a certain
amount of service in the erection of a _Dun_ or fort, the reaping of his
harvest, and the _Sluaged_ or hosting; but the contract could be
terminated and the parties to it return to their original relation to
each other, either by the _Ceile_ or tenant returning the stock he had
received, or by the _Flath_ reclaiming it. A more permanent connection
was formed between him and the _Daor Ceile_ or bond tenant. Here the
_Ceile_ placed himself formally under the protection of the _Flath_ as
his permanent follower, and this relation was formed by his receiving a
certain number of _Seds_ or cows, by way of subsidy or gift from the
superior, and paying him a certain tribute termed _Sed Taurclothe_, or
returnable _Seds_, as the price of his protection. This servitude was
termed _Aicillne_, and the amount of the _Seds_ was regulated by the
Honor price. As soon as this relation was constituted, he received an
additional amount of stock in proportion to the food-rent he had to
return, in the same manner as in the case of the free _Ceile_.[194] The
real distinction probably was, that in the one case the _Ceile_ was in a
more independent position, and possessed stock of his own as well as a
share of the tribe land, besides what he received from the _Flath_. In
the other he was dependent upon what he received from the _Flath_ for
the whole of his stock. When the _Flath_ reclaimed his stock from the
free _Ceile_, the latter had the option of becoming a bond _Ceile_, if
he preferred doing so to returning his stock, and the _Flath_ was then
bound to add the returnable _Seds_ to the stock he had originally given,
which constituted the relation between him and the _Ceile_ as a
permanent dependant. This process, therefore, not only led to the
freemen of the tribe being gradually absorbed into the class of the
dependants or following of the chief, but placed a powerful weapon in
the hands of the latter, by which he could transform his temporary free
_Ceile_ into permanent and more servile dependants.
[Sidenote: The _Fuidhir_ or stranger septs.]
As the _Flath_, however, increased in wealth and power and his territory
extended, he was not satisfied with drawing his dependants from the
tribe of which he was himself a member, but added to his followers by
settling stranger septs upon his waste lands, and thus still further
augmented his power. These stranger septs formed that class termed
_Fuidhir_, a name which from its resemblance to the word _feud_, and
from the apparent analogy between the position of the _Fuidhir_ with the
vassals of the feudal system, has given rise to much speculation. These
analogies are, however, more apparent than real, and there is probably
no connection whatever beyond casual resemblance between the terminology
of the two systems. In the oldest Glossary, that of Cormac, the term is
applied to the superior instead of the dependant, and the name _Fuithir_
is said to be from _fo thir_, he who gives land (_tir_) to a stranger;
but in the Brehon Laws it is applied to those stranger septs settled
upon the land, and, like all the dependants, consisted of the two
classes of _Saer_ and _Daer_, free and bond, according to the temporary
or permanent character of the connection. With the exception that they
were broken men from stranger tribes instead of members of the same
tribe, their connection with the chief presented the same features with
that of the native _Ceile_. Of these _Fuidhir_ there were said to be
seven classes, ranging from those who had land or wealth and became
detached from their tribe, to those who fled to the chief of another
tribe for protection, and had nothing to give but their labour. The
better class, termed _Fuidhir Grian_, obtained possession of a _Rath_
consisting of the usual five houses, received stock from the _Flath_
similar to that given to the _Ceile_, and had a _Lagenech_ or Honor
price. These formed subordinate septs or _Finé_ under the chief,[195]
and we are told that they ‘do not bear the liability of relationship
unless there be five houses (_Treabba_) to relieve each other. If there
be five houses with complete stock, they share the property of the
_Finé_’ (_Finnteada_), and this is explained in the commentary to mean
that ‘the _Fuidhir gabla_—that is, the _Fodaor_ or natural bondsman
(_Daor_)—does not bear the crimes of his relatives unless he has five
houses to relieve him, that is, five who have stock consisting of a
hundred head of cattle, and unless they belong to one chief. If there be
five men of them, each man having a hundred of cattle, every one of them
obtains his share of the _dibadh_ land of each other, and pays for the
crimes of others, like every free native, that is, when they have the
five stocks of a hundred cattle and are under one chief.[196] The lower
class of _Fuidhir_ were of four kinds, termed _grui_, _gola_, _gabla_,
and _gill de bas_, and consisted of strangers who had lost their land by
wars, or fled from having been guilty of bloodshed, and of hostages
saved from death. Lower than these again were the _Bothach_ or cottiers,
likewise divided into the two classes of _Saer_ and _Daer_ according as
they were either small occupiers of land or were prædial slaves, and
probably were remains of the oldest population of the land.
[Sidenote: Territorial basis of _Finé_.]
The formation of the _Finé_ or sept had thus a territorial basis, and
the possession of the _Deis_ or inheritance land, which gave its owner
the rank of _Aire_, was also essential to his acquiring the privileges
of the chief of a _Finé_. Thus we are told in one of the law tracts that
‘there are four _deis_ rights prescribed for _flaith_ or chiefs. The
ancient protection of the _Tuath_ is his office in the _Tuath_; the
office of _Tuisig_ or leader, or _Tanaist Tuisig_, whichever it be, of
his _Ceile gialnai_ or bond Ceile, his _Saer Ceile_, and his
_Sencleithe_ or ancient adherents; the punishment of every imperfect
service; and the following of _Bothach_ or cottiers and _Fuidhir_, whom
he brings upon his land, because his wealth is greater and better. If
there is service from them to the _Flaith_ during nine times nine years,
they are _Bothach_ and _Fuidhir_, but after that they are ranked as
_Sencleithe_ or old adherents.’[197]
The _Finé_, as thus constituted, was formed of two distinct classes;—one
being members of the same tribe as the _Flath_, and consisted of his own
immediate family and relations, and of his _Saor_ and _Daor Ceile_; the
other of stranger septs and broken men from other tribes, who were
settled on the land, and formed a class of subordinate followers. The
basis was a territorial one; but while the authority and privileges of
the chief were derived from his _deis_, there was likewise a bond of
union between him and the former class, derived from community of blood,
and he added to his territorial rights the natural claim to their
allegiance arising from his position as a hereditary chief of their
_Tuath_, as well as the right to punish imperfect service. The most
important of these services on the part of the _Ceile_ was the duty of
following their chief to war. The Book of Aicill, one of these law
tracts, tells us, ‘A chief may enforce a _Sloiged_ or hosting;’ and the
commentator explains, ‘That is, there is a _smacht_ fine, upon a _Daor
Ceile_ of the _Gradfeine_, that is, of the ranks below the _Aires_, for
not going to it, and for coming away from it; double work upon the _Saor
Ceile_ of the _Grad Feine_ for not going to it, and Honor price for
coming away from it.’ Another and perhaps more ancient tract in the
Brehon Laws gives us likewise a view of the _Finé_. There we are told,
‘These are the divisions of the _Finé_ of each _Flath_ or chief. His
_Fuidhir_, his _Ciniud_ or kinsfolk, his _Gabail fodagniat_ (under which
name his Ceile are comprised), all of whom go by the name of _Flaith
Finé_, or the chiefs _Finé_ or sept.’[198]
[Sidenote: The four families of the _Ciné_ or kinsfolk.]
That division of the _Finé_ which was formed of those of the same tribe
as the _Flath_ or chief consisted of two distinct elements, the first
being the _Ciniud_ or near kinsmen of the _Flath_, and the second of
those of the tribe who became his dependants and followers. The first,
as descended from the original founder of the sept, had hereditary
claims upon his land, as well as duties and privileges derived from kin
to the chief, while the rights and duties of the latter were founded on
contract; and here we come in contact with one of the most difficult and
obscure features of the _Finé_ constitution, viz., that institution by
which the duties and the privileges arising from kindred with the chief
are limited to an artificial group of seventeen persons, which again was
divided into four lesser groups, termed respectively _Geilfiné_,
_Deirbhfiné_, _Iarfiné_, and _Indfiné_. These formed the _Duthaig Finé_,
or the sept in its narrowest sense. The _Geilfiné_ consisted of five
persons, and each of the others of four, making seventeen in all. Upon
these four groups of kinsmen appears, in the first place, to have been
imposed a joint responsibility for each member of it. Thus, we find in
the Senchus Mor, that ‘the four nearest _Finé_ bear the crimes of each
kinsman of their stock, _Geilfiné_ and _Deirbhfiné_, _Iarfiné_ and
_Indfiné_;[199] and in a commentary on the Senchus Mor, they are termed
‘the four nearest _Finé_ or families,’ that is, ‘because it is four
_Finés_ that sustain the liabilities of every person that is related to
them intimately.’[200] They likewise possessed mutual rights of
succession in the _dibad_ of the chief, or the land which passed to his
kinsfolk. These rights are very elaborately stated in the Book of
Aicill, but it is necessary to give them in detail in order to
understand the nature of this grouping of the kinsfolk. In answer to the
question, ‘What is the reciprocal right among _Finé_?’ we are told that
‘if the _Geilfiné_ division become extinct, three-fourths of the _dibad_
of the _Geilfiné_ shall go to the _Deirbhfiné_, and one-fourth to the
_Iarfiné_ and the _Indfiné_—viz., three-fourths of the fourth to the
_Iarfiné_, and one-fourth of it to the _Indfiné_.
