Second Article.
In returning to the subject of the origin of Irish family names, I feel
it necessary to adduce two or three additional instances of the erroneous
statements put forward by Mr Beauford, as they have had such an injurious
influence with subsequent Irish writers on this subject:--
3. “OSRAGH, derived from _Uys raigagh_, or the kingdom between the
waters, the present Ossory, called also Hy Paudruig, or the district of
the country between the rivers, &c., the hereditary chiefs of which were
denominated _Giolla Paudruig_, or the chief of the country between the
rivers, called also _Mac Giolla Padruic_,” &c.
This seems an exquisite specimen of etymological induction, and I have
often heard it praised as beautiful and ingenious; but it happens that
every assertion made in it is untrue! _Osragii_ is not the Irish name of
this territory, but the Latinized form of the name of the inhabitants.
Again, _Osragii_ is not compounded of _Uys_ and _raigagh_; and even if
it were, these two vocables are not Irish words, and could not mean
what is above asserted, the kingdom between the waters. Again, Ossory
was never called _Hy Pau-druic_, and even if it were, _Hy Pau-druic_
would not mean “district of the country between the rivers.” Next, the
hereditary chiefs were not denominated _Giolla Paudruic_, but _Mic
Giolla Paudruic_ (a name afterwards anglicized Fitzpatrick), from an
ancestor called _Giolla Paudruic_, who was chief of Ossory in the tenth
century, and who is mentioned in all the authentic Irish annals as
having been killed by Donovan, the son of Imar, king of the Danes of
Waterford, in the year 975. Moreover, _Giolla-Phadruic_, the name of
this chieftain, does not mean “chief of the country between the rivers,”
as Mr Beauford would have us believe, but _servant of Saint Patrick_,
which, as a man’s name, became very common in Ireland shortly after the
introduction of Christianity, for at this time the Irish were accustomed
to give their children names not only after the Irish apostle, but also
after other distinguished saints of the primitive Irish church; and the
names of these saints were not at this period adopted as the names of
the children, but the word _Giolla_, or _Maol_, servant, was generally
prefixed to the names of the saints to form those of the children:
thus, _Giolla Padruic_, the servant of St Patrick; _Giolla Ciarain_,
the servant of St Kieran; _Giolla Caoimhghin_, the servant of St Kevin;
_Giolla Coluim_, the servant of St Columb, &c.
4. “CONMAICNE MARA, or the chief tribe on the great sea, comprehending
the western parts of the county of Galway on the sea coast; it was
also called _Conmaicne ira_, or the chief tribe in the west, and _Iar
Connaught_, that is, west Connaught; likewise _Hy Iartagh_, or the
western country: the chiefs of which were denominated Hy Flaherty or
O’Flaherty, that is, the chief of the nobles of the western country, and
containing the present baronies of Morogh, Moycullen, and Ballinahinch.”
This is also full of bold assertions, unsupported by history or
etymology. _Conmaicne_ does not mean the chief tribe, but the race of
a chieftain called Conmac; _Conmaicne mara_, which is now anglicised
Connamara, was never called _Conmaicne ira_, and _Conmaicne mara_ and
_Iar Connaught_ are not now coextensive, nor were they considered to be
so at any period of Irish history. _Conmaicne mara_ was never called
Hy Iartagh, and O’Flaherty was not the ancient chief of _Conmaicne
mara_, for O’Flaherty was located in the plains of Moy Seola, lying
eastwards of Lough Corrib, until he was driven across that lake into
the wilds of Connamara by the De Burgos in the 13th century. Again, the
surname O’Flaherty does not mean “the chief of the nobles of the western
district,” but is derived from _Flaithbheartach_, who was chief of _Hy
Briuin Seola_, not of _Conmaicne mara_, in the tenth century; and this
chief was not the first who received the name, for it was the name of
hundreds of far more distinguished chieftains who flourished in other
parts of Ireland many centuries before him, and O’Flaherty became the
name of a far more powerful family located in the north of Ireland; which
shows that the name has no reference to north or west, but must look for
its origin to some other source. Now, to any one acquainted with the
manner in which compound words are formed in the Irish language, it will
be obvious that the name _Flaithbheartach_ is not derived from a locality
or territory, but that it is formed from _flaith_, a chief, and _beart_,
a deed or exploit, in the following manner: _flaith_, a lord or chief,
_flaithbheart_, a lordly deed or exploit; and by adding the adjective
and personal termination _ach_ (which has nearly the same power with
the Latin _ax_), we have _flaithbheartach_, meaning the lordly-deeded,
or a man of lordly or chieftain-like exploits. According to the same
mechanism, which is simple and regular, are formed several other compound
words in this language, as _oirbheart_, a noble deed; _oirbheartach_,
noble-deeded, &c.