‘If the _Deirbhfiné_ division has become extinct, three-fourths of its
_dibad_ goes to the _Geilfiné_, and one-fourth to the _Iarfiné_ and
_Indfiné_’—that is, three-fourths of the fourth to the _Iarfiné_, and a
fourth of it to the _Indfiné_.
‘If the _Iarfiné_ division has become extinct, three-fourths of its
_dibad_ shall go to the _Deirbhfiné_, and one-fourth of it to the
_Geilfiné_ and _Indfiné_—that is, three-fourths of the fourth to the
_Geilfiné_, and one-fourth of it to the _Indfiné_.
‘If the _Indfiné_ has become extinct, three-fourths of its _dibad_ shall
go to the _Iarfiné_, and one-fourth of it to the _Geilfiné_ and
_Deirbhfiné_—that is, three-fourths of the fourth to the _Deirbhfiné_,
and one-fourth of it to the _Geilfiné_.
‘If the _Geilfiné_ and _Deirbhfiné_ both become extinct, three-fourths
of their _dibad_ shall go to the _Iarfiné_, and one-fourth to the
_Indfiné_.
‘If the _Indfiné_ and _Iarfiné_ both become extinct, three-fourths of
their _dibad_ shall go to the _Deirbhfiné_, and one-fourth to the
_Geilfiné_.
‘If the _Deirbhfiné_ and _Iarfiné_ have both become extinct,
three-fourths of their _dibad_ shall go to the _Geilfiné_, and
one-fourth to the _Indfiné_.
‘If the _Geilfiné_ and _Indfiné_ have both become extinct, three-fourths
of the _dibad_ of the _Geilfiné_ shall go to the _Deirbhfiné_, and
one-fourth of it to the _Iarfiné_; three-fourths of the _dibad_ of the
_Indfiné_ shall go to the _Iarfiné_, and one-fourth to the
_Deirbhfiné_.’
This seems to exhaust all possible combinations, and some provisions
follow which are not very easily understood; but when it is added, ‘And
the whole number of the seventeen men are then forthcoming, and if they
be not, there shall be no partition, but the nearest of kin shall take
it,’ the meaning seems to be that the group of seventeen persons must be
made up in each case, but if that cannot be done, there is no partition
of the _dibad_ to the person nearest in degree to the extinct family.
We are also told that ‘the _Geilfiné_ is the youngest and the _Indfiné_
the oldest,’ and that ‘if one person has come up into the _Geilfiné_ so
as to make it excessive, that is, more than five persons, a man must go
out of it up into the _Deirbhfiné_, and a man is to pass from one _Finé_
into the other up as far as the _Indfiné_, and a man is to pass from
that into the _Duthaig n-Daine_ or community.’[201]
It is exceedingly difficult to form anything like a clear conception of
the true nature of what appears to be so highly artificial an
arrangement, and it is probable that if it ever really existed in its
entirety, it must soon have broken down under the various modifications
which the natural progress of society brought to bear upon the
community. So far as we can gather, there seems undoubtedly to have been
the tie of kindred among themselves, and between them and the chief; and
a portion of the territory of the _Flath_ appears to have been assigned
to them under the name of _dibad_, the portion occupied by each group
being possessed in common by its members, so that it was only when the
subordinate groups became extinct that a redistribution of it took
place.
[Sidenote: Members of the four families.]
Of what members of the _Finé_, then, did each of these groups really
consist? There seems to be no doubt as to the number which formed the
members of each. The _Geilfiné_ consisted of five persons only, who were
nearest of kin to the chief, but these might be found either in the
descending or ascending line, or were, in the strictest sense of the
term, collateral. The descending line was termed _Belfiné_, and the
_Geilfiné_ consisted of the father, the son, the grandson, the
great-grandson, and the great-great-grandson, to the fifth generation.
The ascending line was termed _Culfiné_, or back family, and we are told
that, viewed in this connection, the _Geilfiné_ consisted of the
father’s brother, and his son, to the fifth generation.[202] The
collateral relationship was termed _Taobhfiné_, or side family; and,
according to Mr. O’Donovan and the authorities he refers to, the
_Geilfiné_ is defined as ‘the first or direct family; the father and his
two sons, and two grandsons; collateral tribe.’ The _Deirbhfiné_ as ‘the
second tribe; the next in point of dignity to the _Geilfiné_; the two
grandsons and their two sons.’ The _Iarfiné_ as ‘the after family; two
sons of grandsons and their sons, making four persons;’ and _Indfiné_ as
‘the fourth and lowest division of a tribe.’[203] He does not define the
members of which it consists, but it may be inferred that he held it to
consist of the two sons of great-grandsons and their sons, corresponding
to the five generations of the Brehon Laws.
[Sidenote: The _Geilfiné_ chief.]
The father, who in each case was the head of the _Geilfiné_, is
evidently the person frequently referred to in these Laws as the
_Geilfiné_ chief, and the other four members of this group were
evidently his nearest agnates, according to the position of the family,
but the members of the other three groups, as presented to us in these
Laws, cannot be viewed as his descendants. The _Deirbhfiné_, _Iarfiné_,
and _Indfiné_, were obviously collateral and contemporary with the
_Geilfiné_, otherwise it is impossible that they could, on the one hand,
have been jointly responsible for a kinsman, or, on the other, have
shared in the succession of each as they became extinct; and we can
gather from several expressions in the Laws that such was the case. Thus
we find in the Senchus Mor the seventeen persons are termed relatives,
and are defined in the commentary as ‘kinsmen’ (_Bleogain_),[204] and
these are distinguished as _Tobach_, _Saigi_, and _Bleogain_, or kinsmen
in general.[205] In another commentary these terms are thus defined:
‘_Tobach_, that is, the nearest kinsman, that is, the liability of his
son and grandson. _Saigi_, that is, the middle kinsman, that is, the
liability of a kinsman as far as seventeen. _Bleogain_, that is,
kinsman, that is, the farthest kinsman or _Cin_.’[206] The first
obviously refers to the constituent members of the _Geilfiné_; the
second to the three other groups; and the third to the remainder of the
kin of the chief who did not belong to these artificial groups.
Again, we are told that ‘the tribe property (_Finntiu_) is claimed
backwards; it is divided between three _Finé_; an extern branch stops
it, if the five persons perish. Except as regards the liability of
relationship, if the family become extinct; except a fourth part to the
_Findfiné_. From seventeen men out it is decided that they are not a
_Duthaig Finé_, or tribe community,’ and this is explained in the
commentary to mean that ‘the hereditary right of the _Geilfiné_ group
goes backwards to the _Deirbhfiné_, who have their share of it when it
is divided among the three _Finé_, that is, the _dibad_ land is divided
between the three _Finé_ groups, viz., the _Deirbhfiné_, the _Iarfiné_,
and the _Indfiné_. An extern branch stops it, that is, the branch by
which the land is detained is a branch that is hitherto extern to the
_Geilfiné_, that is, the _Deirbhfiné_.’ The liability of relationship is
explained that, ‘as they share the _dibad_ land, so they shall pay for
the crimes of their relatives.’ It is added that, ‘from the seventeen
men out, it is then they are distinguished, so that they are not a
_Duthaig Finé_ or tribe community, but a _Duthaig n-Daine_, or a
community of people.’[207]
From these notices it is apparent that there underlies the formation of
these groups the idea of five generations. These were expressed by the
terms _Athair_, father, _Mac_, son, _Ua_, grandson, _Earmua_,
great-grandson, _Innua_, great-great-grandson, and that each of the four
groups was one generation less than the other, the _Geilfiné_, or white
family, being the chiefs immediate family, including himself;[208] but
it must not be supposed that these degrees of relationship implied
descent from the same individual, otherwise it would require that the
five generations were alive at the same time. The idea rather is that it
required five generations from the founder of the _Finé_ to complete the
group of seventeen persons. Thus his own immediate family, to the number
of four, constituted his _Geilfiné_. Then as each new person was born
into the _Geilfiné_, the older member passed into a new group termed
_Deirbhfiné_, and this went on till the group extended to nine persons;
then, as new members were born to these two, older members passed into
another group called _Iarfiné_,; and so on, as new generations were
added, till the group of _Indfiné_ was formed, and the whole number of
seventeen was completed, the members of each being fathers and sons, and
representing the fourth and fifth generations from the common ancestor;
and as generations went on, the kin or kinsfolk of the chief passed
through the alembic of these four groups and disappeared into the
commonalty of the _Finé_, leaving always a residuum of seventeen persons
behind them. These relationships, then, meant not descent from the same
individual but from the founder of the _Finé_, and expressed the
distance of each group from the stem-line of hereditary chiefs, and the
degrees of relationship between them and the chief for the time being.
This view of the degrees of relationship, as connected with the five
generations, seems to be implied in one of the regulations regarding
‘_Saer_ stock tenure.’ We are there told that ‘if one chief has received
stock from another, there shall be no returning of the _Saer_ stock
without _Seds_, in that case until one heir transmits to another.’ ‘If
it is from the chief next to him he has taken it, it is grandson upon
grandson, or great-grandson upon great-grandson, or the son of a
great-grandson upon the son of a great-grandson, and the number of
degrees which are between the person who gave the stock and the person
to whom it is given, is the number of relatives who shall claim the
stock without _Seds_ of _Saer_ stock.’[209]
The _Geilfiné_ were thus what was termed youngest cadets; and the
_Indfiné_, the oldest cadets, recognised as forming part of the kin, and
as longest separated from the chief, were the most powerful family next
to his own.
The following table, in which the succession to the _dibad_ land is
included, will show this conception of the nature of these groups:—
_Common Ancestor,
Geilfiné Chief_.
|
+—————————————————————————- —-+
| |
_Son, _Son._
Geilfiné Chief_. |
| |
+—————————————————————-+ |
| | |
_Grandson, _Son._ _Grandson._
Geilfiné Chief_. | |
| | |
+———————————-+ | | |
| | | | |
1. _Geilfiné_ | _Son._ | _Grandson_. |_Great-grandson_.
chief, | | | | | |
when complete. | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
2, 3. | 6, 7. | 10, 11. | 14, 15.
Two sons. | Two | Two great- | Two
| | grandsons. | grandsons. | great-great-
| | | | | | grandsons.
| | | | | | |
4, 5. | 8, 9. | 12, 13. | 16, 17.
Two grandsons. | Their two sons. | Their two sons. | Their two sons.
| | |
GEILFINÉ. | DEIRBHFINÉ. | IARFINÉ. | INDFINÉ.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
If extinct. | Obtains 3-4ths. | 3-4ths of 1-4th. | 1-4th of 1-4th.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
Obtains 3-4ths. | If extinct. | 3-4ths of 1-4th. | 1-4th of 1-4th.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
3-4ths of 1-4th. | 3-4ths. | If extinct. | 1-4th of 1-4th.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
1-4th of 1-4th. | 3-4ths of 1-4th. | 3-4ths. | If extinct.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
If extinct. | If extinct. | 3-4ths of both. | 1-4th of both.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
1-4th of both. | 3-4ths of both. | If extinct. | If extinct.
—————————-+——————————-+——————————+————————
3-4ths of both. | If extinct. | If extinct. | 1-4th of both.
—————————-+——————————=+——————————+————————
If extinct. |3-4ths of _Geilfiné_.|1-4th of _Geilfiné_.| If extinct.
| 1-4th of _Indfiné_. |3-4ths of _Infiné_. |
——————————+——————————-+——————————+————————
17 men must in this case be made up.
————————————————————————————————————————
It is hardly possible that so complicated a system should have long
remained intact through all the changes produced in the social system of
these tribes by the mere course of time; and it probably, at least to
some extent, broke down under the growing importance of the family of
the oldest cadet, which became more and more independent the longer it
was separated from that of the chief, and so would narrow the group
which formed his kin; and thus we see that as it became the most
powerful family next to his, there came to be alternate election of the
king or chief from these two families, the head of the one being always
nominated Tanist to the other.
[Sidenote: Relation of _Geilfiné_ chief to the _Ri Tuath_.]
Such being probably the nature of these groups, it becomes necessary to
examine their relation to the _Tuath_ and that of the _Flath Geilfiné_
or _Geilfiné_ chief to the _Ri Tuath_. We find in the Senchus Mor the
following statement:—‘The head of each _Finé_, or the _Ceannfiné_,
should be the man of the _Finé_ who is the most experienced, the most
noble, the most wealthy, the wisest, the most learned, the most powerful
to oppose, the most steadfast to sue for profits and for losses.’ The
two qualities of ‘most noble’ in race and ‘most wealthy’ in cattle can
only be found united in the _Flath_ or chief, and he is expected to
possess the rest. We therefore find in the commentary ‘the head of each
_Finé_’ defined to be ‘every one who is head chief of the _Geilfiné_.’
We are then told that ‘every person in a _Tuath_ accepts equal stock or
subsidy from the _Flath Geilfiné_ or _Geilfiné_ chief, and the _Flath
Geilfiné_ accepts stock or subsidy from the _Ri Tuath_, or else every
person in the _Tuath_ accepts it from the _Ri Tuath_, though it is from
him that the _Flath Geilfiné_ takes his _Flaithius_ or chiefship.’[210]
We have here an alternative statement. In the one the members of the
tribe take stock from the _Geilfiné_ chief, that is, are his dependants.
In the other they take stock directly from the _Ri Tuath_. These
statements represent different states of the tribe; the older state,
when the members of the tribe were equal and independent of each other,
and the later when they had become dependent upon the _Flath_ or chief;
but both might exist at the same time, some taking stock from the chief
and some from the king. There was this distinction between the chief and
the king as regards _Saer_ stock tenure, that the connection between the
_Flath_ and the _Ceile_ was based upon contract, and the connection
which was freely entered into might be dissolved by either party; but we
are told in the _Cain tsaorrthadh_ or law of _Saer_ stock tenure, ‘a man
need never accept of _Daer_ stock from any other unless he likes it
himself, and he need not accept even of _Saer_ stock from any but his
own king, and he cannot refuse taking _Saer_ stock from his own king.’
And further, ‘he cannot separate from his own king at any time, either
while he holds by _Saer_ stock tenure or by _Daer_ stock tenure.’[211]
And in the _Cain Aigillne_ or law of _Daer_ stock tenure we read, ‘The
law does not require of a man to accept of _Daer_ stock from his own
chief or from an extern chief, or from his own king or from an extern
king, but the law requires of him to take _Saer_ stock from his own
king. If he takes _Daer_ stock, it should be from his own king.’[212]
This power which the _Ri Tuath_ possessed of forcing the members of the
tribe to become his dependants in _Saer_ stock tenure, and of retaining
them permanently, enabled him to increase his dependants to any extent;
and besides the _Ceile_ whom he thus gathered around him he likewise
settled _Fuidhir_ or stranger septs upon his waste land in proportion to
the extent of his territory and the amount of his wealth. He thus not
only occupied the position of _Ri Tuath_ or king of the tribe, with all
its rights and privileges, but was likewise the _Flath_ or chief of the
most powerful sept within it.