Finally, Mr Beauford is wrong in the extent which he gives to _Conmaicne
mara_. He is wrong in giving _Morogh_ as the name of a modern barony,
for there is none such in existence; and we have the most indisputable
evidence to prove that the territory of _Conmaicne mara_, now called
Connamara, never since the dawn of authentic history comprised more than
one barony. It is to be regretted that these etymological phantasies of
Mr Beauford about the country of O’Flaherty are received as true history
by the O’Flahertys themselves, and repeated in modern topographical and
literary productions of great merit.
I shall give one specimen more of this writer’s erroneous mode of
explaining topographical names, and I shall then have done with him.
5. “CAIRBRE AOBHDHA, or the district on the water, from _cairbre_, a
district, and _aobhdha_, waters; the present barony of Kenry, in the
county of Limerick. This country was also denominated _Hy dun na bhan_,
or the hilly district on the river; the ancient chiefs whereof were
called Hy Dun Navan or O’Donovan, that is, the chiefs of the hilly
country on the river.”
Here every single assertion comprises a separate error. _Cairbre_ does
not mean a district, and _aobhdha_ does not mean waters. This territory
was not otherwise called Hy Dunnavan; and even if it were, that name
would not mean “the hilly district on the river.” Again, the territory
of _Cairbre Aobhdha_ is not the barony of Kenry, neither is it a hilly
district, but one of the most level plains in all Ireland; and lastly,
the name O’Donovan does not moan “chiefs of the hilly district on the
river,” for this family name was called after Donovan, the son of Cathal,
chief of the Hy Figeinte, a people whose country extended from the river
Shannon to the summit of Slieve Logher in the county of Kerry, and from
Bruree and the river Maigue westwards to the verge of the present county
of Kerry. He flourished in the tenth century, and was killed by the
famous Brian Boru in a pitched battle, fought in the year 977; and his
name was derived, not from his “hilly country on the river” Maigue, as
Mr Beauford would have us believe (though it must be acknowledged that
he resided at Bruree, which is a _dun-abhann_, or dun of the river), but
from the colour of his hair; for the name is written by Mac Firbis and
others _Dondubhan_, which signifies _brown-haired chief_.
I trust I have now clearly proved the fallacy of Mr Beauford’s mode of
investigating the origin and meaning of the names of Irish families
and territories. It is by processes similar to the five specimens
above given that he has attempted to demonstrate his theory, that the
names of Irish tribes and families were derived from the territories
and localities in which they dwelt, a theory never heard of before his
time; for up to the time of the writers of the _Collectanea de Rebus
Hibernicis_, all were agreed that the Irish tribes took their surnames
from certain distinguished ancestors, while the Saxons and Anglo-Normans
took theirs generally from their territories and places of residence. For
further information on this subject I refer the reader to Verstegan’s
work, entitled “Restitution of Decayed Intelligence” and Camden’s
“Remains.” The learned Roderic O’Flaherty, in his Ogygia Vindicated,
p. 170, speaks on this subject in terms which Mr Beauford could not
have mistaken. “The custom of our ancestors was not to take names and
creations from places and countries as it was with other nations, but to
give the name of the family to the seigniory by them occupied.”
To prove that I am not alone in the estimate that I have thus formed of
the speculations of Mr Beauford, I shall here cite the opinions of a
gentleman, the best acquainted of all modern writers with this subject,
the venerable Charles O’Conor, of Belanagare, who, in a letter to the
Chevalier Thomas O’Gorman, dated May 31, 1783, speaking of two tracts
which he had published, to refute some errors of Dr Ledwich and Mr
Beauford, says--
“Both were drawn from me to refute very injurious as well as very false
representations published in the 9th number of the same Collectanea by
Mr Ledwich, minister of Achaboe, and Mr Beauford, a schoolmaster in
Athy. Little moved by any thing I have written against these gentlemen,
the latter published his Topography of Ireland in the 11th number, the
most flagrant imposition that I believe ever appeared in our own or in
any age. This impelled me to resume the subject of our antiquities, and
add the topography of Ireland, as divided into districts and tribes in
the second century; a most curious record, preserved in the Lecan and
Glendalough collections, as well as in your Book of Ballymote. I have
shown that Beauford, a stranger to our old language, had but very slight
materials for our ancient topography, and distorted such as he had to a
degree which has no parallel, except perhaps in the dreams of a sick man
in a phrenzy.”[1]
Again, the same gentleman, writing to his friend J. C. Walker on the same
subject, expresses himself as follows:--
“Mr Beauford has given me satisfaction in his tract on our ancient
literature, published in the Collectanea, and yet, in his ancient
topography of Ireland, a book as large as his own might be written to
detect his mistakes.”
It is quite obvious from the whole testimony of authentic Irish history
that the names of tribes in Ireland were not derived from the territories
and localities in which they dwelt, but from distinguished ancestors; for
nine-tenths of the names of territories, and of the names of the tribes
inhabiting them, are identical. The tribe names were formed from those of
the progenitors, by prefixing the following words:--
1. _Corc_, _Corca_, race, progeny, as _Corc-Modhruadh_, now
Corcomroe in Clare, _Corca-Duibhne_, now Corcaguinny in Kerry.
2. _Cineal_, race, descendants; _cineal Eoghain_, the race of
Eoghan; _cineal Conaill_, the race of Conall. This word is
translated _Genus_ throughout the Annals of Ulster.
3. _Clann_, children, descendants; as _clann Colmain_, the tribe
name of a great branch of the southern Hy-Niall.
4. _Dal_, tribe, descendants, as _Dal-Riada_, _Dal-Araidhe_,
_Dal-g-cais_, _Dal Mesincorb_, &c. This word has been explained
by the venerable Bede, and from him by Cormac Mac Cullenan,
archbishop of Cashel, as signifying _part_ or _portion_ in
the Scottic language; but from the manner in which it is used
in Irish genealogies, this would appear to be but a secondary
and figurative meaning. O’Flaherty seems to doubt that this
word could be properly translated _part_; but Charles O’Conor,
who gave much consideration to the subject, writes in a note
to Ogygia Vindicated, p. 175, “that _dal_ properly signifies
posterity, _or descent by blood_; but in an enlarged and
figurative sense it signifies a district, that is, the division
or part allotted to such posterity: that of this double sense
we have numberless instances, and that in this _second sense_
Bede’s interpretation is doubtlessly admissible.”
5. _Muintir_, family, people; as _Muintir Murchadha_, the tribe
name which the O’Flahertys bore before the establishment of
surnames.
6. _Siol_, seed, progeny; as _Siol Aodha_, seed of Hugh, the
tribe name of a branch of the Mac Namaras in Thomond; _Siol
Maoluidhir_, the progeny of Maeleer, a great tribe in Leinster,
who gave name to the territory of Shelmalier, in the county of
Wexford.
7. _Tealach_, family; as _Telach Eathach_, the family of Eochy,
the tribe name of the Magaurans in Breffney.
8. _Sliocht_, posterity; as _Sliocht Aodha Slaine_, the progeny
of King Hugh Slany in Meath.
9. _Ua_, grandson, descendant; nominative plural, _ui_; dative
or ablative, _uibh_. This prefix in its upright uninflected
form appears in the names of Irish tribes oftener than any of
the other seven. Some ignorant Irish scribes have supposed
that it signifies a region or country, and some of the modern
transcribers of Keating’s History of Ireland have taken the
liberty to corrupt it to _aoibh_, a form not to be found in any
ancient or correct MS. In support of the meaning above given may
be adduced the high authority of Adamnan, abbot of Iona in the
7th century, who, in his life of his predecessor St Columbkille,
invariably renders _ua_, _ui_, _uibh_, _nepos_, _nepotes_,
_nepotibus_, in conformity with his habitual substitution of
Latin equivalents for Irish tribe names, as often as he found it
practicable. Thus, in the 16th chapter of the second book, he
renders _Ua Briuin_, _nepos Briuni_; in the 5th chapter of the
third book he translates _Ua Ainmirech_, _nepos Ainmirech_; in
the 17th chapter of the same book he translates _Ua Liathain_,
_nepos Liathain_; in the 49th chapter of the first book he
renders _Ui Neill_, _nepotes Nelli_, i.e., the race of Niall; and
in the 22d chapter of the same book he translates _Ui Tuirtre_,
_nepotes Tuitre_.