The _Flath Geilfiné_ or _Geilfiné_ chief was likewise the chief of an
entire _Finé_ or sept. This is implied in a passage in the tract ‘Of the
judgment of every crime,’ where we are told that ‘the reason why the
crime goes upon the _Deirbhfiné_ and the _Iarfiné_ before it goes upon
the _Flath_ or chief, is because it is one chief that is over them, the
_Flath Geilfiné_, and he is chief of four _Finés_ or groups.’ Another
passage in the Book of Aicill also shows that he was next in rank and
power to the king, for it apportions the fines for injuring the roads of
a _Tuath_ between the _Ri_ or king and the _Flath Geilfiné_, and adds,
‘What is the reason that there is more due to the _Ri Tuath_ for
injuring his principal road than his by-road, and that there is more due
to the _Geilfiné_ chief for injuring his by-road than his principal
road? The reason is, the principal road is more the peculiar property of
the _Ri Tuath_ than the by-road, and the by-road is more the peculiar
property of the _Flath Geilfiné_ than the principal road.’[213]
Where then are we to recognise the _Flath Geilfiné_ among the _Aires_ of
a _Tuath_ of the _Grad Flath_? The _Geilfiné_ chief, as we see, received
his stock or subsidy direct from the _Ri Tuath_, but there were only two
of the _Aires_ who were in this position, and in this respect the
_Aires_ of a _Tuath_ fall into two divisions. The _Aire Desa_ and the
_Aire Ard_ received their stock from a _Flath_, but the _Aire Tuise_ and
the _Aire Forgaill_ from the _Ri Tuath_ direct, and it is in this latter
division we have to look for the _Flath Geilfiné_. The _Aire Forgaill_
was the highest grade of the _Aires_, and is said to be so named
‘because it is he that testifies (_Fortgella_) to the grades in every
case in which denial of a charge is sought, and because his quality is
superior to that of his fellows;’ while the _Aire Tuise_ is said to be
so called ‘because his race has precedence,’ or, as it may be more
literally rendered, ‘because he is _Tuisech_ or leader from race’
(_Toisech a Ciniul_).[214] The former, as the superior of the two, may
probably be viewed as the _Flath Geilfiné_ or _Geilfiné_ chief, and
exercised the judicial functions of a chief; while the latter, as the
oldest cadet, led the forces of the clan when called out either by the
chief or by the king on a _Sluaged_ or hosting.
[Sidenote: Law of Succession.]
Although the position of _Flath_ or chief of a sept, as well as that of
_Ri Tuath_ or head of the whole tribe, was hereditary in the family but
elective in the person, there can be little doubt that the senior of the
family, as representing the founder of it, was usually elected as
entitled to the position, unless disqualified by some defect mental or
physical, and this principle is recognised in the tract on Succession,
where it is thus laid down:—‘The senior with the _Finé_ or sept, dignity
with the _Flath_ or chief, wisdom with the _Eclais_ or church;’ and this
rule is thus illustrated in the commentary: ‘Ignorance was set aside for
wisdom in the orders of the church. An _Aitech_ or tenant of the _Grad
Feiné_ was set aside for a _Flath_ or chief, a junior was set aside for
the senior, that is, the person who is junior shall rise or walk out of
the kingship or the abbacy or the _Geilfiné_ chiefship before the person
who is senior.’ And again—‘Age is rewarded by the _Feiné_, for where
there are two _Aires_ or lords of the same family who are of equal
dignity and property, the senior shall take precedence.’ And again—‘The
senior is entitled to noble election,’ but ‘if the kings be equally old
and good, lots are to be cast between them respecting the kingship, but
if one of them is older than the other he shall go into it.’ Finally, it
is laid down that ‘the junior shares and the senior is elected,’ and
that ‘it is according to desert they come into power, and it is
according to the goodness of the branch itself and the goodness of the
grade also, and the most worthy person of the branch shall go into it,
that is, the best person of that branch. And the head of all according
to the _dera_ of the _Finé_, that is, that every one who is a head
should be afterwards according to the _Finé_.’
The following commentary on the qualities required in a chief further
illustrates the principles on which the selection is made:—‘The noblest,
that is, in age or in race (_Cenel_). The highest, that is, in grade.
The wealthiest, that is, in ploughing and reaping. The shrewdest, that
is, in wisdom or in mind. The wisest, that is, in learning. Popular as
to compurgation, that is, who has good friends with compurgators, that
is, good friends outside the territory adhering to him. The most
powerful to sue, that is, to prosecute for each of them. The most firm
to sue for profits, that is, of the _dibad_ property. And losses, that
is, liabilities.’ Finally, ‘the body of each is his _Finé_, that is, the
body of each person who is head is his _Finé_. There is no body without
a head, that is, of themselves, over them, according to law.’[215] It
was the operation of this rule that led to brothers being preferred to
sons, and when there was alternate succession the collateral in the same
degree was preferred to the son of his predecessor, as being one degree
nearer to the common ancestor.
[Sidenote: _Sluaged_ or hosting.]
The regulations for compelling attendance upon the _Sluaged_ or hosting
still further illustrate the relations between the king and the chief of
a sept. They are contained in the Book of Aicill, and are as
follows:—‘If a man of the _Grad Flath_, with his _Daer Ceile_, came away
from it (that is, the hosting), or if the _Ceile_ came away from it, if
ordered by the chief, Honor price shall be paid for it, half of which
goes to the king of the province and the other half is divided into
three parts; one third goes to the king who is nearest the king of the
province in upward gradation (that is, the king of a _Mortuath_),
one-third to the _Ri Tuath_ who is over those below, and one-third to
the chiefs and intermediate chiefs (_Flathaibh_) who are between them in
the middle,’ by which latter distinction the two divisions of the
_Aires_ of the _Grad Flath_ are intended.
‘If it was a man of the _Grad Flath_ and one _Ceile_ that came away from
it, Honor price is to be paid for it also; and the share which the
_Ceile_ should pay, if all the _Ceile_ had been concerned in it, is what
he is to pay now, and the remainder is to be paid by him (that is, the
chief), and the same division is made of the half for the king of the
province, and the other half is divided into three parts.’
‘If it was the _Ceile_ themselves that came away from it without the
chief’s leave, the _Smacht_ fine or Honor price, which is due for it, is
to be paid by them; one-third of it goes to the king of the province,
and one-third to the chief whose _Ceile_ came away, and the other third
is to be divided into three parts, one-third of which goes to the king
of the _Tuath_ who is over them, and one third to the chiefs and
intermediate chiefs who are in the middle between them;’ to which is
added, ‘Whenever it is _Smacht_ fine that is paid, it shall be paid
according to the rank of the person who pays it; and whenever Honor
price is paid, it shall be paid according to the rank of the person to
whom it is paid.’
‘What is the reason that there is a greater fine upon the _Grad Flath_
for not going to the hosting than upon the _Grad Feiné_? The reason is,
The hosting or the Dun-building suffers a greater loss from the absence
of the _Grad Flath_ than from that of the _Grad Feiné_, and they are
more needed, and it is right there should be a greater fine upon them.’
‘What is the reason that there is a greater fine imposed upon them for
coming away from it than for not going to it? The reason of it is, It is
more dangerous for the king to be deserted outside in an enemy’s
territory, than that they should not go out with him at first.’[216]
[Sidenote: Fosterage.]
The tie between the chiefs and their dependants was still further
strengthened by the custom of fosterage, by which the children of the
upper classes were intrusted to a family belonging to the inferior ranks
to be brought up and trained along with their own children. This custom
prevailed from an early period among the Irish tribes, but it is obvious
that such an institution could only have arisen after the distinction of
ranks had been fully organised in the tribe. The influence of early
association with the earlier stage in the constitution of the tribe,
when its free members were in a state of independence and equality with
each other, may have led to their regarding the children under age, and
before they had acquired any independent rights and privileges, as
occupying no better position, and so created a sentiment that they ought
to be trained along with the children of a lower rank, long after the
reality which gave rise to the feeling had ceased to exist. Be this as
it may, we find the institution in full operation in these Ancient Laws,
and the regulations connected with it forming part of the Senchus Mor.
According to it there were two kinds of fosterage with the _Finé_ which
had not been annulled—fosterage for affection, and fosterage for
payment. The clothing and the food of the children given to the inferior
families to foster is minutely regulated. Those of the children of the
_Grad Feiné_ were to be black or yellow or grey, and old clothes were to
be worn by the sons of an _Ogaire_, and new by the sons of a _Boaire_.
The sons of an _Aire desa_ were to wear clothes of a different colour
every day, and of two different colours on Sunday, and to have both old
and new clothes. The sons of the superior chiefs were to wear clothes of
two colours every day, both old and new, and new clothes of two colours
on Sunday; while the sons of the _Aire Forgill_, the highest of all, and
of the king, were to have new coloured clothes at all times, and all
embroidered with gold and silver. How far such regulations were ever
practically observed may well be doubted, but those regarding food are
probably enough. Porridge[217] was to be given to them all, but the
materials of which it is made and the flavouring vary according to the
rank of the parents of the children. The sons of the inferior grades are
fed to bare sufficiency on porridge made of oatmeal and butter-milk or
water taken with salt butter. The sons of chiefs are fed to satiety on
porridge made of barley-meal, upon new milk with fresh butter. The sons
of kings are fed on porridge made of flour, upon new milk taken with
honey. The food of all, however, was alike, till the end of a year or of
three years.
The price of the fosterage of the son of an _Ogaire_ is three _Seds_ or
three _Samhaiscs_, that is, three-year-old heifers; and for his daughter
four _Seds_, a _Sed_ in addition being given for the daughter, because
the household arrangements for her accommodation are more extensive than
for the sons. This was the lowest price given, and the _Fer Midbuid_, or
man of the humblest rank, could not perform the fosterage for less. The
boys were to be taught the herding of lambs, calves, kids, and young
pigs, and kiln-drying, combing, and wood-cutting; and the daughters the
use of the quern, the kneading-trough, and the sieve. The price of the
fosterage of the son of a _Boaire_ was five _Seds_, or three cows. The
price of the fosterage of the son of an _Aire_ was ten _Seds_, and
instruction in the usual sciences is given him; that is, the sons were
taught horsemanship, _brann_-playing, shooting, chess-playing, and
swimming; and the daughters sewing and cutting-out, and embroidery. The
price of the fosterage of the son of a king was thirty _Seds_, and the
foster-sons were to have horses in time of races, and the foster-father
was bound to teach them horsemanship.
The relationship thus formed was considered most friendly, and was
connected with the _Geilfiné_ relationship, but the passage which states
it is so obscure that it is difficult to attach a definite meaning to
it. The children remained with the foster-father till the boys were
seventeen and the girls fourteen. The age of the boys was divided into
three periods. The first extended till he was seven years old; the
second from seven to twelve years, and the third till he was seventeen.
During the first period the foster-father might punish him for faults
with castigation, and during the second with castigation without food,
but for his first fault there were to be three threatenings without
castigation, and after the age of twelve he had to make compensation in
the usual way, with regard to which there are many minute regulations.
On the termination of the fosterage the foster-father returned the
children with a parting gift, which was regulated according to the Honor
price; and in return, the foster-son was bound to maintain his
foster-father in sickness or old age, in the same manner as he would
maintain his own father and mother.
Such were the leading features of the system of fosterage as presented
to us in the Senchus Mor.[218]
[Sidenote: Later state of the _Finés_.]
The ancient topographical descriptions of some of the territories in the
three provinces of Munster, Connaught, and Ulster, which have been
printed by the Irish Archæological and Celtic Society, and which have
been already referred to as affording illustrations of the tribe system,
so far as preserved, likewise indicate the existence of the _Finé_ or
sept. Thus in the district of _Corca Laidhe_ in Munster, which consisted
of eight _Tuaths_ or tribe territories, in describing the district of
_Cuil-Cearnadha_, it is added, ‘These are its hereditary tribes
(_Fineadha duchusa_), O’Rothlain its _Toiseach_, and Ua Cuinn, Ua
Iarnain, and Ua Finain,’ three septs. Again, of the country or
_Duthaich_ of Gillamichil, which formed a _Tuath_, we are told, ‘These
were its hereditary leaders (_Oclaich Duthaich_), O’Duibharda,
O’Dunlaing, Oh-Ogain, O’Dubhagan,’ etc. It is unnecessary to go through
the whole of them, or the _Oclaich Duthaich_ of the other _Tuaths_, as
Mr. O’Donovan adds a note which sufficiently explains their relation to
the tribe. He says that these _Oglaich_ ‘were the petty chiefs,
_Kenfinies_ or heads of families,’ properly septs, ‘who held their lands
by the same right of descent from the common ancestor as the chief, or
rather _Toiseach_, himself; and they were called ’_Oglaich_, young
heroes, because they were bound to assist him in his wars against his
enemies at the heads of their respective clans.’[219]
We have some information, too, regarding the _Finé_ or sept in
Connaught. Thus in the ‘Tribes and Customs of Hy Fiachraich’ we read
that Fiachra, son of Eochaidh Muighmheadhoin, _Ardri_ of Erin, colonised
this district, and had a son, Amhalgaidh, from whose son, Fedhlim,
sprang the _Cineal Fedhlimidh_, which consisted of ‘O Ceallachain, O
Caithniadh, Mac Coinin, O Muimhneachain, Mac Fhionain, O Gearadhain,
O’Conboirne. These are the _Cineal Fedhlimidh_ of Jorrus.’ The _Cineal
Feidhlimidh_ here is the tribe occupying a _Tuath_, and the others are
the _Finé_ or septs of which it was composed. Then from ‘Aongus, son of
Amhalgaidh, came the Cineal Aongusa in Hy-Amhalgaidh, viz., O
Muireadhaigh, _Taoisig_ of the Lagan.’ Here we have the _Taoisech_ at
the head of the _Cineal_ or tribe, and then we are told that ‘of the
descendants of Aongus are the people of _Dun Finne_, or fort of the
_Finé_, viz. O Cuinn, MagOdhrain, O Comhdhan, O’Duibhlearga, O Bearga, O
Blighe, O Duanma or Duanmaigh;’ and these were the _Finé_ or septs.
Amhalgaidh had other sons by Earca, daughter of Eochaidh, king of
Leinster, the eldest of whom was Fergus, and his son Muireadhach was
_Rig Ua n-Amhalgaidh_, or king of Hy-Amhalgaidh. The descendants of this
Muireadhach possessed ‘the _Triocha Ceud_ of Bac and of Gleann
Nemthinne, and the half _Triocha Ceud_ of Breudach. These are the
hereditary tribes (_Fineadhoigh Dudhchusa_) of Bac, viz., O Lachtna,
_Taoisioc_ of the two Bacs and of the Gleann, and of them O Dubhagain
and the Clann Firbisigh, O Maoilruaidh of Ardachaidh, and O’Cuimin of
Lios Cuimin on the Muaidh. These are the families or septs (_Fineada_)
of Breudach, viz., O Toghda, Taoiseach of Breudach, O Glaimin, O
Luachaidh, and O Gilin.’[220] Here we have two groups of _Finé_ or
septs, with a _Toisech_ at the head of each. Lastly, from Aongus Fionn,
another son of Amhalgaidh, are O’Gaibhtheachan, O’Flainn, and
O’Maoilhiona, chiefs (_Flaithe_) of Calraighe Muighe h-Eleag.