We have also for the same interpretation the authority of the annalist
Tigernach, who, in his Annals of Ireland at the year 714, translates _Ui
Eachach_ (now Iveagh, in the county Down), _nepotes Eochaidh_.
On this subject it may not be uninteresting to the reader to hear the
opinion of the learned Roderic O’Flaherty. Treating of the Hy Cormaic, a
tribe located near Lough Foyle, in the present county of Londonderry, he
says--
“_Hy_ or _I_ (which calls for an explanation) is the plural number
from _Hua_ or _O_, a grandson, and is frequently prefixed to the names
of progenitors of families, as well to particularize the families as
the lands they possess, as _Dal_, _Siol_, _Clann_, _Kinel_, _Mac_,
_Muintir_, _Teallach_, or any such name, pursuant to the adoptive power
of custom.”--_Ogygia_, Part III. Chap. 76.
Besides the words above enumerated, after which the names of progenitors
are placed, there are others to be met with after which the names of
territories are placed, as _Aes_, people; _Fir_ or _Feara_, men; _Aicme_,
tribe; and _Pobul_, people; as _Aes Greine_, i.e., _the people of Grian_,
a tribe located in the present county of Limerick; _Aes tri Magh_, _the
people of the three plains_, in the same county; _Feara Muighe Feine_,
_the men of Moy Feine_, now Fermoy, in the county of Cork; _Fir Rois_,
_the men of Ross_, the name of a tribe in the present county of Monaghan;
_Feara Arda_, i.e., _the men of Ard_, a tribe in the present county of
Louth; _Pobul Droma_, in Tipperary.
Many other names were formed by a mode not unlike the Latin and Greek
method, that is, by adding certain terminations to the name or cognomen
of the ancestors of the tribes. These terminations are generally
_raighe_, _aighe_, _ne_, and _acht_, as _Caenraighe_, _Muscraighe_,
_Dartraighe_, _Calraighe_, _Ciarraighe_, _Tradraighe_, _Greagraighe_,
_Ernaidhe_, _Mairtine_, _Conmaicne_, _Olnegmacht_, _Connacht_,
_Cianacht_, _Eoghanacht_, &c. &c. This is the usual form of the tribe
names among the descendants of the Belgic families enumerated in the
Books of Lecan and Glendalough, as existing in Ireland in the first
century, and it is not improbable that the tribe names given on Ptolemy’s
Map of Ireland are partly fanciful translations, and partly modifications
of them.
It appears from the authentic Irish annals, and the whole tenor of Irish
history, that the Irish people were distinguished by tribe names _only_
up to the period of the monarch Brian Boru, who published an edict that
the descendants of the heads of tribes and families then in power should
take name from them, either from the fathers or grandfathers, and that
these names should become hereditary and remain fixed for ever. To this
period we must refer the origin of family names or surnames.
Previously to this reign the Irish people were divided into various
great tribes commanded by powerful chieftains, usually called kings, and
these great tribes were further sub-divided into several minor ones,
each commanded by a petty chieftain, but who was subject to the control
of the _Righ_, or head of the great tribe. Thus, in Thomond the name of
the great tribe was _Dal Cais_, from Cormac Cas, the progenitor of the
regal family, and of all the sub-tribes into which this great race was
divided. Immediately before the establishment of surnames, Brian Boru,
whose descendants took the name of O’Brien, was the leader and supposed
senior representative of this great race; but there were various other
tribes under him, known by various appellations, as the _Hy-Caisin_
otherwise _clann Cuileain_, who after the reign of Brian took the name of
Mac Namara; the _Kinel-Fearmaic_, who took the name of O’Dea; _Muintir
Iffernain_, who took the name of O’Quin; the _Kinel Donghaile_, who
took the name of O’Grady; the _Sliocht Dunchuain_, who took the name of
O’Kennedy; the _Hy-Ronghaile_, who took the name of O’Shanaghan; the
_Hy-Kearney_, who took the name of O’Ahern, &c.
The chiefs of these tribes had generally the names of their fathers
postfixed to their own, and sometimes, but not often, those of their
grandfathers; but previous to the reign of Brian in the tenth century,
these appellations changed in every generation.
The next article shall treat of surnames.
[1] Original in possession of Messrs Hodges and Smith, College Green,
Dublin.