In one of MacFirbis’s tracts he deduces the tribes and septs descended
from Brian, the son and successor of Eochaidh Muighmeadoin, king of
Connaught. He is said to have had ‘twenty-four sons, and from Echean,
one of them, descended the _Cinel n-Echean_ or tribe of Echean,
consisting of the septs of O’Biasta, O’Bli, O’Caisleorach, O’Ruanuidhen,
and O’Fionnucain. From Fergus came the _Cinel Fergusa_ of Echtge,
consisting of the septs of O’Brain, O’Bruachain, O’Conrethe, and
O’Cairriodha, _Taoiseachs_ of Cinel Fergusa. From Erc Dearg, or the Red,
came the _Cinel Deirg_ in Connaught; from Esse or Essile came the Tuath
Esille; from Aongus are the _Cinel n-Aongusa_ of Galway, that is, the
O’Hallorans with their branches; from Tenedh the _Corco-Tenedh_, and
Muichead, from whom _Corco-Muichead_; from Cana, the O’Cananans in
Uaithne; Neachtain, from Tir Neachtain, with their septs
(_Fineadhaibh_); two Carbrys, viz., Carbry Conrith, from whom is
descended St. Barry of Corc, and Carbry Aircheann, from whom the Hy
Briuin Ratha in West Connaught; three Conalls, viz., Conall Oirisin,
from whom the men of Umalia, Conall Glun, from whom the O’Monahans,
_Taoiseachs_ of the three _Tuaths_, and Conall Cortaine, from whom the
O’Maolduibh; Eochaidh, from whom the Cinel n-Eachach; and Enna Eamalach,
from whom Cinel n-Eanna; Duach Galach, the youngest, from whom the kings
of Rath Cruachan are descended.’[221]
In the province of Ulster we find, besides the _Tuaths_ which formed the
subdivisions of the larger districts and were equivalent to the tribe
territories, that in some a smaller division is mentioned termed a
_Cinement_. Thus in the district of the Glynnes, consisting of seven
subdivisions, six are termed _Tuoghs_ or _Tuaths_, and one is the
‘_Cynamond_ of Armoy and Raghlin,’ containing the parish of Armoy and
the island of Rathlin. Again, among the _Tuoghs_ in North Clandeboy we
find the ‘_Cinament_ of Knockboynabrade;’ the ‘_Cinament_ of Duogh
Connor,’ containing the sixteen towns of Connor; the _Cinament_ of
Kilmahevet; the _Cinament_ of Ballinowre, represented by the modern
parish of Ballinowre, and containing 8000 acres; the _Cinament_ of
Carntall, Monksland, and Carnemony; the _Cinament_ of Dirrevolgie,
_alias_ Fealaogh; and the _Cinament_ of Clandermot, containing four
Ballys or townlands.[222] This word Cinament is derived from _Cine_, a
sept, and _Minand_, a habitation or residence, and these smaller
districts were obviously the possessions of septs or _Finés_ which had
become detached from their tribe, and thus we find the name of the Clan
Dermot connected with one of them. Again, we find the Barony of Lower
Castlereagh in South Clandeboy consisted of five smaller territories
termed Slut Henrickies, Slut Kellies, Slut Hugh Bricks, Slut Bryan Boye,
Slut Durnings, and Slut Owen mac Quin, the last two forming one
district; but this word _Slut_ is the Irish _Sliocht_ or sept, and the
names are corrupted from _Sliocht Enri Caoich_, or the sept of Henry the
Blind; _Sliocht Ceallaigh_, or sept of the Kellies; _Sliocht Aodh
breac_, or sept of Hugh the Freckled; _Sliocht Briuin buidhe_, or sept
of Brian the Yellow; _Sliocht Owen mhic Cuinn_, or sept of Owen son of
Conn.[223]
Sir John Davis, in his Letter to the Earl of Salisbury, written about
the same time, gives us a very clear account of the position of these
septs in the counties of Fermanagh and Cavan. In Fermanagh he derived
his information from certain of the clerks or scholars of that country,
who knew all the septs and families and their branches, and the dignity
of one sept above another, and what families or persons were chief of
every sept, and who were next, and who were of third rank, and so forth,
till they descended to the most inferior man in all the barony.
Moreover, they took upon them to tell ‘what quantity of land every man
ought to have by the custom of their country, which is of the nature of
gavelkind, whereby, as their septs or families did multiply, their
possessions have been from time to time divided and subdivided, and
broken into so many small parcels as almost every acre of land had a
several owner, who termeth himself a lord and his portion of land his
country.’ ‘Notwithstanding, as McGuire himself had a chiefry over all
the country, and some demesne that did ever pass to him only who carried
that title, so was there a chief of every sept who had certain services,
duties, and demesnes that ever passed to the Tanist of that sept, and
never was subject to division.’ And in his return of the state of the
county of Cavan he gives the following general account:—‘In the Irish
countries, where the custom of Tanistry is not extinguished, the tenures
are everywhere alike. There is first a general chieftain of every
country or territory, which hath some demesne and some household
provisions yielded unto him by all the inhabitants under him; every sept
or surname hath a particular chieftain or Tanist, which hath likewise
his peculiar demesne and duties, and these possessions go by succession
or election, entirely without any division; but all the other lands
holden by the inferior inhabitants are partable in course of gavelkind,
wherein there is no difference made between legitimate sons and
bastards.’[224]
[Sidenote: The Tribe in Wales.]
Such, then, being the leading features of the _Tuath_ or tribe, and the
_Finé_ or sept, so far as we can gather them from the Ancient Laws of
Ireland, and as we find them exemplified in the later condition of the
country, which it is essential for our purpose to indicate, we must now
pass over to the mainland of Great Britain, and examine how far we can
likewise trace them in the Ancient Laws of its Welsh population; and
here we see clearly enough that a tribal system possessing in the main
the same characteristics lies at the foundation of their social
organisation. It was likewise modified in the main by the same
influences, but that of the Church was earlier encountered, and it could
hardly escape being affected by another influence to which the Irish
tribe was not exposed, viz., that of the Roman institutions during the
period when the Welsh population formed a part of the Roman province—an
influence, however, which would be more intense in the southern and
eastern districts, and more superficial in the mountainous region of the
west, and in the frontier districts between the Roman walls, whose Welsh
population afterwards formed the kingdom of Strathclyde.
The Welsh codes which have been preserved are those of Gwynedd or North
Wales, and Dyved and Gwent, the west and east divisions of South Wales.
Besides these we have some fragments of Commentaries printed under the
title of Anomalous Laws, and we have also the advantage of possessing a
Latin version of the Laws of Dyved, which gives us the equivalent of the
Welsh terms in the Latin of the feudal charters. The oldest of these
codes are certainly the Laws of Gwynedd or North Wales, and they
recognise the influence of the Church as establishing the sanction of
marriage, requiring legitimacy in the sons, and introducing a law of
primogeniture in the succession to land which did not exist in the Irish
system, when it declares, ‘An innate _Bon-eddig_ is a person who shall
be complete as to origin in Wales both by the mother and by the father.
The ecclesiastical law says again that no son is to have the patrimony
but the eldest born to the father by the married wife.’ The rule was
not, however, universally accepted, for it is added, ‘The law of Howel,
however, adjudges it to the youngest son as well as to the oldest.’[225]
These laws present to us the Cymric people, or Welsh population, who
still maintained their independence, as in a more advanced stage of
organisation than the Irish tribes are exhibited in the Brehon Laws. We
find the land divided into _Talaeth_, or provinces, each under its
_Brenhin_, or king, similarly to that of Ireland, and all under a
_Brenhin penrhaith_, or supreme king; but while we can trace the
original function of the king as judge of his people, the position of
king had assumed a more modern aspect both as relates to his power and
authority, and to his rights in connection with the land. The whole
people are termed the _Cenedl y Gymry_, or race of the Cymry, and we can
see that the organisation of each province was based upon an earlier
tribal system, and that it must have been formed by a confederation of
tribes similar to that of the Irish province. Indications of this
earlier tribal system appear to be contained in ‘The Heads of the Social
State’ attributed to Dyvnwal Moelmud, a mythic king. These tribes appear
as _Llwylh a Cenedl_. We find also the same distinction of the people
into bond and free, _Caithion_ and _Rydyon_, the Latin equivalents of
which were _Nativi_ and _Liberi_, the latter alone representing the
ancient free members of the tribe. These are termed in the Laws
_Boneddic Cancwynawl_. They were pure Cymri both by father and mother,
and the Latin equivalent was _nobilis ingenuus_. The head of the tribe
was the _Pencenedl_, or _prefectus generis_, who is still recognised as
a functionary in these Laws. According to the Triads of the Social
State, the _Pencenedl_ must be the oldest in the _Cenedl_ so far as the
ninth degree of kindred, who is in full strength of body and mind. The
same process which in the case of the Irish tribe had created a class of
territorial lords or _Flaith_, no doubt gave rise to the similar class
whom we find fully developed in the Welsh law. These were the _Uchelwyr_
or _Breyr_, sometimes termed _Mab Uchelwyr_, just as the Irish Flaith
appear as _Mac Oclaich_, and their Latin equivalent was _Optimates_.
When a family succeeded in retaining possession of the same portion of
land for a certain period, they were recognised as proprietors of it,
and entered the class of territorial lords. Thus in the Laws of Gwynedd,
‘Whosoever shall claim land and soil by kin and descent, let him show
his kin and descent from the stock from whence he is derived; and if he
be a fourth man, he is a proprietor because a fourth man becomes a
proprietor;’ and in the Laws of Gwent, ‘a _dadenhudd_ is the tilling by
a person of land tilled by his father before him. In the fourth degree a
person becomes a proprietor,—his father, his grandfather, his
great-grandfather, and himself the fourth.’[226] The servile class
consisted of two kinds. First, those of native race termed _Taeog_ or
_Villanus_, and the _Caeth_ or prædial serf. The former class was
analogous to the _Daer Ceile_ or bond tenants, and the latter to the
_Sencleithe_ of the Irish.
Besides the occupiers of the soil, who were native members of the tribe,
there was a class of foreign settlers analogous to the _Fuidhir_ of the
Irish, who were termed _Alltudion_ or strangers, and were settled on the
waste lands.
The land which formed originally the common property of the tribe now
appears as consisting of the _Tir Gwelyawg_ or inheritance land, similar
to the Irish _Orba_. Part was held in demesne and cultivated by the
_Alltudion_ or stranger villains, and the _Caethion_, or prædial serfs;
and part occupied by the _Taeog_, or native members of the tribe, who
had become his tenants. There was also the _Tir Bwrdd_ or mensal land,
and the _Tir Cylladus_ or geldable land, also termed _Tir Cyfrif_ or
register land, which was divided among the _Aillt_ or native members of
the tribe.[227] The mode in which the land was occupied will, however,
be better understood in connection with the system of land measurement
which appears in these laws.
It is thus given in the Laws of Gwynedd. The smallest denomination of
land was the _Erw_ or acre. It was a ridge of land. The measure was what
was termed the long yoke of sixteen feet, the breadth consisted of two
yokes, and the length was thirty times its breadth. It thus contained
3413 square yards, that is, somewhat less than three-fourths of an
imperial acre. The basis of this system is the number four. Four of
these _Erws_ formed a _Tyddyn_ or man’s house, that is, the homestead of
a single family, and four _Tyddyns_ made a _Randir_ or division of land.
Four _Randirs_ formed a _Gavael_, and four _Gavaels_ the _Tref_ or
townland. Four _Trefs_ made a _Maenawl_. Twelve _Maenawls_ and two
_Trefs_ formed a _Cymwd_, and two _Cymwds_ a _Cantrev_, so called
because it thus contained one hundred _Trefs_. The _Cymwd_, however,
appears to be the true unit in this system, for we are told that the two
_Trefs_ which it contained, besides the twelve _Maenawls_, were for the
use of the _Brenin_ or king. One was his _Maertrev_ land, and the other
for his waste and summer pasture. There were thus, we are told, four
legal _Erws_ of tillage in every _Tyddyn_; sixteen in every _Randir_;
sixty-four in every _Gavael_; two hundred and fifty-six in the _Tref_;
one thousand and twenty-four in every _Maenawl_; twelve thousand two
hundred and eighty-eight in the twelve _Maenawls_. In the two _Trefs_
which pertain to the court are to be five hundred and twelve _Erws_; the
whole of that, when summed up, is twelve thousand and eight hundred
_Erws_ in the _Cymwd_,[228] or about 9600 imperial acres.
The _Tref_ thus, in the main, corresponds to the _Ballyboe_ or
ploughgate of the Irish system, and the fifty _Trefs_ of the _Cymwd_
were thus distributed among the people. Sixteen _Trefs_ formed the _Tir
Cyfrif_ or register land, occupied by the _Bonedic_ or free members of
the tribe. Eight _Trefs_, or two _Maenawls_, were assigned to the
_Cynghellawr_ and the _Maer_ who represented the king in the Cymwd, and
divided the register land among the people. Twenty-four _Trefs_, or six
_Maenawls_, were the _Tir Gwelyawg_ or inheritance land, possessed by
the free _Uchelwyr_; and the two _Trefs_ which remained over were the
king’s _Tir Bwrdd_ or mensal land. Under the _Uchelwyr_ there was a
similar distribution of land, and it is obvious that what was originally
the common land of the tribe, had now come to be viewed as the property
of the king; and the _Bonedic_, or original free occupiers of the land,
now appear as the king’s _Aillts_. Though, like the Irish _Ceile_, they
came to occupy a dependent position in relation to the superior, their
original mode of occupation of the soil remained unchanged, and the
_Maer_ and _Cynghellawr_ are directed to share this land equally between
all in the _Tref_ or township, and on that account it is called _Tir
Cyfrif_ or register land. On the other hand, the sons succeeded equally
to the _Tir Gwelyawg_ or inheritance land, and if they failed, it went
to their first and second cousins, after whom there was no further
division, a succession very similar to the Irish Gavelcine.
This system of land-measures was not, however, uniform, for we are told
that Bleddyn, a prince of Gwynedd and Powis, altered the size of the
_Tyddyn_ or smallest holding from four _Erws_ to twelve _Erws_ when held
by an _Uchelwr_, eight _Erws_ when held by an _Aillt_, and four when
held by a _Godaeog_ or superior _Taeog_,[229] and in the Laws of Dyved
we find a still greater variety. In these laws the _Tref_ or township in
the free manors is to consist of four _Randirs_, instead of sixteen as
in the Laws of Gwynedd, and the Randir is to contain three hundred and
twelve _Erws_, ‘so that the owner may have in the three hundred _Erws_
arable pasture and fuel wood and space for buildings on the twelve
_Erws_.’ The _Erw_, however, is smaller than that in the Laws of
Gwynedd, for while it is of the same breadth, viz., the long yoke of
sixteen feet, it is only sixteen times as long in place of thirty.
Again, in place of the _Maenawl_ containing a uniform quantity of four
_Trefs_, the lowland _Maenawl_, where the land is more fertile, is to
consist of seven _Trefs_, and the upland _Maenawl_ thirteen.[230] The
land-measures as given in the Code of Gwent are very similar, but with
some variations. There is the same direction that there are to be four
_Randirs_ in the _Tref_ and three hundred and twelve _Erws_ in the
_Randir_, but the _Erw_ contains eighteen rods of eighteen feet in place
of sixteen yokes in the length, and there are to be thirteen _Trefs_ in
every _Maenawl_, except those of the _Taeog Trefs_, which contain only
seven. Of the four _Randirs_ in the free _Tref_ three are for occupancy
and the fourth pasturage for the three; but in the _Taeog Tref_ there
are only three _Randirs_, the third being pasturage for the other
two.[231]
The original rights of the free members of the tribe, on which their
possession of the register land is based, are thus defined in the Triads
of the Social State:—‘There are three original rights of every native
Welshman (_Cymro Cynwhynawl_),—first, the possession, without
restriction, of five _Erws_ of land; second, a right of determining the
constitutional law of the country under protection and in right of the
_Pencenedl_; and third, a right to the freedom of the country in
general, that is to say, that he be free to go whither he will without
loss of privilege or verdict, unless when in actual service of the
country, or of a court of law.’[232]
The burdens upon the land and its possessors were as follows:—The
sixteen _Trefs_ in the _Cymwd_ possessed by the _Aillt_ paid a rent in
kind, termed _Dawnbwyd_, which was similar to the _Biatad_ or food-rent
of the Irish system, and were subject to the _Cylch_ and _Dovraith_ of
the superior, or refection and quartering, equivalent to the _Conmedha_
or _Coigny_ of the Irish. From the _Trefs_ possessed by the _Uchelwyr_,
and the two manors belonging to the _Maer_ and _Cynghellawr_, the king
received a _Gwestva_ or food-rent, which corresponds to the _Bestighi_
or food-rent of the house paid by every rank in the Irish tribe to the
_Ri Tuath_; but in the Welsh system the payment in kind was, in part,
commuted for a money payment, and we find no trace of the subsidy or
gift of stock by the superior, in proportion to the return in the shape
of food-rent, which characterises the whole relations of the different
grades in the Irish tribe to each other.[233]
Besides these regular burdens, there were two that may be termed casual.
These were the _Ebidiw_ or relief, payable to the superior by the heir
of a defunct vassal; and secondly, the _Amobr_, _Gobr Merch_, or maiden
fee, that is, a fee paid to the superior by the person subject to that
payment on the marriage of a daughter. By the Welsh laws the _Amobyrs_
of the daughters are said to be of equal amount with the _Ebidiws_ of
their fathers, and there were three _Ebidiws_—an _Ebidiw_ of a pound, an
_Ebidiw_ of six score pence, and an _Ebidiw_ of three score pence. The
first was paid by the principal officers of the palace—by the
_Pencenedl_ and by the officers of the country, the _Maer_ and the
_Cynghellawr_. The second by the superior officers, the _Uchelwr_ or
_Breyr_, and the _Gwahalaeth_ or son of a lord; and the third by the
king’s _Taeog_, an _Arddelwman_ and an _Alltud_ whom the king has
enfranchised.[234]
[Sidenote: Fines for Slaughter.]
Another important feature of the Irish tribe system is exactly reflected
in the Welsh laws. The compensation for every injury, from the slaughter
of a member of the tribe to the smallest loss, was by fines based upon a
value or price put upon each person according to his position as regards
rank and wealth. The fines are the _Galanas_ for slaughter, equivalent
to the _Eric_ of the Irish; the _Saraad_, or fine for any personal
injury or insult, which seems to be the _Smacht_ of the Irish; the
_Dirwy_ and _Camlwrw_, equivalent to the _Dire_ fines of the Irish. The
_Gwerth_ or price of the different ranks, equivalent to the Irish Honor
price, and which regulated the _Galanas_, was as follows:—That of a king
is defined in the Laws of Gwynedd as three times his _Saraad_. The
_Gwerth_ or value and _Galanas_ of a _Pencenedl_ is to be paid by thrice
nine kine and thrice nine score kine, and his _Saraad_ is thrice nine
kine and thrice nine score of silver. The _Gwerth_ or price and the
_Galanas_ of an _Uchelwr_ was six score and six kine, and his _Saraad_
six kine and six score of silver. That of a native _Bonedic_, or free
member of a tribe, was three score and three kine, and his _Saraad_ was
three kine and three score of silver. That of a king’s _Alltudd_, or
foreign settler, was the same. The _Gwerth_ of the _Alltudd_ of an
_Uchelwr_, as well as his _Saraad_, was one half that of the king’s
_Alltudd_. The _Gwerth_ of a _Caeth_ or bondman, if of the island, was
one pound; if from beyond sea, one pound and six score pence, and his
_Saraad_ was twelve pence. The third of every _Galanas_ belongs to the
king, ‘for to him pertains the enforcing of it when the _Cenedl_ may be
unable to enforce it.’ The _Dirwy_ was twelve kine or three pounds; and
the _Camlwrw_, or fine for wrong, three kine or nine score pence.
[Sidenote: The sept in Wales.]
So far the resemblance between the Irish and the Welsh tribe seems
sufficiently marked, and we can also trace in the Welsh Laws the
existence of the sept, though it does not come so prominently forward as
in the Irish Laws. The _Uchelwr_ or territorial lord, from which class
alone the _Pencenedl_ was elected, had under him a class of native
_Cymri_ who had become his _Aillt_ or tenants, and had likewise settled
upon his land, the _Alltudion_ or stranger tenants, both bond and free,
and his prædial serfs or _Caethim_. These formed his _Teulu_ or sept,
which was sufficiently numerous to turn out a military force of one
hundred and twenty fighting men;[235] and we find, though to a more
limited extent, the same system by which the nearer relations of the
chief formed an artificial group, which inherited his lands and were
responsible for the crimes of its members. The law of succession in the
_Tir Gwelyawg_ or inheritance land was this—‘Three times shall the same
patrimony be shared between three grades of a kindred. First, between
brothers; the second time between cousins; the third time between second
cousins; after that there is no propriate share of land;’[236] and in
the Commentaries this is illustrated by the following figure,
Great Grandfather
+——————————————-|——————————————+
| | |
Brother Grandfather Brother
| +——————————-+—————————-+ |
| | | | |
Cousin Brother Father Brother Cousin
| | +———————+—————-+ | |
| | | | | | |
Second Cousin Brother Son Brother Cousin Second
Cousin | | | | | Cousin
Second Cousin Grandson Cousin Second
Cousin | | | Cousin
Second Great Grandson Second
Cousin Cousin
which shows the similarity of the system with the Irish. The commentator
adds, ‘The above figure guides a person to understand the arrangement
and connection existing between him and his ancestors and his
co-inheritors and his children. For the ancestors of a person are his
father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather; the co-inheritors
are brothers and cousins and second cousins; the heirs of a person are
those who proceed from his body, as a son, and a grandson and a
great-grandson; and if a person be skilful in the use of the figure
described above, when a person descended from any one of the three kins
of the body of the original stock shall die without heir of his body, he
will know who is to obtain the land of such a one according to law. For
unto the third degree there is to be an appropriate sharing of land in
the court of a _Cymwd_ or _Cantrey_.’[237]
These three _kins_ of the Welsh Laws evidently represent the first two
_Finés_ of the Irish Laws, viz., the _Geilfiné_ and _Deirbhfiné_, but
the Welsh Law proceeds no further with the distribution than the first
nine persons of the Irish group of seventeen. The same group was liable
under the Welsh Laws for the crimes of its members, and the fines
incurred by them, but the nine degrees are differently stated, in a
manner which appears to extend it as far as the Irish system. We find in
the Laws that ‘whoever shall confess _Galanas_, he and his kindred shall
pay the whole of the _Saraad_ and _Galanas_ of the person killed;’ and
then the kindred is thus defined: ‘Thus the grades of kindred are
denominated which are to pay _Galanas_, or to receive payment. The first
grade of the nine is the father and mother of the murderer or of the
murdered. The second is a grandfather. The third is a great-grandfather.
The fourth is brothers and sisters. The fifth is a cousin. The sixth is
a second cousin. The seventh is a third cousin. The eighth is a relation
in the fourth remove. The ninth is a relation in the fifth remove. The
collateral relations in these grades are the nephews and uncles of the
murderer or of the murdered. A nephew is a son of a brother or sister or
of a cousin or of a second cousin, male or female. An uncle is a brother
of a father or mother, or of a grandfather or grandmother, or of a
great-grandfather or great-grandmother. This is the amount of the share
of each of these; whoever may be nearer by one degree to the murderer,
or to the murdered, than another, is to pay or to receive twice as much
as the other; and so in respect to all the grades and their collateral
members.’[238]
The head of the sept was termed the _Penteulu_, but we have little
information as to his relation towards the king or the _Pencenedl_,
except that it was from the class of _Uchelwyr_ that these were elected,
and thus, as in the Irish system, they too had each their _Teulu_ or
sept.
[Sidenote: Fosterage in Wales.]
There is but one allusion in the Welsh Laws to the system of fosterage,
but it is sufficient to show that this custom also prevailed among the
Welsh tribes. We find in the code of Gwynedd that ‘if an _Uchelwr_ place
his son to be reared with the _Aillt_ of a lord, by the permission or by
the sufferance of the lord, for a year and a day, that son is to have a
son’s share of the _Aillt’s_ land, and ultimately of his property.’[239]
The age of the boy, however, is distinguished into only two periods.
First, from his baptism till he is seven years of age, during which time
his father is to swear and pay for him, except the payment of _Dirwy_ or
_Camlwrw_ for him to the king; because the king is not to have any
_Dirwy_ or _Camlwrw_ for an error nor for the act of an idiot, and he is
not endowed with reason; he must, however, indemnify the sufferer for
his property. At the end of seven years he himself is to swear for his
acts, and his father is to pay. From the time when a boy is born till he
shall be fourteen years of age, he is to be at his father’s platter, and
his father lord over him; and he is to receive no punishment but that of
his father, and he is not to receive one penny of his property during
that time, only in common with his father. At the end of fourteen years
the father is to bring his son to the lord and commend him to his
charge; and then the youth is to become his man, and to be on the
privilege of his lord; and he is himself to answer every claim that may
be made on him; and is to possess his own property; thenceforward his
father is not to correct him, more than a stranger; and if he should
correct him, upon complaint made by the son against him he is subject to
_Dirwy_, and is to do him right for the _Saraad_. ‘From that age onward
he is of the same privilege with an innate _Boneddig_.’[240]
The preceding short analysis of the tribal organisation in its leading
features, as presented to us in the ancient Irish and Welsh laws, is an
indispensable preliminary to any inquiry into the ancient land tenure of
the people of Scotland in Celtic times. Without it we should have been
at a loss to discover the source and origin of many of the peculiar
features it presents in later times.